Skip to main content
English Language & Usage

Return to Question

edited title
Link
herisson
herisson
  • 84.5k
  • 9
  • 216
  • 368

Question about Can the word ilk"ilk" be used without an aforementioned group?

deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags
Source Link
tchrist ♦
tchrist ♦
  • 137.3k
  • 49
  • 376
  • 609

Is it grammatically correct to use the word ilk as in, for example, this sentence:

"Ilk regardless, whether of noblemen or blackguards, no man has ever..."

Ilk regardless, whether of noblemen or blackguards, no man has ever. . . .

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ilkilk as kind or class of people, but the Google definition states "ilk"ilk as an aforementioned group, that is, it has already been referred to. Is it grammatically correctok to use the word ilkilk if the kind has not been mentioned yet?

Is it grammatically correct to use the word ilk as in, for example, this sentence:

"Ilk regardless, whether of noblemen or blackguards, no man has ever..."

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ilk as kind or class of people, but the Google definition states "ilk" as an aforementioned group, that is, it has already been referred to. Is it grammatically correct to use the word ilk if the kind has not been mentioned yet?

Is it grammatically correct to use the word ilk as in, for example, this sentence:

Ilk regardless, whether of noblemen or blackguards, no man has ever. . . .

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ilk as kind or class of people, but the Google definition states ilk as an aforementioned group, that is, it has already been referred to. Is it ok to use the word ilk if the kind has not been mentioned yet?

Source Link
austintexis
austintexis
  • 33
  • 4

Question about the word ilk?

Is it grammatically correct to use the word ilk as in, for example, this sentence:

"Ilk regardless, whether of noblemen or blackguards, no man has ever..."

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ilk as kind or class of people, but the Google definition states "ilk" as an aforementioned group, that is, it has already been referred to. Is it grammatically correct to use the word ilk if the kind has not been mentioned yet?