Talk:avail

Noun restricted to the negative?

Almost all examples use the negative (no avail, little avail). Is this word supposed to be used mostly this way? Should a note on this regard be made somewhere in this entry?

Alt form of avale?

May also be an alt spelling of avale. Equinox ◑ 00:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

https://oed.com/oed2/00015313 --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Transitively

Fowler reads

Uncontroversial uses of the verb are common: b) the transitive use, with a personal object, is archaic-sounding, e.g. his good works availed him nothing.
Some frankly marginal constructions: c) transitively with a double object: This has availed Koreans many advantages.

Aren't both paragraphs contradictory? Adverb NOTHING: https://oed.com/oed2/00159943, Verb AVAIL: https://oed.com/oed2/00015313 --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you querying whether (b) and (c) are contradictory? Perhaps on a literal reading. But I would interpret (c) as, "transitively with a double object [other than a personal pronoun]", or something like that, to avoid overlap with (b).

Alternatively, perhaps you could read it as saying that class (c) is designated "marginal", within which some instances (without personal objects) are less palatable than other instances (with personal objects).

—DIV (1.145.20.105 12:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC))