My grammar text divides adverbs into simple adverbs ("fast", "here"), compound adverbs ("anyway", "nowhere"), suffixation adverbs ("clearly", "forward(s)", "clockwise") and fixed phrases ("of course", "at last"). So on that classification, no, it's not a different sort of adverb. It's one of the reasons I get so amused when people produce a "no adverbs" rule.
Not according to my dictionary. "Up" is the preposition, "upward(s)" is the adverb formed from the preposition.
hmm only checked OED online and Penguin looks like it isn't clear then. Not that I mind adverbs anyway.
The adverbs that are frowned on are the 'adverbs of manner' i.e. the ones that often (although not always) end in -ly.
"Fast", "wide", "hard"... It's not adverbs that are a problem, it's bad writing that's a problem. Sure, you can replace "He punched Jack hard in the chest" with something like "He landed a mighty punch on Jack's chest", but I would really question whether that's an improvement or whether an improvement is even needed. And if Jack tries to punch back, should we really not say that he swung wide, but have to say something like "his punch went off to the side"? It makes sense to watch out for adverbs to make sure you are not using too many, sure, but the people who strike out each and every adverb of manner are more interested in rules than in good writing.
I'd just say "he punched Jack in the chest." Jacks reaction to the attack should give some indication of how hard it was. Is he laying on the ground gasping for air, or does he straighten up, clench his jaw, and beat the crap out of the guy who punched him?
Thing is Maid Marian runs to Robin Hood means something very different to Maid Marian runs towards Robin Hood. Your behaviour is very forward doesn't work as your behaviour is very for etc The reprint of my favourite novel doesn't work as well without the author's adverb addiction.
But that's a choice, and neither is right or wrong. Yours takes more words, and so it slows down the action for a close up. Mine takes fewer words so the action keeps moving to the next event. Each has it's place. It's all part of the way the writer controls the pace. To set an arbitrary rule to say that the writer shouldn't do that seems daft. How about "He knocked hard on the door"? We can't go for "He knocked loudly on the door", of course (!), so we have to slow things down again with "He knocked on the door. The loud thumps [er, did something]". It's the whole showing v. telling thing. Yes, novice writers tend to tell too much, but telling is essential to good writing. Telling is compact. It doesn't engage the reader, but it moves things on to the next significant part. If you exclude telling then you make no distinction between the significant narrative and the essential but not significant continuity. Telling is the glue. When kids first make model aircraft they tend to use far too much glue and in all the wrong places, and the result is a mess. The solution is to use the right amount of glue in the right places, not to try to make the model without any glue at all.
Wow, this thread is off-topic. Good debate, but similar to what we've gone over in many different threads here, tying together all the threads of debate on adverbs and showing versus telling etc.
eureka! we can solve the forward/upward/etc. conundrum by making them all 'real' adverbs, thusly: uply downly forely backly and so on... whatcha think? ;-)
