There is a lot of confusion among many students, teachers, writers and journalists over “amid,” “amidst” and “among” and “amongst.”
“Amid” is derived from the Anglo-Saxon “on-middan” which means “on” plus “middan” or middle. It signifies “in the middle” or “in the midst.” As far as the meaning goes, there is no difference between “amid” and “amidst.”
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (SOED) says: Amid means in or near the middle of centre of; interior of; surrounded by. Amidst is archaic.
The Standard Dictionary defines these prepositions in a different way. It says, “The recent tendency seems to be to distinguish "amidst" from "amid " by using it especially of scattered things or of something moving in the midst of other things.”
How these prepositions are used
Since “amid” or “amidst” means surrounded or encompassed by, in the midst of; mingled with; among is not limited to the exact centre.
All amid them stood the tree of life – Milton Paradise Lost.
The villages peeped out amid the woodlands; the church bells were sounding pleasantly across the meadows – HS Cunningham.
As he advanced, he was soon lost amidst the bayous and marshes which are found along the Red River and its tributaries – Bancroft (United States).
The grumbling grammarian Robert Hartwell Fiske, in The Dictionary of Disagreeable English, has criticised the use of “amidst.” He has preferred “amid.”
He writes: “Amongst, like amidst and whilst, is an archaic term, as pretentious as it is silly.”
Circumstances, acts, conditions
The preposition “amid” is generally used to talk about existing or acting in the midst of; affected by; often adding the implication of opposition or resistance; as, comfort amid life’s arrows. Similarly, firm he stood amid temptations.
Yet, amid the weakness of our nation, one man stood like a tower of trust and strength; this was Mahatma Gandhi.
Difference between “amid,” “amidst,” “in the midst of”
Etymologically “amid” denotes a simple position: There is one object (in the middle or midst) surrounded by others. On the other hand, among denotes “mingling,” so that one object is intermingled (literally or figuratively) with others. It signifies that “amid” is thought of as separate from the things that surround it. This idea of separation or distinction may reach even to a latent implication of hostility. Thus, we should never say “amid friends,” but we may say “amid enemies.”
On the contrary, “among” denotes a direct relationship, like companionship, union and similarity. It may, however, indicate active hostility.
I found myself “among” enemies, which means enemies are to be dealt with directly and not merely surrounding as would be denoted by “amid.”
If we say “one instance among many,” we mean many of the same kind. We may say “The nest was hidden amid (or among) the leaves.” When we use “amid” we think only of the position of the nest in relation to the leaves around it. On the other hand, when we use “among,” we think of the leaves as factors that shut it and conceal the nest.
The distinction is finely observed in the following sentence:
Amid the crowd and crush of life, each is in person solitude with God –Martineau Studies of Christianity, Christ Without Priest.
In the sentence, the “crowd” is around without sympathy; hence, the soul is said to be “amid the crowd.”
The prepositional phrase, “in the midst of,” is not subject to limitations of “amid,” but may denote participation, companionship or fellowship. Therefore, one may be “in the midst of” friends, engagements or of pleasures.
On the contrary, the religious scripture says: Take me not away in the midst of my years.
The prepositional phrase, “in the midst of,” refers to the middle point of life or time. Ergo, the phrase “in the midst of” seems to have swept away the whole range of thought from “amid” to “among.”
