Substantial vs. substantive

[...] Pain in the English has a debate about substantive versus substantial. [...]

It seems the British put the apostrophe in where Americans do not. It looks odd (=wrong) to us, but that's the way they are brought up. They're not going to change, so get used to it.

You are probably right, I spoke from observation, not direct knowledge of the rules. I have seen a few "it's" online, and the British writers seemed to use it more consistently and appeared to be well-educated otherwise, while Americans used it less often and it seemed to be more a typo for them. Hence was an assumption born. This is the wrong forum for that!

While generally synonymous, I think of substantive vs. substantial as the difference between quality and quantity.

I've never heard 'Substantive' being used in non-political conversation in all my 70 years. I hate hearing the word on radio or tv, and I'm a wordsmith!

It's ludicrous, yet another horrific neologism. Journalists and their readers think they're up-to-the-minute, on top of tough technical topics, and just generally more intellectually substantial when they use big words. As has been pointed out by others, this term used to be specific and useful in its original context.

In reading a stipulation prepared by the parties and presented to the hearing officer for his approval as to form and content, the following was added in the hearing officer's handwriting just above his signature: "It should be noted that pages 7 and 8 are substantively blank." It just didn't look "right" to me and I thought that it was added to show not only that the author was wide awake and on his toes, but that his use of "substantively" rather than "substantially" was meant to demonstrate that the author was somehow "really smart." I mean, why use "substantively" when there were other commonly used adjectives available to convey the fact that the referenced pages in the document as presented to the hearing officer were "substantially" blank. Just a feeling on my part, but the thought that "something was going on" eventually led me to this site. And what a wonderful place this is! I'm in way over my head - there are some really smart people making comments here - but I think I'm going enjoy being a fly on your wall.

Substantive: having substance
Substantial: having large quantity of substance
Substantial is a more specific adjective than substantive. In other words, something that is substantial implies that it is substantive. The converse is not necessarily true. For example, if you witnessed a minor car accident, the scratch on the car was substantive. The damage actually happened and it was real. You did not imagine it. However, the damage was not substantial because it was just a minor scratch.

Substantial is normally quantitative; substantive is normally qualitative; for example, it could be said that subtantial, substantive evidence exists..

My understansing is that the difference is whether you are looking to describe something as having qualitative (substantial) or quantitative (substantive) properties.

The word substantive is used frequently in patent prosecution. "Substantive examination" of a patent application is taken to mean a full and in-depth examination by the examiner, as opposed to the more superficial initial examination done by the searching authority.

... "It should be noted that pages 7 and 8 are substantively blank." ...

Wow, for the life of me, I can't even imagine what that means. Does the blankness of pages 7 and 8 have great importance? Are pages 7 and 8 sparkly white, blanker than other blank sheets? Or perhaps they are substantially but not entirely blank, not blank at all?

The importance of teaching grammar and spelling in schools has been overtaken by the need to incorporate the ever emerging new subjects appearing on our curriculae. Thus together with world wide online interconnectivity fostering new meaning for words, based on their repeated, inaccurate, uncensored usage, is sadly contributing to a degradation of the English language as we know it.

I thought substantive is derived from the word substance. As in, the politician's speech was substantive. (it had substance) and I only just realized that I have been pronouncing the word wrong too. I pronounce it sub-stan-tive instead of sub-sta-n-tive with the n silent. I just love our language. I wish more people would learn it.

Curriculae, Cassie? Curricula is already plural, the plural of curriculum.

What an exciting and worthwhile critical discussion! I believe that the closer structural [phonetic and semantic] affinity between the words "substantive" and "substantial" is largely responsible for the mix-up, especially so in view of the manner in which they are interchanged unknowingly yet increasingly in common usage, leading to the fusion of the fine distinction between them in the social process [with both words as probably derived from the root word substance (?)]. I have witnessed a lot of this across a number of other world languages. My take on this, however, would be that the word "substantive" is temporally [qualitatively, intensively] marked compact space, and the term "substantial" spatially [quantitatively, extensively] constituted vast time, Whereas the former is informed by a sense of "distinctness" [of the compactness of space], the latter by a degree of "togetherness" [of the vastness of time]. It somehow boils down to both variation and emphasis, either of temporality and quality over spatiality and quantity and vice versa, that is, "substantive" over "substantial" and vice versa. Therein, lies the fine distinction between them, either in their separate or combined usage..

[NB. Not that time and space are separable entities. Far from it. For time and space, either as ontological entities -- that is, common medium in which all things are, or as epistemological entities -- that is, their relative arrangement across cultures, are inseparable in reality, as in nature, mind and society. Many thanks.

I always take...

substantial to mean significant in size or volume, something tangible or measurable. e.g a substantial sum of money was spent on the celebrations

and, substantive to mean important, something signifcant but which cannot be measured e.g a substantive truth

"Substantive" is a term widely used in auditing and has nothing to do with substantial

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audit_substantive_test

It is commonly contrasted with a systems audit, and often focuses on looking at major transactions and items, so ideally all big stuff is audited and just a random sample is taken from minor items and checked.

@jayles -I'm sure you're right in a more specialist sense, but I think Noel's got it as a more general use, and that's the one dictionaries give:

having a firm basis in reality and so important, meaningful, or considerable
- there is no substantive evidence for the efficacy of these drugs - Oxford
The family appeared at the press conference but made no substantive comments - Macmillan
The State Department reported that substantive discussions had taken place with Beijing. (Longman)
Substantive research on the subject needs to be carried out. - Cambridge

Think of the difference like this:
I tend to think in this regard of 'physicality' - what are the physical characteristics that I can relate it to. So, 'substantial' refers to 'volume' - in terms of political or legal argument, a particular aspect may get the most attention and number of words or time spent talking about it - that aspect forms the substantial part of the argument. However, 'substantive' is to do with 'weight', force or pressure. So, going back to our political or legal argument, the substantive part of the argument may appear inconsequential at first and not have got too much of a mention but at the end of the day it will be the aspect that carried the greatest weight with the electorate (or Jury). I think of the 'poll tax ' - the thing that probably brought Margaret Thatcher down or seriously tarnished her image. She may not have regarded it as substantial in terms of what she was 'about' but it was certainly 'substantive' in the electorates mind - it carried enormous weight. So, 'substantive' can mean the straw that broke the camels back or it may also be aligned with the substantial part of an argument IF the substantial part of the argument (greatest volume of words) is the persuasive aspect that carries or wins the argument. The substantial part of a speech may have been so much hot air but the substantive part may have been just one sentence - or it may all have been hot air in which case their was not 'substantive' part.

To put it another way, you can almost always replace 'substantial' with 'large(amount of)' or 'a lot of', and 'substantive' with 'important', as we can see if we look at their main collocates (words that are most often used together with them)

Main collocates for 'substantial' include:
number, amount, evidence, increase, portion part etc

Main collocates for 'substantive' include:
changes, law, issues, rules, requirements, rights

http://www.netspeak.org/#query=substantial+%253F
http://www.netspeak.org/#query=substantive+%253F

I believe you are substantively correct but, I believe, not entirely correct - just substantially correct! I reckon 'evidence' might be substantive - microscopic (DNA?) - but substantive in that it provides the 'weight' of the evidence/argument

Hi Richard, some words can definitely take both, but I would probably read 'there's substantial evidence against him' as meaning a lot of evidence, and 'there's substantive evidence against him' as meaning important evidence.

The same would go for change:

'There have been substantial changes in the law on drink-driving' - a lot of changes
'There have been substantive changes in the law on drink-driving' - important changes (though not necessarily a lot)

Looking at various dictionaries, it seems to me that the use 'substantive' is pretty well restricted to the 'important' meaning, and I'd never use it for 'a lot of',. But there does seem to be a bit of crossover with 'substantial' when it comes to 'important'.

'There is substantial agreement between the company and the unions' could go either way, perhaps, but I could presumably then add 'but the substantive question of redundancies has still to be addressed'.

I confess, however, that 'substantive' is not a word I ever use, and I'm only going by what the dictionaries say, so I bow to your better judgement.

HI Will
I think you have it exactly right and discussing it with you has also helped clarify it -
All the best
Rich

In general when politicians speak they exude a substantial amount of verbal froth. This is so because—again in general—they do not wish to commit themselves on substantive issues in case their position ultimately proves unpopular and jeopardises their seat on the gravy train.

To put it briefly, the substantive point here is that politicians are a worse than a waste of space—they are substantially parasitic on the body politic.

Yet people continue to vote for these creatures of no substance rather than hang them. Life is full of mysteries.

Substantive has replaced substantial for no good reason, as far as I can tell, other than fashion and (now rather threadbare) novelty, in the same way the cumbersome "impactful" (is that even a word?) is often heard in place of the utilitarian but presumably old-fashioned "effective."

To me, substantive relates to quality, where substantial relates to size.

"The two parties engaged substantively" - ie, well
"The two parties engaged substantially" - ie, a lot