Let me begin by saying that there are a number of people who will always insist on using whilst over while. Now, while (whilst) they are perfectly free to choose their own words because there is no 'rule' about these things, those who insist on whilst often do so according to an misinformed understanding that it is 'better', 'correct', 'more formal' or 'superior' to plain old, common while. But is it?

The while/whilst dilemma is a funny one. It is one of these cases where the option has for many become a hard-and-fast rule. The unyielding whilst-brigade will often insist on changing other peoples' whiles into whilsts, often together with a ticking off or two for the overt display of linguistic tardiness.

Before I delve further into this linguistic dark matter, the Americans in the room are excused: the use of whilst, according to the OED, is 'chiefly British'. So if you are writing for a US audience just stick to while. You may leave now.

Now, there may still be one or two Americans still in the room. This will undoubtedly be because you, too, are followers of the almighty 'whilst-is-better' philosophy. I may sound patronising, and perhaps I am, but the tone is no more harmful than being on the receiving end of an earful of "it should be whilst, not while".

So, what is this whilst/while business all about? Who is 'right'? First, it is not a case of wrong spelling, both words are spelt ('spelled' for the Americans in the class) correctly; that is not the problem. Nor is it an Americanism versus Briticism thing. Third, it isn't necessarily a case of old versus new -- not the whole story anyway. The main problem is one of evolution, but part of the problem is one of consistency.

My old OED from 1930 writes: 'whilst less usual form of while'. My 2007 version of the OED describes whilst as 'chiefly British' and a word that dates back to Middle English (mid-1000s to mid-1400s). It derives from the word whiles + t, in the same way as against. The origin of against is: again + -s + -t = again + adverbial genitive + superlative.

The -s comes from the adverbial genitive and the -t is thought to be associated with superlatives such as amongst. The word 'among' comes from the Old English (mid-400s to mid-1100s) ongemang, which itself is made from on (meaning in) and gemang (meaning assemblage). Put another way, we can turn the word bad into the adverbial superlative baddest.

Let's get back to our esteemed friend whilst. The OED writes that it comes from whiles + t. What does whiles mean? It sounds terribly old fashioned. Both the 1930 and 2007 OED describe it as an archaic form of while. So, in other words, our modern while used to be the word whiles -- which sometimes had a -t attached to it.

Other words of a similar type at the time were somewhiles and otherwhiles. I can't say that I've ever heard those words being used with much frequency of late, not even by the most formal of English speakers. In case you do decide to adopt them into everyday English, somewhiles means 'formerly' and otherwhiles means 'at times'.

If you haven't guessed by now, I am a fan of while. I do so because I accept the fact that while is the modern word for what was somewhiles whilst or whiles. And I am not alone.

There is also another reason, and this is perhaps the reason why the majority of international media organisations and publishers the world over choose while over whilst (I'm not saying that there aren't those that do). This second reason has to do with, not 'correctness' or degrees of 'formality', but consistency. The problem with choosing - or insisting on using - whilst is that once you've done so you also have to take a similar position towards amidst, amongst and unbeknownst. Start insisting on whilst and you'll soon find that by always using whilst you'll also have to always use amongst. If not, why not?

Amidst, amongst and unbeknownst are also unnecessarily archaic and stuffy. They are, in other words, old fashioned.

The problem with using whilst is it is simply an archaic form of a word kept alive longer than necessary. There was a time when instead of think, we used to trow. There was a time when verbs in the third-person singular were -(e)th when written but -(e)s when spoken. There was also a time when whiles and whilst were used. But no more.

Look up amidst in the OED and what you'll find 'literary variant of amid'. Herein (which, by the way, is a formal word) lies the truth behind the reluctance to let whilst die a graceful death: it's what Fowler and Fowler labelled the amateurism of 'conscious archaism'.

In The King's English (1906) H G and F W Fowler wrote: 'It is conscious archaism that offends, above all the conscious archaisms of the illiterate.' Archaisms are, according to them, 'deliberate ornaments' used by the amateur writer. An 'educated' writer chooses archaisms that are 'less hackneyed' than the amateur, less frequently than the amateur and to a strict allowance. The amateur, on the other hand, 'indulges us with his whole repertoire'.

The problem of 'conscious archaism' may not be a new phenomenon, but bad writing often ultimately comes down to an incongruence of style. The professional writer, publisher, copywriter or journalist will deploy language that is appropriate to the task. The professional will also be aware of traps of inconsistency that lurk in spoken and written English. The professional will not insist on peppering his or her writing with flowery archaisms for the sole purpose of wanting to impress.

The best reason not to use whilst is a simple one: there is simply no need. RIP whilst.

The author is the editor and founder of www.whichenglish.com