Semantics

[Serial_Apologist]

You could perhaps say "Things are different in New York compared with London", or "Comparing London with New York, things are different" - reword the sentence to keep most of the meaning, yet avoid the grammar rule issue.

[Chris Newman]

Usage and Abusage: each of us gets angered by things we hear people say or, worse still, we see people write. For me the unnecessary use of of grates: Give me that book down off of the shelf..

It seems that the different from/to/than argument is getting to more people's goats than anything else.

My Ford is different than hers. My Ford is different to hers. My Ford is different from hers. H.W.Fowler, bless his cotton socks, never mentioned different than. In the 1930s nobody would have been so asinine to have said it. Different than makes me wince. It is plain wrong. It does not make grammatical, logical nor stylistic sense. But Fowler did mention the other two: different from and different to. He said that they have been "used in English by writers of ages" and the idea that there is a right and wrong version or rule is a superstition. He does go on to explain his thoughts on the row but I'm not going to mention his comments nor those in U and Non-U: suffice to say some of you will discover that Fowler and Mitford think you are snobs. I tend to go for different from and other than, but that is because I believe it to be more a matter of style than grammar.

[vinteuil]

H.W.Fowler, bless his cotton socks, never mentioned different than. In the 1930s nobody would have been so asinine to have said it. Different than makes me wince. It is plain wrong. It does not make grammatical, logical nor stylistic sense. But Fowler did mention the other two: different from and different to. He said that they have been "used in English by writers of ages" and the idea that there is a right and wrong version or rule is a superstition. He does go on to explain his thoughts on the row but I'm not going to mention his comments .....

Indeed so; and I quoted Fowler on this in extenso in #75 above. Partridge in 1947 writes " 'Here was quite a different kettle of fish than the one they had served up in the past', Samuel Putnam, Marguerite of Navarre. The impeccably correct construction is different... from, although different... to (cf French différent à) is permissible (see, for evidence, The OED). [ ... ] [Different than seems to occur more and more frequently in the New York daily and weekly press. Evidently the comparative sense of the word rather than the fact of its positive form may govern the syntax. Whether this is regrettable is a question of taste.]"
Eric Partridge Usage and Abusage [1947]

[gurnemanz]

And the winner is......purely in terms of Google occurrences, using quotation marks to search for the full phrase.

"different from" 184,000,000 results
"different than" 60,600,000 results
"different to" 27,800,000

[french frank]

And the winner is......purely in terms of Google occurrences, using quotation marks to search for the full phrase.

"different from" 184,000,000 results
"different than" 60,600,000 results
"different to" 27,800,000

Whooo-hooo, as I believe is the expression.

There remains a concept, which some retain, of 'stylish writing': that is, writing which is a pleasure to read almost irrespective of what it says. It has a clarity and logic about it - and I love it!

[Don Petter]

And what is wrong with, "Things are different in New York from in London"?

Exactly so! That would have been fine in my book.

[Don Petter]

Usage and Abusage: each of us gets angered by things we hear people say or, worse still, we see people write. For me the unnecessary use of of grates: Give me that book down off of the shelf..

It seems that the different from/to/than argument is getting to more people's goats than anything else.

My Ford is different than hers. My Ford is different to hers. My Ford is different from hers. H.W.Fowler, bless his cotton socks, never mentioned different than. In the 1930s nobody would have been so asinine to have said it. Different than makes me wince. It is plain wrong. It does not make grammatical, logical nor stylistic sense. But Fowler did mention the other two: different from and different to. He said that they have been "used in English by writers of ages" and the idea that there is a right and wrong version or rule is a superstition. He does go on to explain his thoughts on the row but I'm not going to mention his comments nor those in U and Non-U: suffice to say some of you will discover that Fowler and Mitford think you are snobs. I tend to go for different from and other than, but that is because I believe it to be more a matter of style than grammar.

With you all the way, here, Chris. As Sybil Fawlty said, 'It's called style, Basil'.

[Pabmusic]

You could perhaps say "Things are different in New York compared with London", or "Comparing London with New York, things are different" - reword the sentence to keep most of the meaning, yet avoid the grammar rule issue.

You are right - this is a good way to express the thought. But it's nonetheless a matter of style, not grammar. There is no authority I know of that insists on 'different from' for grammatical reasons. You can argue that 'different than' is wrong because it's a misunderstood (and thus false) comparison, but then so is 'other than' - and I've never heard any objection to that. From what I can see, 'different from' is by far the most common usage, 'different than' is second (though more common in the US), and 'different to' a mainly British usage that comes third. The Google returns quoted elsewhere seem to support this, as they support most posters here in showing the most popular usage.

Now, shall we start on split infinitives? ... just joking!

[Pabmusic]

Here's my own gripe. I dislike any English usage that narrows the choices available to us. There are so many examples, but a failure to make a distinction between 'disinterested' and 'uninterested' leaves the two words as synonyms for 'not bothered', and we lose a useful synonym for 'impartial'.

Sometimes it happens because of the overuse of clichés. 'Legend' and 'legendary' are now so common that it's difficult to imagine anyone saying 'famous' any more. Robin Hood is legendary; so is King Arthur. I'll concede that it can metaphorically (and quite properly) be extended to real people whose qualities give them an exceptional place in the imagination - Ghandi, Pele, or Elvis Presley. But for the winner of last year's X Factor...? Or a soap star...? Or Man Utd's latest signing...?

The result is that we lose the ability to express thoughts as accurately as we used to.

[vinteuil]

There remains a concept, which some retain, of 'stylish writing': that is, writing which is a pleasure to read almost irrespective of what it says. It has a clarity and logic about it - and I love it!

Yes indeed - and sometimes 'clarity' isn't always the highest value: among those I most relish are the writings of Thomas Browne, Jeremy Taylor, Johnson, Gibbon, Hooker...

[mangerton]

Here's my own gripe. I dislike any English usage that narrows the choices available to us. There are so many examples, but a failure to make a distinction between 'disinterested' and 'uninterested' leaves the two words as synonyms for 'not bothered', and we lose a useful synonym for 'impartial'.

Quite. Similarly, may I add 'unorganised' and 'disorganised'?

[salymap]

One thing that really makes me cringe is the use of "I go" or "she goes" for "I said" or "she replied".

I've even read this in the back pages of the Radio Times. Not semantics but meaningless use of language.

[amateur51]

Yes indeed - and sometimes 'clarity' isn't always the highest value: among those I most relish are the writings of Thomas Browne, Jeremy Taylor, Johnson, Gibbon, Hooker...

An intriguing list of, for my part excepting only Gibbon, unknowns - could you offer me an introductory reading list please, vints?

I do enjoy exploring other people's enthusiasms.

[vinteuil]

An intriguing list of, for my part excepting only Gibbon, unknowns - could you offer me an introductory reading list please, vints?

I do enjoy exploring other people's enthusiasms.

looking at amazon, there's a good penguin anthology of Browne [1605-1682] for abt £10; a nice carcanet selection of Taylor [1613-1667] second hand for abt £4; Hooker [1554-1600] his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity for £10 probably less immediately appealing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Browne

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Taylor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hooker

"As our life is very short, so it is very miserable; and therefore it is well that it is short. God, in pity to mankind, lest his burden should be insupportable and his nature an intolerable load, hath reduced our state of misery to an abbreviature; and the greater our misery is, the less while it is like to last; the sorrows of a man's spirit being like ponderous weights, which by the greatness of their burden make a swifter motion, and descend into the grave to rest and ease our wearied limbs; for then only we shall sleep quietly, when those fetters are knocked off, which not only bound our souls in prison, but also ate the flesh till the very bones opened the secret garments of their cartilages, discovering their nakedness and sorrow."
From Jeremy Taylor Rules and Exercises of Holy Dying

[amateur51]

A generous response vints - many thanks!

I shall make a start soon ... that Jeremy Taylor extract is a cracker.

As I read it, I was listening to Brahms symphony no 4, Concertgebouw/Giulini on TTN earlier today, 2nd movement - quite marvellous (but certainly not HIPP)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0159wbn