Semantics

[Ventilhorn]

Originally Posted by Serial_Apologist :

Well I'm sticking dogmatically to "different from".



I'm with you both here! 'Different to' always jars with me, not least because 'to' is already used specifically for a likeness in 'compare to', so a difference seems to be inappropriate in this context.

Shall we now start on the R5 football commentator who regularly (at least once per match, it seems) uses 'fortuitous' when he clearly means 'fortunate'?

" .... the two captains shook hands in the middle of the pitch and the referee threw up."

"It's a goal! ..... He's scored a goal! ..... He kicked it with his foot!"

" ... the full back cleared the ball with consumptive ease!"

Don't start me on football commentators.

VH

[Serial_Apologist]

This from the newsreader on todays World at One:

"They are trying to sell you and I insurance packages..."

I often hear the first person nominative and accusative being confused. Surely this should be, "They are trying to sell you and me insurance packages"?

[EdgeleyRob]

Don't start me on football commentators.

VH

All the best ones are here http://www.btinternet.com/~homepage/ballsa.htm

[mangerton]

Surely this should be, "They are trying to sell you and me insurance packages"?

Indeed it should. You know that. I know that. How many people today, though, recognise "subject" and "object", let alone "nominative case" and "objective case"? Or - see below - nouns and verbs?

I'm another strong believer in "different from", btw.

Segilla, I'm with you in the practice/practise battle. Let's not give up. I usually advise people to think of "advise" and "advice".

Here's another.....These solecisms Affect me as much as they Affect you. Let us hope that our continuing to rail against them has some Effect.

Please let me also raise the question of why "begging the question" is nowadays so often misused.

[Pabmusic]

By sticking rigidly to 'different from' you commit yourself to some wordy expressions if the comparator is not just a simple noun or pronoun. Is it really better style (let alone better English) to insist on "Things are different in New York from how they are in London", rather than "Things are different in New York than in London"?

As far as license/license, practise/practice (and others) go, they represent British & Commonwealth usage. The '-ice' forms are American usage, probably stemming from Webster's dictionary of 1838 (but I'm not able to check this). Noah Webster attempted to reorganise American English with a missionary zeal, and succeeded in many things, such as '-or' in 'honor', 'valor' and suchlike; the use of a single consonant where we would double it in words like 'traveler/traveller'; and pronouncing 'lieutenant' as 'lootenant'.

[Segilla]

As well as the finest music imaginable, deeply embedded in these walls where i live, there are also my angry shouts correcting BBC broadcasters' English.

I have a particular venom for misuse of 'few / fewer' and 'less / lesser' which I seem to know by instinct and have no knowledge of the grammatical reasons for why and when they should be used.

[Pabmusic]

Please let me also raise the question of why "begging the question" is nowadays so often misused.

The problem is that most people aren't taught classical logic, and therefore guess at the meaning. Here's a good summary :http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-beg1.htm

The trouble is that, when most people don't understand an idiomatic expression, it's probably best to drop it completely, or else go along with the changing meaning.

[gurnemanz]

I have a particular venom for misuse of 'few / fewer' and 'less / lesser' which I seem to know by instinct and have no knowledge of the grammatical reasons for why and when they should be used.

"few/fewer" are used with countable nouns in the plural. Eg "few people", "fewer grammatical errors"

You should refer to "little/less" ("lesser" is an adjective meaning "not so great or important") which should only be used with uncountable nouns in the singular. Eg "little time", "less patience".

A similar error is frequently made when "amount of" is used with the plural of a countable noun. "A large amount of people" is incorrect and should be "number".

[Pabmusic]

As well as the finest music imaginable, deeply embedded in these walls where i live, there are also my angry shouts correcting BBC broadcasters' English.

I have a particular venom for misuse of 'few / fewer' and 'less / lesser' which I seem to know by instinct and have no knowledge of the grammatical reasons for why and when they should be used.

I agree with you. 'Fewer' and 'less' get confused very often. As Gurnemanz says, 'fewer' is used with multiple (ie: plural) items - fewer people, fewer visitors, fewer correct answers. 'Less' is used with singular or compound items, and abstract ideas - less sugar, less applause, less clever than he thought. 'Lesser' confuses the issue; it's a synonym for 'smaller' or 'less important' and is only used in that way.

[french frank]

The problem is that most people aren't taught classical logic, and therefore guess at the meaning. Here's a good summary :http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-beg1.htm

The trouble is that, when most people don't understand an idiomatic expression, it's probably best to drop it completely, or else go along with the changing meaning.

A very nice summing up by Quinion. I'm surprised that the meaning of 'avoid the question' (as distinct from 'prompt the question') is now considered by many to be standard usage, but I suppose it is half way to the right meaning.

[doversoul1]

The problem with few and less for me is the fact that the concept/definition (concepts/definitions) of countable and uncountable noun(s) or more precisely that (those) of singular/plural in English is/are … unique to put it politely. How can you have skies but not sheeps?

Incidentally, did you know you can’t have ‘hot water’ in Japanese? Water only refers to cold liquid.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

sympathetic diatribe ... er rant even

[Don Petter]

By sticking rigidly to 'different from' you commit yourself to some wordy expressions if the comparator is not just a simple noun or pronoun. Is it really better style (let alone better English) to insist on "Things are different in New York from how they are in London", rather than "Things are different in New York than in London"?

I am not trying to prolong the argument on this one, but I find that that in your second example ("Things are different in New York than in London") I find I am pulled up short thinking 'What is missing after "than"?' - Than what in London? Oh, yes, of course, 'than how they are in London'. It is not an elision which I find natural or attractive. (But then I would never think of using 'different than' in any circumstances. )

[Serial_Apologist]

I am not trying to prolong the argument on this one, but I find that that in your second example ("Things are different in New York than in London") I find I am pulled up short thinking 'What is missing after "than"?' - Than what in London? Oh, yes, of course, 'than how they are in London'. It is not an elision which I find natural or attractive. (But then I would never think of using 'different than' in any circumstances. )

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

[Dave2002]

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

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.