Pedants' Paradise

[vinteuil]

Wasn't Dryden the split infinitive man?

... I think he was more concerned about prepositions at the end of clauses.

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

[Sir Velo]

... I think he was more concerned about prepositions at the end of clauses.

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

Up with which he would no doubt not have put.

[jean]

Ah, I see this subthread has found its natural home.

Wasn't Dryden the split infinitive man?

... I think he was more concerned about prepositions at the end of clauses.

If the one, then probably the other - he was writing at the time when people began to be obsessed with forcing English to behave like Latin.

You're right that I'd argue with him about it if I remembered - but I'd be arguing that he was too pedantic, while you'd be arguing that Fowler wasn't pedantic enough.

[french frank]

Who would presume to challenge Fowler (1926)?

You?

Does the adjectival suffix -ent not originate from the present participle -ens? (Ans: Yes, at least in this case, from differentem, indicating movement away from; therefore 'to differ from')

There seems good reason to prefer 'different from' at least in one's own usage: others may choose to go to hell in whatever way they wish, as far as I'm concerned.

[vinteuil]

.


... o dearie me. Once one starts praying in aid etymology as a guide to usage...

.

[vinteuil]

Who would presume to challenge Fowler (1926)?

... my earlier quote from Fowler seems to have disappeared when things were transferred here from the Barenboim piano thread. For ease of reference I repeat it :

.

"That different can only be followed by from and not by to is a SUPERSTITION. Not only is to 'found in writers of all ages' (OED); the principle on which it is rejected involves a hasty and ill-defined generalization. ... The fact is that the objections to different to, like those to averse to, sympathy for, & compare to, are mere pedantries. This does not imply that different from is wrong; on the contrary, it is 'now usual' (OED); but it is only so owing to the dead set made against different to by mistaken critics."

Modern English Usage [1926]

[jean]

It was of course your quote from Fowler I was specifically referring to - thanks for reinstating it.

[french frank]

... o dearie me. Once one starts praying in aid etymology as a guide to usage...

It wasn't a 'guide' of any sort, other than what one might prefer as one's own usage. Etymology v. Fowler - choose which you wish.

I find that particular quote from Fowler rather bizarre (on the whole I thought him less dogmatic than that). Pedantry? Superstition? I'm not sure (from that quotation) on what grounds he leans towards 'different to': it cannot be mere usage, since the next minute he declaring that 'different from', although more usual, is some sort of mistake. Either 'usage' is the guide or it isn't.

As I'm interested in etymology, it gives me innocent (I thought) pleasure in teasing out bits of meaning from words. This has nothing to do with declaring the usage 'correct'

[vinteuil]

... I don't read Fowler as saying that "different from" is wrong : he says that there is no implication that it is wrong, that it is indeed now usual.

His point is that those who object to "different to" are - mistaken.

I don't see him as being 'dogmatic' here.

[Nick Armstrong]

... I don't read Fowler as saying that "different from" is wrong : he says that there is no implication that it is wrong, that it is indeed now usual.

His point is that those who object to "different to" are - mistaken.

I don't see him as being 'dogmatic' here.

I've always just preferred the directional logic of 'different from' and 'similar to'. It just seems to make more sense and be more elegant, to me.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I've always just preferred the directional logic of 'different from' and 'similar to'. It just seems to make more sense and be more elegant, to me.

Precisely.

[vinteuil]

I've always just preferred the directional logic of 'different from' and 'similar to'. It just seems to make more sense and be more elegant, to me.

... and no-one is going to criticize you for your preference. I too prefer "different from". But I see no objection to "different to".

Now, if the question had been about the correctness of "different than"...

[Nick Armstrong]

"different than"...

Oh! my dear!

Sal volatile for Monseigneur v...

Vite !

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

... and no-one is going to criticize you for your preference. I too prefer "different from". But I see no objection to "different to".

Now, if the question had been about the correctness of "different than"...

"Different than" is widespread in America.

Shall we try "similar from" or "compared than" if any old preposition with do?

Slow down, but speed up.

Slow up and speed down.

[jean]

I'm not sure (from that quotation) on what grounds he leans towards 'different to': it cannot be mere usage, since the next minute he declaring that 'different from', although more usual, is some sort of mistake.

It's clear from the OED quotations I posted earlier (I wasn't selective) that different to was more common in earlier times; different from doesn't occur until 1616. First citation of different than is 1644. Oh, and there's also different against (1624) and different with (1649).

There's no suggestion in Fowler that different from is any sort of mistake - just that it shouldn't be thought of as the only 'correct' form.

And if direction is so important, why does nobody ever say averse from?