# Are there nine Eskimo words for snow (revisited)?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-nine-eskimo-words-for-snow-revisited/465162
**Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
**Created:** [September 25, 2008, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-nine-eskimo-words-for-snow-revisited/465162 "2008-09-25T15:50:34Z")
**Posts on this page:** 2
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Lexo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lexo)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2008, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-nine-eskimo-words-for-snow-revisited/465162/1 "2008-09-25T15:50:34Z")
In the above article, posted on February 2 2001, Cecil Adams criticised the “English composition skills” of a correspondent, who wrote this:
“I myself am a Koniag Eskimo and was inflamed to see your ignorant, rude, racist, and idiotic statements about a different race than yours posted on a Web site where people ask questions and want simply the answers, not to read a bunch of redneck crap from some ignorant person who doesn’t take the time . . .”
Cecil replied:
“On the evidence of Marie’s letter their spelling is OK; it’s their English composition skills that blow. (Different from. “Simply want answers,” not “want simply the answers.” Delete “to read.” Divide run-on sentence.)”
He seems to be unaware that any objection to “different than” has no foundation in contemporary or even historical usage. The OED records it as early as 1644, and major modern writers such as Timothy Findley and Thomas Keneally have used it. It’s sometimes more useful and leads to a cleaner formation than “different from”. If Cecil wants examples, I will be happy to provide them.
It’s also hard to understand the nature of his objection to “…where people ask questions and want simply the answers, not to read a bunch of redneck crap…” There can be no substantial objection to “want simply the answers”, which is easily analysable as “want [simply the answers]” as opposed to “want [the answers and a lot of other things]”. “To read”, while not absolutely necessary, helps the rhythm of the sentence. Marie’s sentence is long, but not so long that it’s possible to get lost inside. Her meaning is perfectly clear and her choice of words is pungent and vivid, so Cecil’s objection seems to be founded on pedantry.
---
### Author:  [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2008, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-nine-eskimo-words-for-snow-revisited/465162/2 "2008-09-26T18:22:56Z")
Hi, **Lexo**. It’s typically considered good form to include a link to the article in question so others can see the original.
Here is the one to which you refer.
> **[Are there nine Eskimo words for snow (revisited)?](https://www.straightdope.com/21343516/are-there-nine-eskimo-words-for-snow-revisited)**
And here is the original to which that article was responding.
> **[What are the nine Eskimo words for snow?](https://www.straightdope.com/21341442/what-are-the-nine-eskimo-words-for-snow)**
Regarding your comments,
> [@](#):
>
> He seems to be unaware that any objection to “different than” has no foundation in contemporary or even historical usage.
Here is an excerpt I found.
> [@](#):
>
> _ **Usage Note:** _ Since the 18th century grammarians have insisted that \*than \*should be regarded as a conjunction in all its uses,… However, _than_ is quite commonly treated as a preposition when followed by an isolated noun phrase, and as such occurs with a pronoun in the objective case: _John is taller than me._ Though this usage is still widely regarded as incorrect, it is predominant in speech and has reputable literary precedent… Still, the writer who risks a sentence like _Mary is taller than him_ in formal writing must be prepared to defend the usage against objections of critics who are unlikely to be dissuaded from the conviction that the usage is incorrect.
[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/than](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/than)
Accordingly, in formal writing, _than_ is regarded as a conjunction and not a preposition. In the article in question, the placement and usage of _than_ after _different_ is a prepositional usage, not a conjuction. Therefore, the formally accepted word is _from_, not _than_.
Cecil is citing what grammarians have decided, whether or not the grammarians are consistent with all prior use.
> [@](#):
>
> There can be no substantial objection to “want simply the answers”, which is easily analysable as “want [simply the answers]” as opposed to “want [the answers and a lot of other things]”.
_Simply_ is an adverb, and must modify a verb, an adjective, or another adverb. This sentence structure appears to be using _simply_ as a preposition.
want [simply the answers] = want [what]
That would be incorrect. However, looking more closely I see that _simply_ is being used in the meaning of _merely_, or _just_. It seems totally acceptable to say
“I want just the answers.”
This seems to be an idiosyncracy. You may have a point on this one.
> [@](#):
>
> Marie’s sentence is long, but not so long that it’s possible to get lost inside.
But it is a run-on sentence. And I disagree that it is not overly long and complicated.
> [@](#):
>
> …so Cecil’s objection seems to be founded on pedantry.
Actually, Cecil’s answer is founded on snark, but pedantry is also acceptable. Welcome to the Straight Dope.