Different than vs. different from

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

This is certainly not worth a thread by itself, but there’s no existing thread where this observation belongs. In the recent column on Eskimo vocabulary,
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010202.html,
Cecil Adams surpasses his usual standard for gratuitous rudeness. In declaring one of his correspondents’ English composition skills to, well, blow, Mr Adams cites the writer’s use of the expression “different than” (as opposed to “different from”) as being incorrect. To the best of my knowledge, no reputable British or American authority on formal English usage of the past fifty years and more has lent support to this mistaken eighteenth-century view. As with so many misapprehensions about English grammar and usage, this one seems to have arisen as a result of grammarians’ confusing English with Latin.

Surely we all understand that arrogance is Mr Adams’ stock-in-trade, but when going “over the top,” as in this instance, he really should first be sure he has a clue what he’s talking about.

2

Nope, it’s not a Latin/English thing, it’s an American English/British English thing.

From the Holt Guide to English, copyright 1972, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

But you’re right, Cecil was rude to Marie G, and I’m sure he’ll be along to apologize, just as soon as he gets done apologizing to all the million or so other people he’s been rude to this week.

3

Let’s not forget that there is a third choice. Fowler (writing for a British audience more than 50 years ago) generally prefers “different to”, not “different from” or “different than.” He doesn’t go so far as to call the other two wrong, though. The Oxford English Dictionary also lists “different against” and “different with” as obsolete forms.

I’m not sure how much Latin has to do with it. One way of expressing the idea in Latin is differre ab. But ab alone can be translated many different ways. It is most often “away”, “away from”, or “from”, but it can also be “because of”, “on”, “in”, “after”, or “regarding”, and sometimes it just isn’t translated at all.

I think the real reason behind the use of “different from” is the idea that we ususally use “from” after other words beginning with “differ-”. We don’t say “this differs than/to that”. But extending that sort of logic leads us to the conclusion that we should say “there is a difference from this and that” instead of “between this and that”.

The use of different prepositions with different forms of the word is not unique to “differ-” words. We say “according to Fowler”, but “this accords with Fowler.”

4

The issue is deeper. “Than” isn’t a preposition in the first place; it’s a conjunction.

I believe the accepted theory is that “different than” arose from analogy with “other than”, and that “other than” is a just plain mistaken analogy with “greater than” and all sorts of other “…er than” forms. However, “other than” is now permanently locked into the language, so there seems to be little point in banning “different than”. Nevertheless, “different from” – or even the exclusively British “different to” – is usually a shade more direct in conveying meaning.

5

What I was saying had to do with the origin of the mistaken idea that “different than” is somehow incorrect. According to Bergen Evans in “A Dictionary Of Contemporary American Usage” (Random House, New York, NY, 1957),

“The notion that ‘from’ was the correct word to use after ‘different,’ and that ‘that’ and ‘to’ were incorrect, dates from the eighteenth century. The idea may have been based on nothing more than the fact that the Latin word ‘differre’ means ‘separate.’ In English ‘than’ is the normal word to use in comparing things that are dissimilar.”

It’s true that the expressions “different from” and “different than” are used differently in England than they are in America, but contrary to Mr Adams, neither is considered incorrect in either place. According to “The Merriam-Webster Dictionary Of English Usage” (Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA, 1989),

“…‘different from’ is the most common and is standard in both British and American usage; ‘different than’ is standard in American and British usage, especially when a clause follows ‘than,’ but is more frequent in American …” (my emphasis)

I was surprised by that last bit, and would have thought the opposite, but this is a good deal more recent than the Holt Guide you cite or my last visit to England. In any event, none of the above moves me off my premise, which is that Mr Adams should not have attacked the usage so rudely, since the attack is without any basis.

I, like Bibliophage, also consulted Fowler (how can one not?), but only for my own entertainment, since, as noted, he was writing for British audience in the 1920s and his comments aren’t relevant to my disappointment in Mr Adams.

I see no reason whatever for a blanket preference for one of these expressions over the other. Each may be more appropriate in certain contexts than the other. To say that either one is improper is at best ill-informed. That’s all I was trying to say.

6

Of course, I meant to type “…and that ‘than’ and ‘to’…” Please forgive.

7

Wouldn’t “different than that one” mean “different than that one is different”? If so, that really doesn’t make much sense, unless you’re comparing to a third reference, and using a comparative (more, less).

“This one is more different than that one.” With an implied third referent as the standard.

Whereas if you are directly comparing two objects, no third standard involved, it should be “different from”.

“This one is different from that one.”

8

Just because some people say it that way, does that make it acceptable? People say ain’t - does that make it right?

9

nemo1 wins a “burr under the saddle” award, as this week’s column (not yet posted) features Cecil’s exhaustively detailed review of different than vs. different from: Is “different than” bad grammar?

It was also, I am sorry to say, the most boring Straight Dope column I have ever read. MEGO. I used to think Unca Cece could make any topic interesting–he has, I fear, met his Waterloo. Even worse, the column was soooo long that, in the Spectator magazine, the text used up all of the allotted space, which meant there was no room to run Slug’s drawing, so it was like being forced to eat liver and spinach for dinner, then being told “there’s no dessert”.

I suspect that somewhere in Cecil’s past there is a traumatic experience revolving around “different than/from” usage, which maybe he sought to exorcize through this column. But I think Ed needs to gently explain to him about the need to stay “high concept” about these things. Or maybe he should have posted something in “Great Debates”.

(I’ve taken the liberty of editing in the link to the column-- CKDH.)

[Edited by C K Dexter Haven on 03-16-2001 at 07:46 AM]

10

Yes it does. But that topic is best left for GD, so lets drop it.

As far as boring Cecil columns, my theory is that someone other than Cecil writes those. Or to be more acurate (since no one at the Straight Dope is actually named Cecil Adams), the ‘Boring Cecil Adams’ (who I suspect is Ed) wrote it instead of the ‘Entertaining Cecil Adams’ who is the one we all know and love. What his real name is, no one knows (except Ed, of course).

11

sigh
Now I suppose we have an argument about what’s meant by the expression “reputable authority.” I probably shouldn’t have said that no usage mavens have said that ‘different than’ is to be avoided, but I’ll put Bergen Evans and the Merriam-Webster staff up against Ted Bernstein and the American Heritage staff any day. If Cecil wants to up the stakes, I can meet his raises indefinitely.

The introduction of remarks about British English (and culture) is entirely gratuitous, since I scrupulously avoided dragging that topic into the fray, preferring instead to keep matters simple and direct. I also note that Cecil replies to my aside about Latin by rejecting it out of hand, conveniently ignoring the fact that I cite my source later in the thread (of course, he’s also been known to fire off a reply without reading more than the first few posts in a thread). If he’s taking issue with Evans’ remarks on the subject, he should say so.

In any context where there is a practical reason to prefer one of the two phrases over the other, it’s usually quite obvious which one to use. Otherwise, I would maintain that to embrace a blanket preference for one of these phrases on the basis of “logic” is absurdly punctilious, and I have at least as much authority on my side as Cecil has on his. Why he wants to make a public pissing match out of this point, which, as noted, is incredibly boring to most of his readers, is beyond me.

12

This is not the first time I’ve seen this debate, but I was pretty surprised (and a bit disappointed) to see Cecil on the wrong side of it here. First of all, “d. than” is a pretty common dialectal usage, at least in the US: according to the Collins Cobuild Bank of English (as cited in the alt.english.usage FAQ), “from” and “than” have about a 70-30 split in spoken US English—hardly a marginal amount. (On the other hand, UK English speakers use “than” only about 4% of the time, reserving 27% of their usage for “different to”.)

But the key problem with Cecil’s article is that he diatribes at length on how things ought logically to be, which in linguistics is entirely irrelevant. He even admits the arbitrariness of language (well, prepositions at least), but then goes on to present a logical argument anyway. This is highly reminiscent of the prescriptivist grammarians of the late 19th century, who often tried to make up rules for English based on logic and Latin (whatta combination), and from whom we have most of the stupid and pointless rules enforced by grade school teachers and narrowminded editors, like the ones against sentence-ending ‘prepositions’ and split infinitives.

This is all made worse, of course, by Cecil’s perpetuation of that insidious little idea that there is “right English” and “wrong English”, possibly with a concession for the US/UK split. In fact, English has dialects just like any other language, and while it is sensible to formulate a standard for news broadcasts and formal presentations, it is silly and counterproductive to say someone is speaking incorrectly just because they have a usage that doesn’t accord with the “standard” dialect (which usually was constructed and thus is to some degree artificial anyway). For instance, the word ‘fewer’ just does not appear in my dialect—I use it only when speaking very formally, and the rest of the time I use ‘less’ (“less people”, “less books”). Several of my friends from the Midlands dialect region (lee among them) have a usage “needs VERB+ed”, i.e. “this shirt needs washed” instead of “needs washing” or “needs to be washed”. It was pretty jarring for me to hear the first few times, but that’s just the way their dialect works. And finally, despite Cecil’s claim that “better than them” is grating on the ears, I don’t know anybody at all that actually says “better than they” except when trying to sound extremely formal, outdated, or (more likely) snobby.

So to conclude (“finally!” say the Teeming Millions), it might make some sense to call people on saying things like “blick blotz”, which are incomprehensible and/or have no meaning at all, but it is a bit bizarre and certainly a bad idea to pick on people for usage that is understandable—especially for something as easily understandable (and common!) as “different than”.

13

Okay, did anybody else note that Cecil’s column essentially restates comments made by bibliophage, John W. Kennedy, and me?

Just wondering. Nice to know I could anticipate Cecil’s thoughts. :wink:

14

Um, Irishman, maybe the overlap between “Cecil”'s writing and yours is simply because the subject at hand is not a matter of conjecture and hypothesis, but a matter of fact.

And blahedo, nice typing, but you’re wrong.

15

OK, the topic is not fascinating. However, is anyone else happy to see that lately Cecil is starting to exercise his loser-whacking muscles again?

16

On the contrary, Rube, my original point was that Your Hero is pointlessly bullying and insulting people over nothing lately. As for “losers,” I assure you that I’m still standing. Seldom does anyone decisively win or lose in a debate about grammar or usage, but I’m pretty damn sure that the weight of expert opinion supports my view.

As for you, lissener, you apparently haven’t been listening. This is a Straight Dope message board, where just saying people are wrong and making flat assertions concerning points under discussion without providing any substance is frowned upon.

18

Ah, nemo1, I fear that I have given offence where none was intended. Cecil is arbitrarily and pointlessly cruel – that is part of Cecildom. Those looking for sweetness and light should go elsewhere. None of his victims is a “loser” in any real sense. It’s all part of the game. Let’s face it, in terms of cosmic significance, none of this rates very high.

Regards,

19

Rube,

I wasn’t offended, I was just disagreeing with what you seemed to be saying. I’ve been a follower of Cecil for a long time and I am familiar with his ways, but the column that started all this (and some others lately) seemed to me to be almost an order of magnitude more pointless and excessive in its rudeness than even Cecil is normally wont to venture. And of course it’s all a game: we see what we can provoke him to, he sees what he can get away with, we get some entertainment and he gets a paycheck. As a bonus, when he sticks to facts, we sometimes get some damn good information. As for the cosmic significance of all this, the opening words of the original post should make my feelings perfectly clear. Peace,

Nemo

20

:rolleyes:

Thank you, Mr. Thirty-Six Posts.

Reading all of “Cecil” 's writing on this, and the consequent thread (above), including your overwrought purplish vomitude, nemo1 (". . . an order of magnitude more pointless and excessive in its rudeness than even Cecil is normally wont to venture," indeed), this seems to me the absolute height of the pot calling the kettle “absurdly punctilious.”

For someone who’s so squeakily desperate to impress all of us with your ability to sound polysylabically silly, you’ve sunk your nubby little teeth into a curiously flimsy platform. Your claim that “the weight of expert opinion supports [your] view” is patently absurd, and is, moreover, the type of statement (cf. your admonition of me, above) that as vastly experienced a Doper as your inaccurately pedantic self should know, cries out for documentary support.

In any case, “grammarians” who agree with you (or, more nearly, with whom you agree), are, in truth, apologists for the slippery slope of modern misusage. Now, granted, this is inevitable and is the source of a growing language’s continued power and usefulness.

Nonetheless, there’s what’s grammatically correct, and there’s popular misuse that simply outruns any attempt to hold it to a grammatical standard. Keep in mind that a dictionary is not a textbook: it’s more like a field guide. It doesn’t suggest the way words should be used: it merely reports how they are used.

Cecil is not opening a debate on the inevitable evolution of modern language: he’s answering a question of grammar, not necessarily of popular usage.

You are free to use either construction. And most readers are free, when reading what you write, to write you off as a supercilious contrarian of very little brain.

21

What? Do my eyes deceive me? What kind of language is this? The “Comments on Cecil’s Columns” forum is not a place where we can insult other posters. At the next impolite term I see addressed to another poster I will close this thread.

lissener, please do not do this again.

moderator, «Comments on Cecil’s Columns» **