“Different than” is perfectly correct in my part of the USA.
Actually, “commonly used” is not the same thing as “perfectly correct.” But yeah, the usage train has pretty well left the station on this one, I think. Despite being perfectly *incorrect *in most cases, “different than” seems to be the usage more an more people are comfortable with.
Bryan Garner’s Dictionary of Modern American Usage says:
Garner argues that, where from works, it should be used. He also notes, however, that there are many occasions where the use of from does not really make sense. Some examples he gives:
He also notes that different to is “common BrE construction, unobjectionable when used by British writers.”
Fowler’s Modern English Usage, Third Ed., edited by Burchfield, notes examples of different from, different than, and different to all dating back to the 16th and 17th centuries.
Burchfield argues that different from has been the preferred usage in the UK in the 20th century, with different than and different from both used in American English during the same period. In both countries, he says, “different to has been widely perceived as a credible alternative.”
For dissimilar, both Garner and Burchfield agree that dissimilar to is the more common (Burchfield) and preferable (Garner) usage.
Nonsense.
Grammatical and semantic correctness is determined by usage. Else you would have “rules of English” that do not correspond to the actual rules of English as it is spoken by real, living, speaking human beings. “Different from” is standard and has been for centuries. It’s fine to follow Bryan Garner’s advice and avoid it whenever possible, so that you avoid ruffling the feathers of people like Bryan Garner. Not exactly my style, though some people seem to enjoy using the language in this way. Even so, any objective summary of our linguistic patterns doesn’t exist to herd our behavior–it exists to describe how our language actually works.
“Different than” is grammatically correct. That’s the GQ answer. Anything else is just personal preference (which has its place, of course, after the factual answer has been stated).
On reflection, I agree. As another post and I have said, though, I probably wouldn’t use “dissimilar” at all in this context.
In Garner’s examples quoted by mhendo, I would probably prefer to re-word them - particularly the first one, as the meaning of it is not clear as quoted, in isolation - to avoid using “different than”.
If the first one in unclear, it’s my fault. There’s a typo, and “me” should be “men.”
Here they are, correctly typed:
“This designer’s fashions are typically quite different for men than for women.”
“But the Pac-10 and Big Ten might have a different goal than we do.”
To be quite honest, i don’t see anything unclear about the meaning of either sentence.
Shoot me down, but I would end this sentence “from us”.
I think that would work, but to me it wouldn’t make the sentence any more clear, or any more euphonious.
This evening, I did something I don’t often do to resolve a usage question, to wit, consult a dictionary. (They’re usually so wishy-washy as to be unhelpful.) Webster’s Third International confirms Joe Frikkin Friday’s Post #11. It gives as an example, “those pumps … were not dissimilar to those once familiar to everyone on a farm. - J.B. Conant.” That sounds right to me.
Or, consider this example. “Zebras are similar to horses, but dissimilar to/from/than jellyfish.” To my ear, “to” is the best fit.
All that said, if I found myself wanting to say something like “dissimilar to/from/than,” I probably would recast the sentence to eliminate the problem. I don’t want sentences that folks can figure out if they try hard enough. I want sentences they can “get” on the first reading.
Of course, you’re not telling anyone here anything they don’t know: we all know the difference between descriptive and prescriptive.
If someone posts a thread like this, it’s generally because they’re at least vaguely interested in the prescriptive grammar in question. The prescriptive answer has been given: “different than” is usually incorrect; “different from” is usually correct. Prescriptively speaking.
Descriptively speaking–i.e., the actual usage trends on the street–many people use “different than” pretty much exclusively; they do not distinguish between the two usages.
Both answers–prescriptive and descriptive–are relevant to the OP.
In other words, your “Nonsense” is a bit overstated.
“Prescriptively speaking” means speaking from opinion. Prescriptively speaking, I could recommend against using “different from”. It’s a needless complication, and we could have a more streamlined and elegant language if we did without it. “Different than” is perfectly idiomatic and works in all cases. The other usage mavens cited in this thread have their opinions, and I have mine. There’s no way to decide which of us has the correct prescriptive opinion.
And I’ve got nothing against the other prescribers, as long as they are up-front with the fact that they’re explaining their own preferences of how the language should be instead of how it actually is. But if you want to call their opinions “correct”, then all other aesthetic opinions are potentially “correct” as well. I could use the same principle to say that a wipe is an incorrect form of cutting to the next scene, or that “the Butler did it” is an incorrect way to end a mystery novel, or that cooking a steak well-done is an incorrect way of preparing it.
If you’re comfortable with those sorts of statements, then that would at least be consistent. But that sort of phrasing is, to my mind, either nonsensical at best, or ridiculously conceited and egocentric at worst. Sure, it’s fine to explain the reasoning behind cooking a steak medium-rare, or why you might want to use “different from” instead of “different than” whenever possible–but in the end it comes down to personal taste, not any objective notion of correctness.
Wow. You’ve just drained the word “opinion” of all rational meaning.
By making it meaningless, you’ve stated unequivocally that all established grammar is invalid; that essentially there’s no such thing as established rules of grammar.
Due to the fact that language changes over time, there will continue to be ongoing debates about this or that prescriptive grammar rule. There will also be an educated consensus on most such rules.
There are “opinions” and “opinions.”
No one is claiming that such debates don’t go on, but to equate all rules of grammar with whether a steaks should be well done or medium rare is the most exquisite example of reductio ad absurdam I think I’ve ever encountered here.
The OP wanted to know what the correct grammatical rule was. There is an academic consensus on what that rule is. There is also some debate about that consensus, and it’s likely to change over time. As long as the OP understand this about the nature of the answers to his questions, he’s been well served.
To suggest, on the other hand, that there IS no answer to the question–that any random usage has equal standing simply because it’s been uttered–i.e., if someone somewhere said it that counts as “usage” which is 100% as valid as the current academic consensus on the rules of English grammar is not answering his question.
Yes, the question has essentially two answers: you insist there is only one. The answer, as I’ve said above, is that the “correct” answer (perhaps this time you’ll notice the quotes) is the current academic consensus: usually different from. The rest of the answer, also as stated above, is that usage frequently favors different than
Yes, ultimately it’s his decision. Providing both prescriptive and descriptive information is a far more valid way to answer the OP’s question than to deny the validity of half of the answer.
There are real rules of English, which can be discovered with careful, deliberative, objective study. There are also opinions about English, which everyone is entitled to. The problems begin when people mistake their own preferences for fact. You are, in fact, mistaken about the genuine academic consensus. Linguists (the actual scientists of language) know very well that “different than” is fully grammatical. This is further confirmed by diligent lexicographers.
Your argument is a straw man. It reflects neither what I said, nor the research of real linguists.
I never claimed the second sentence did not make sense, and the first one makes much more sense with the typo corrected. In fact, thinking about it, I would probably now leave the first one as it is, as it seems to make most sense that way. On the second sentence, I agree with amarone, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say “than” is wrong in this case. It just sounds more American to me (as a Brit).
We must be talking at some bizarre kind of cross purposes, because BOTH of your links are completely in line with what I’m trying to say. I couldn’t agree with either of them any more than I do.
I’m trying to acknowledge the real world usage, AND the rules of academia, and answer the OP as fully as possible with both perspectives so he can make up his own mind. You on the other hand, as I read you, are being completely dismissive of what I think of as the baseline of academia as utterly irrelevant, and ipso facto ivory tower bullshit–all of it–in favor of the extreme position that any utterance is necessarily perfectly correct because it was spoken by a human.
As a mediocre writer and occasional copyeditor, I strive to find a balance between the prescriptive and descriptive perspectives in my work. I try to consider, always, the context in which the writing I’m working on will be placed: who’s putting it out and who’s taking it in. I try very hard to make the editorial aspect of the process as transparent as possible: to help make the communication as clear and obstacle free as possible. This entails different approaches for different contexts. Working to maintain an equal awareness of both “rules” and usage helps me to achieve that balance, insofar as I’m ever able to do so.
My answers in this thread have been an attempt to give the OP the same tools to make his own decision. I honestly don’t see where that earns a dismissive “nonsense” from you, whose views–at least, whose cites–seem to be pretty much aligned with mine.