Which sentence is better, or are they the same?
If one is better, can you explain why?
What are you trying to say? If you’re trying to tell us what kind of composers you like, Beethoven, Mozart, and Liszt don’t really have enough in common to give me an idea of the type of composer you mean; so you might want to say “I like composers such as Beethoven, Mozart, and Liszt who ________________.” On the other hand, if you’re just telling us that you like composers, and then presenting us with examples of what you mean by “composers,” you could say “I like composers**,** such as Beethoven, Mozart, and Liszt.” (Note the comma.)
They have different meanings. The first sentence means that you like composers in general, with Beethoven, Mozart, and Liszt being examples of composers. The second sentence means that you like those composers specifically, and probably others who are similar to them, but not all composers.
I’m really only trying to learn if people have a preference for splitting such as and if so, what they see as the difference.
I’m not interested in serial comma fundamentalism right now.
Interesting. I don’t see that distinction at all.
Would you say then that the two constructions serve different purposes and which one is required depends on the meaning intended or would you agree with a hypothetical styleguide that forbade one or the other constructions?
I totally agree with Chronos. I was confused by the poll, because I was looking for an option like: “Neither is better, they mean two different things.” Maybe I’d see it differently if I weren’t looking at the two constructions together; outside of that context, I might be inclined to also view the first sentence as “These are the kinds of composers I like.” But when I’m comparing the two, I can’t help but read it as “I like composers (e.g. Beethoven, Mozart, and Liszt),” and I hear an implied comma after “composers” as Thudlow Boink described - that was the comma of note, not the serial comma.
Another vote for the 2 sentences having different meanings.
Indeed, neither sentence is better, because they describe different things.
To me they are the same.
If you wanted a sentence expressing that you like composers, and then to give some examples of composers, you need a comma. Thus it would read “I like composers, such as Beethoven, Mozart, and Liszt”.
The sentence “I like composers who are similar to Beethoven, Mozart, and Liszt” is the same as “I like such composers as Beethoven, Mozart, and Liszt”.
Regards,
Shodan
Ok, so people are seeing three sentences:
-
I like composers such as Beethoven, Mozart and Liszt.
-
I like such composers as Beethoven, Mozart and Liszt.
-
I like composers, such as Beethoven, Mozart and Liszt.
The first two sentences to me mean the same thing which is that I like composers of the following type while the third does mean something different. To me, it says that I like composers in general but especially the ones called out by name. For the moment, I’d like to set that third sentence aside.
Yes; I didn’t even notice that I had added a serial comma. Sorry for the confusion.
The “such … as” construction of #2 makes me think of Troy McClure, the actor character from The Simpsons who introduces himself by saying things like “Hi, I’m Troy McClure. You might remember me from such self-help videos as ‘Smoke Yourself Thin’ and ‘Get Confident, Stupid.’”
By analogy, #2 would mean “Here are some examples of composers I like.” #1 might carry more of a connotation of “I like composers of the same type as…” I still haven’t decided whether there’s a significant difference in meaning or connotation between the two.
Me neither. If there were a comma setting off “composers” from “such as,” then, yes. But as written, I parse the phrase as a restrictive clause.
For me, sentence 1 is ambiguous. It could mean the same thing as either 2 or 3. So even if I know that the intended meaning is the same as 2, I would avoid it because it’s not clear. I don’t like 2 either, because it’s awkward and overly formal - decidedly McClure-esque. However, I agree with Thudlow Boink that 1 would not be ambiguous if it were followed by a clause explaining what it is about these examples that you like in specific, or contrasting with examples you don’t like. That makes it clearer that the examples are meant to illustrate a specific type of composer, rather than composers in general:
“I like composers such as Beethoven, Mozart and Liszt, who used traditional forms to blah blah blah…”
"I like composers such as Beethoven, Mozart and Liszt much more than ones like Prokofiev and Stravinsky. "
In those contexts, I would definitely choose “such as” over “such… as”. Personally, though, I’d probably just forgo both and use “like”, and save “such as” for construction 3.
“I like composers such as Beethoven, Mozart and Liszt”
This reads as: “I like composers… Wait, I’d better explain what composers actually are, by listing some examples”.
“I like such composers as Beethoven, Mozart and Liszt.”
This reads as: “here is a short list of some of my favourite composers”
Chronos’ post would be correct about the meaning of the 1st sentence if there were a comma before “such as.” Without that comma, the 3 composers are included in the set liked. In other words, then 1 = 2.
here again, the interpretation of the 1st sentence is incorrect. The sentence as Inner Stickler wrote it means the same as the 2nd sentence.
Ah, Pulykamell, I see you’ve noted that, too. 
Post-post edit: Oh, I’m way behind! I will add though that there is no “implied comma” in sentence 1. The transcription captures the voicing/pause (or not) so sentence 1 as written/pronounced equals sentence 2.
Interesting. I appreciate everyone who’s weighed in.
I was listening to one of my favorite podcasts and a caller was taking issue with people splitting the such and the as and one of the hosts commented that when she was working at a newspaper, the directive came from on high to always separate the two words. It’s taken me slightly aback because I have never been taught nor have I felt strongly one way or the other. I’m curious if anyone else has or can shed any light on why one version would be favored over another.
Splitting them sounds more literary, at least I think I can feel that.