A very common practice among people speaking the English language is the use of the phrase “different than”. I had never paid much attention to its use and was guilty myself of using it from time to time. Now that I am aware of its erroneous nature, I cringe when I hear people say it.
The error is apparent when one considers this phrase and the proper phrase — “X is different from Y” — logically. “X is different from Y” is equivalent to “X differs from Y”. That is, both statements possess precisely the same semantic meaning. Also, “than” is a word used to express degrees of divergence, for instance, “A is bigger than B”, or “G is softer than H”.
Returning to the semantic equivalent, “X differs from Y”, we can try substituting “than” for “from”: “X differs than Y”.
The error here is immediately apparent. So we conclude that “X is different than Y” is erroneous because it necessarily has the same semantic meaning as “X differs than Y”, which is nonsense.
So now you see the light and will catch yourself when you are tempted to say “X is different than Y” and instead uphold correctness and patriotism by saying “X is different from Y” (for any applicable X and Y, obviously).
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/098.html
The mistake you’re making is making some sort of equivalence claim about “X is different than Y” and “X differs than Y”. They are both logically equivalent (in the sense that they’re both constructed with the intent of describing identical relations) yet the latter statement is not grammatically equivalent, and therefore does not strictly describe the same relation as the former statement. You’re correct in that it would be improper to use the ‘differs than’ statement in any formal writing, but the only reason for that is the grammatical properties of that sentence. It seems like you’re connecting logic and language in a way that they ought not to be connected–that is, can you honestly say that a person constructing an argument that uses the phrase “X differs than Y” is going to be logically wrong because they did not construct their sentence in formal h3h-english? Attacking an argument on these grounds would be about as useful as rejecting an opponent’s paper because they used the wrong font size.
Semantic equivalence does not necessitate syntactic equivalence.
Huey (Bartleby): common usage doesn’t make something correct.
jibe: I wouldn’t attack the merits of an argument based on the usage of “different than”. It’s just annoying and incorrect in itself.
Levi: Maybe not, but in any well-defined system it must. Otherwise the system is not well-defined and ambiguity rears its ugly head. Obviously I know English has already fallen subject to this degradation, but I’d like to stop it from going further. So construct an argument for the validity of “different than” and we’ll see how far that goes.
Of course this is all opinion and boils down to my own interpretation of English and how I think it sounds best. Counter arguments welcome.
“Obviously I know English has already fallen subject to this degradation, but I’d like to stop it from going further.”
You’ve already defeated yourself. You’re trying to stop a process that by it’s very definition is fluid and constant?
“Huey (Bartleby): common usage doesn’t make something correct.
jibe: I wouldn’t attack the merits of an argument based on the usage of “different than”. It’s just annoying and incorrect in itself.”
I wasn’t speaking about “common usage”. I was speaking about the logical claim being made in the usage “differs than” as distinct from the exact semantic construction. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anyone actually use the phrase “differs than”, except in this nazi grammarian march of yours. Tell me, in your formal and well-defined system, only English-speaking people of intelligence who can recognize the semantic distinction between “is different than” and “differs than” may participate?
Well, who determines what’s correct?
Jibe, I like well-defined systems and would like to think that language is one of them. As we can easily see from centuries of changing languages, it is natural for them to be fluid. This reduces my argument to purely pedantic goals, simply highlighting a pet peeve of mine.
This is separate from the validity of the argument presented, though. The whole point of using “differs than” is because no one uses it and it is absurd. I see the two phrases “X is different than Y” and “X differs than Y” as necessarily semantically equivalent, therefore they both must be absurd.
You seem to have these hangups about inclusion and freedom in everything you discuss. This has nothing to do with censorship or freedom or exclusion or decrees. It’s an opinion backed up by an argument. Refute the argument if you want, otherwise get off your high horse and take your incessant egotism elsewhere.
Huey: the man with the gold makes the rules? At least that seems to be what history has taught us.
There’s an entire field of study based on the premise that natural language (English being one of them) is insufficient for accurate conveyance of meaning on the level you’re trying to accomplish here. Logic / mathematical logic uses symbols where you’re trying to use words with multiple meanings/dependencies. The reason “X is different than Y” and “X differs than Y” are not equivalent is apparent by the meaning of the words they contain.
“…we can try substituting “than” for “from”: “X differs than Y”….”
Why does this arbitrary replacement of a word necessitate equivalence between the statements? The reason you would NOT substitute them is precisely because they are not equivalent. You’re absolutely correct that that phrase does not have meaning in our language, which is why nobody uses it. It is an error in reasoning on your part to equate “than” with “from”. You’ve already established that “than” specifically describes a degree of divergence, whereas ‘from’ is simply describing a distinction between two terms. The usage of ‘than’ requires an additional quantifier (the specific degree of divergence you’re trying to express with the word ‘than’). That is why ‘differs than’ is meaningless–you have left out a necessary component of that phrase in order to (falsely) demonstrate a lack of meaning. I would never say “X is large Y” — I have left out a term needed to clarify my meaning: “than”.
The reason I seem to pass such harsh judgement on you is a reaction, I believe, to the absolutely ridiculous leaps you make from these flimsy “logical” arguments you [need to] make to a prescription of personal behavior/action, such as, “Now that I am aware of its erroneous nature, I cringe when I hear people say it.” How far would you take this behaviour? Would you point it out to people who use it? Interrupt a conversation to admonish them for imperfect lingual skill? Imagine yourself behaving this way, and then realize that the conclusion you’re operating on is incorrect! This is the reason I can’t take you seriously, you’re taking yourself too seriously for anyone else to be able to.
As a system, language is well defined. You’ve just mistaken the definitions :D
That’s all fine, but you haven’t attempted to disagree with my conclusion that “X is different than Y” is improper, so we’re in agreement.
What I think and what I act on in polite society are two entirely different things, as I think is the same with most everyone else. I don’t interrupt people who use “different than” during a conversation and I will only correct people who I know well.
You’re too hasty with your judgments of “absolutely ridiculous leaps” and “flimsy…arguments”. Relax a little and ask for clarification before manning your battlestation.
Hello, Brad. Heh, we should bring back daily grammar.
Hah. Daily grammar for the win indeed. Someone notify Waseem.
When we use the phrase “X is taller than Y”, we exclude an implied part of the sentence. The complete sentence would be “X is taller than Y is tall”.
Using that analogy, “X is different than Y” implies “X is different than the what Y is” or “X is different than the way Y is”. The comparison seems accurately described using “than”.
Bill,
Your example doesn’t work for me because “X is different than the way Y is” is incorrect for the same reasons (it is not a matter of degree). Using that to justify use of “X is different than Y” is circular reasoning.
This is an esthetic argument, not a logical one.
It does not follow that different from:different than::differs from:differs than. What you have illustrated is that from in differs from is what we might call a verb particle, while than cannot take that role. Than’s inability to act as a verb particle does not make a phrase it is part of inferior to another.
Here is another perspective. Consider the translation of prepositions. Spanish “a” can mean “to” or “by” or “in” depending on context, and yet “by” may also be translated as “por”, “de”, or nothing, because its meaning is communicated by the verb. And yet people are still able to convey just the information they want with this apparent jumble of semantic relations.
A final note: it is true that “different than” is not part of “Standard” American English. Thus its usage would be frowned upon in formal writing and speaking situations. Just because it is the more formal form does not make it better or more right.
Ah, a linguist’s weight thrown on. Thanks for the clarification, Erin.
I’m happy to hear that it’s both an aesthetic (I prefer the ‘a’ there…it’s prettier.) argument and that it’s “formal” usage — I hold both in very high regard.
As for “formal” not being any better than alternatives, I’ll only point to other standardized measures around the world. For instance, “inches” are better than “tingbops” in American society because nearly everyone knows what inches are — they’re the standard. Everything is more economically viable if people agree upon and use standards. I don’t think language should be any exception to that rule.
Of course the “different than” thing might be popular enough now that the standardization argument won’t hold up, but I still have my aesthetics.
Though I’ve read this article more than once, and even pointed a friend or two at it, I never felt compelled to respond until just today.
While I agree that “different from” is more aesthetically pleasing than “different than,” and while I feel insufficiently educated on the matter to discuss any sort of correctness involved, I cannot help but wonder is it truly wise to be setting language standards to the point of zero ambiguity, as you seem to think would be prudent.
As a writer, I cherish the poetic freedom granted to me by the existence of language elements such as synonyms and language features such as the ability of various phrases and sentence structures to express the same concept. I even more cherish the fact that using words with similar meanings - but not synonyms - often nonetheless allows my readers to understand what I mean. Such variety makes long pieces about specific topics a lot more pleasant to read (and write).
You say that it is natural for languages to be fluid. Yes, I absolutely agree, and I do not find such fluidity possible in face of standards imposed by “the man with the gold.” Perhaps our opinions differ on this subject, but I find this fluidity to be a good thing. It is the essence of the evolution of language. (It might be worth noting that I prefer the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition 2a of evolution over 2c, which seems to be the more commonly accepted one.)
However, shall you exclude language as art from your desire for firm standards, I might find myself less opposed to the idea. :)
I completely agree that language-as-art should be free of constraints and standards; after all, that’s what art is.
The standards I wish for (in futility) are for normal everyday communications. In some areas of communication such as military, aviation and marine, there are strict rules about which language is acceptable and which is not simply because lives often depend on the accuracy and fidelity of the communication. Think of the military alphabet (”alpha”, “bravo”, …) or the use of “affirmative”, “negative”, “ten-four”, etc.
Of course that level of precision and fidelity isn’t usually necessary in everyday speech, but for someone who is pedantic and impatient as I am, ambiguity is frustrating and needless. I admit that this desire of mine is hyper-rational and infeasible, but that doesn’t lessen it much. :)
Art and poetry should always be allowed ambiguity and imprecision because the beauty of a piece is often found in subtleties of a specific interpretation. I can’t say the same for ordering at the drive thru or giving directions to someone over the phone.
[...] it has been argued that because differs (from) and is different (from) are semantically equivalent, they must take the same preposition. But why would semantically equivalent phrases require the [...]