|
Post by Geoff on Jul 15, 2008 13:11:39 GMT
We have on a number of occasions discussed the correctness or otherwise of different to/from, but what should follow the verb differ? I'm prompted to ask because this sentence was in correspondence I received a day or two ago: Please note that if your pension payment amount for the 2008-2009 financial year is the minimum annual pension payment amount, your first pension payment may differ to that shown, due to possible and of financial year adjustments to your account balance as described above. The use of differ to just sounds so wrong. It seems to be saying that the pension payment is changing and is tending towards some specific final value, namely 'that shown'. If the sentence had read differ from, it would, in my opinion, be clear that the pension payment was not the same as 'that shown' (although I can see that my argument against differ to could be used against me when suggesting that differ from would have been 'more correct'). What do you think? Is differ to correct/incorrect, or do those who would sit in the different to/ different from camps also go for differ to/ differ from respectively?
|
|
|
Post by Vadim on Jul 15, 2008 13:44:23 GMT
I am happy with both, Geoff. I accept "differ from" and "differ to" in the sentence you've highlighted. My reason for this would be that for the description you use as: I would use "varies from" or "tends to" etc.
This is, of course, only my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by SusanB on Jul 15, 2008 13:49:57 GMT
I don't like 'differ to' (or 'different to'), though I can't explain why. However, I may be more likely to overlook (not notice) 'differ to', than I would 'different to'.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jul 15, 2008 13:58:09 GMT
For me, it's different from and differ from - no to acceptable with differ. I can see no reason for departing from that usage in the sentence you provided, Geoff - but that you'd probably be wasting your breath / ink trying to convince a bureaucrat.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 15, 2008 15:47:02 GMT
I'm happy with different to (because people do actually say it, and I feel the objections to it -- which tend to emphasise that "different" is divergent, and "to" is convergent, so there's a logical clash -- are ill-founded. We accept compared to and averse to, so different seems to follow the same pattern and is no less divergent than "averse").
But I don't like differ to; established usage definitely requires differ from.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jul 15, 2008 16:56:58 GMT
I'm happy with different to (because people do actually say it, and I feel the objections to it -- which tend to emphasise that "different" is divergent, and "to" is convergent, so there's a logical clash -- are ill-founded. We accept compared to and averse to, so different seems to follow the same pattern and is no less divergent than "averse"). But I don't like differ to; established usage definitely requires differ from. I would agree with Vv, that different and differ should both take 'from'. In a sense, "compare to" is the contrast, as 'compare' implies looking for similarities - i.e. convergence - and differ/different are looking at differences or contrasts - i.e. divergence. All of which begs the question as to why we compare to but contrast with (and not from).
|
|
|
Post by Alan Palmer on Jul 15, 2008 18:12:42 GMT
|
|
Glyn
Bronze
Posts: 87
|
Post by Glyn on Jul 16, 2008 10:28:10 GMT
"Different to" has a long history and is well-established. The objection to "to" is, according to Fowler, a "superstition", based on the "hasty and ill-defined" assumption that all verbal derivatives must conform to the pattern of the parent verb. He suggests that, whilst the present participle "differing" needs to follow the pattern of "differ from", the adjective "different" is not tied to the verbal construction and that "different to" is as legitimate as "different from".
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jul 16, 2008 10:43:52 GMT
Fowler may consider different to legitimate, but I shall always (in terms of what I would say/write) consider it a complete bastard.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jul 16, 2008 13:08:25 GMT
Fred committed murder, therefore it's OK if I do. "Averse" takes "to", therefore it's OK if "different" does.
Mmmmm ... I think I'll stay with Vv's take on this: "differ from" just sounds right, and I'll continue to use it!
(Pete: "compare" is too tricky an example to bring in, I think, as "compare to" and "compare with" have quite different meanings - and in fact it's "comapre with" that deals in contrast.)
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jul 16, 2008 20:15:02 GMT
Please note that if your pension payment amount for the 2008-2009 financial year is the minimum annual pension payment amount, your first pension payment may differ to that shown, due to possible and of financial year adjustments to your account balance as described above. I can't help feeling that when I wrote this sort of thing for public consumption I was aware that the average reader was not nearly as literate as I was (and am) and I tended to write things in a simpler fashion - short sentences, repetition where I felt it appropriate, and so on. This is typical civil service gobbledegook, trying to get as much into one sentence as possible!
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jul 17, 2008 18:08:17 GMT
Fowler may consider different to legitimate, but I shall always (in terms of what I would say/write) consider it a complete bastard. In fact different to is the oldest, so in terms of age different from and different than are the bastards.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jul 17, 2008 19:05:43 GMT
In fact different to is the oldest, so in terms of age different from and different than are the bastards. Interesting (and interesting, too, that "different" the adjective grew popular before the verb "differ" did) ... but is the history relevant to the original question? I'm quite sure that humans defecated in "public" many thousands of years ago, well before we invented a more modern approach - but does that make it (a) better, (b) correct, or (c) acceptable?
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jul 17, 2008 19:12:29 GMT
Interesting (and interesting, too, that "different" the adjective grew popular before the verb "differ" did) ... but is the history relevant to the original question? I'm quite sure that humans defecated in "public" many thousands of years ago, well before we invented a more modern approach - but does that make it (a) better, (b) correct, or (c) acceptable? No, of course not. I mentioned it because Verbivore called it a bastard, but it can't be a bastard as I understand the word. And of course... different from, than, to - the immediately proceeding entry is differ
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jul 17, 2008 21:51:09 GMT
[...] I mentioned it because Verbivore called it a bastard, but it can't be a bastard as I understand the word. [...] I cannot bring myself to use different than - it is utterly unAustralian. If others wish to use different to, they are welcome, as long as I'm not editing their work. I'm content to stick(le) with different from even if others consider it a bastard; after all, it would be in good company with me (ask my husbandless mother!). Different than would most likely be considered a bastard in Oz English: it has never, to my knowledge, been considered legitimate here.
|
|