Different from, Different to, Different than
We all have our pet grammar peeves, usages that, when we hear them, affect us like the sound of a fingernail against a chalkboard.
I’ll bet I’m not the only one who shudders to hear sentences like these:
A boxer is different than a Doberman.
This car is different to that one.
Yet, are these usages really incorrect?
According to the entry for different from, different to, different than at Bartleby.com,
These three have been usage items for many years. All are Standard and have long been so (different to is limited to British English, however), but only different from seems never to meet objections.
Elements of Style weighs in against different than:
Here logic supports established usage: one thing differs from another, hence, different from. Or, other than, unlike.
From H.W. Fowler comes this pronouncement:
That different can only be followed by from and not by to is a superstition.
He points out that “writers of all ages” have used different to. He does not mention the use of different than.
It would seem, then, that any of the three is acceptable.
Nevertheless, the concluding advice at Bartleby.com agrees with my own:
…for Formal and Oratorical levels: stick with different from.
Maeve on October 30, 2007 
Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Related Articles
- No related posts
Bookmark
8 Responses to “Different from, Different to, Different than”
Got something to say?
Sponsors
Popular Articles
- 6 Foreign Expressions You Should Know
- The Impotence of Proofreading
- Let the Word Do the Work
- 10 Rules for Writing Numbers and Numerals
- 8 Proofreading Tips and Techniques
- 40 Yiddish Words You Should Know
- TV's War on "Me" and "I"
- 34 Writing Tips That Will Make You a Better Writer
- Gross Writing Errors on the Web
- Creative Writing 101
- Latin Words and Expressions
- Usage That Provokes “Blackboard Moments”
- 44 Resume Writing Tips
Recent Articles
- Say What You Mean
- A Novel IS Fiction
- English Grammar 101: All You Need to Know
- Short Story Competition: Sixth Batch Is Open for Voting!
- Word of the Day: Bourgeois
- The Scandinavian Connection
- Five Reasons Why Blogging Leads to Writing Jobs
- How to Address Your Elders, Your Doctor, Young Children… and Your CEO
- Short Story Competition: Fifth Batch Is Open for Voting!
- Cockney Rhyming Slang
Eeek! I shudder, too, when reading “different than”. Aurally, I might not notice it so much.
It reminds me of my uncertainty about another expression that bugs me: when people say “waiting ON” someone rather than “waiting FOR” someone. It may stem from my reaction from years of waitressing that I am never, ever waiting ON someone unless as a waitress. Is there a non-waitressing context where “waiting ON” is the correct usage instead of “waiting FOR”? Is the former just colloquial or slang?
Gwen,
I agree that “waiting on” in the sense of “waiting for” is non-standard usage. It’s a regionalism.
In standard usage “We were waiting on the bus” indicates that the speaker was inside the bus and waiting. I would say “I was waiting for Charlie and not on Charlie, unless I was his waitress. Ladies-in-waiting are said to “wait upon the queen,” in the sense of attending to her needs.
Another “on” expression that drives me round the twist, but which is very common on TV because of the dominance of the Eastern American dialect in the media, is “waiting on line” in the sense of “waiting in line.”
I wait in line to buy a ticket, but on line for a slow page to load.
The one that turns my Murder Mode on is “Try and hit me”.
(BTW, Brit punctuation is prettier to me, so that period goes OUTSIDE.)
Tordek,
It has taken a great effort on my part to learn to place the period inside the quotation marks. When in Rome.
I was so pleased to know that others out there cringe at ‘different than’ plus, as a Brit, I have taken a long time as well to adjust to putting the comma inside the quotation marks.
Other grammatical errors which throw me into a Dickey Fit (especially as an English person who was severely rapped over the knuckles in school over these) are the following:
- he gave it to him and I (instead of me)
- the person that (instead of ‘who’)
- there’s lots of (instead of ‘there are lots of’)
- none of them are (instead of ‘none of them is’)
While it may be appropriate to have the above errors made in certain dialogue, do we not, as writers, have some obligation to write correctly?
Perhaps I’m alone in this?
Hilary,
It wasn’t so long ago that American English teachers did the same kind of knuckle-rapping over correct usage — even in Arkansas where I grew up. (You will notice that Bill Clinton, who had some of the same teachers I had, speaks better English than a certain graduate of Yale.)
You’re not alone in thinking that writers have an obligation to model correct usage. Browse the DWT site for posts on the peeves you’ve listed. Your first example is one of the things I come back to again and again. ( See TV’s War on “Me” and “I”)
In an effort to do my part in this war against standard English I’ve started my own site called the American English Doctor. It’s targeted to parents of children who attend public schools (American version). Its purpose is to provide parents with the information and encouragement they need to measure their children’s literacy in a meaningful way. Teaching quality varies enormously from school to school and Eduspeak tends to obscure how much learning is actually taking place.
Let me thank you foremost for starting DWT Vocabulary Test. It is wonderful to have something like this. Took the test and felt that I had answered everything perfectly…but sadly on checking the answers realized that I had scored only 80%. Am sure I will do better next time. Thank you once again.
Asha
Thanks for your comment, Asha.
Credit for the vocabulary test belongs to Daniel.