LETTER: Different views of English grammar
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Mr Barney Prendergast
Sir: We do not need Professor Jean Aitchison's trendy defence of the slipshod in speech (Section Two, 7 February) any more than we need poor teaching of English in schools.
Her argument that "different to" is an acceptable form of "different from" is absurd, and she should know better than to cite a 17th-century dramatist, Thomas Dekker, in support; we all know that the works of Shakespeare are full of unparsable English ("of his bones are coral made" - The Tempest).
"Different from" means not resembling. "Different to" implies transitive action, eg: "She was kind to everybody else but quite different to me".
Yours faithfully,
Barney Prendergast
Walton on Thames, Surrey
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments