LETTER : Language purity and pedantry
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 Robert Allen
Sir: Barney Prendergast has a strange view of language. Regardless of Dekker and Shakespeare, different collocates at least as frequently with to as with from, and has done for centuries, as a fact of grammar. His use of to implying transitive action (as he calls it) is not specific to different, and is a casual rather than a fixed collocation, rather like money due from clients (the regular collocation being due to) or afraid in the dark (the regular collocation being afraid of).
What interests me as a publisher is that criticism of standards seems concerned with a handful of largely artificial chestnuts of usage and ignores what is being regularly written and spoken out there. The motives, I suspect, are social exclusion and not linguistic purity.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Allen
Dictionary and Reference
Publisher
Chambers Harrap Publishers
Larousse plc
Edinburgh
13 February
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments