"Different to" in US English?

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,777
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I've noticed for some time that some UK users say "different to" instead of "different from," or "different than" which always sounded odd (since to implies moving together rather than moving apart), but eh, grammar and usage in English isn't always logical.

But more recently, I've noticed some US users saying "different to" instead of "different from" in television and books in dialog and sometimes even narrative, even modern novels set back in the 1950s. According to what I looked up, US users generally use "different than" as an alternative to "different from," and this is what I've noticed in face-to-face conversations in the Western US.

So is "different to" an older expression that is dying out in the US, or is it gradually becoming more common here? Is it a regional expression? How common is it in the UK also, and how far back does this usage go back in the UK? An English friend in his 60s says "different to" bothers him, and he was taught it's improper, but I see a lot of UK users using the expression on writing forums, including AW. And if he was taught it was improper back in his school days, it implies "different to" was at least colloquial or regional usage back in the 40s and 50s in the UK.

Are we seeing an evolution in English on both sides of the pond with reference to this expression (abandonment of "different than" and "different from")? It's not a big deal, but it's something I'm curious about, and it may have relevance when writing dialog between characters from different regions of the US, UK, and other English-speaking countries.
 

BethS

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
11,708
Reaction score
1,763
I've seen it more frequently, too, lately. I think it's transferring over the pond, which doesn't thrill me, as I agree it isn't a logical construction. Same with the American "making a decision" as opposed to the British "taking a decision." I always want to ask, "Where are you taking it?" :greenie But that's one I see and hear more and more in the US. Sorry, my British friends, but ugh. I don't suppose we could send "gotten" across the water in revenge? :2angel:
 

DMakinson

Registered
Joined
May 26, 2019
Messages
32
Reaction score
2
Location
Australia
Website
sharpedit.weebly.com
Here's a UK guide: Different from, different to or different than?

I suspect we're seeing not only language transfer, but also, non-standard British use.

View from Down Under here: Most common: different to. Fairly common: different from. Fairly rare: different than.

Next: I couldn't care less v I could care less. These appear to mean that same thing, despite the fact that they are literal opposites. They cannot both be true.
 

TheListener

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 17, 2019
Messages
468
Reaction score
21
Location
UK
When in doubt use different from. But be prepared to use different than from time to time. Use different to if your characters are British.
 

SAWeiner

Super Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
370
Reaction score
89
Location
NYC
An American here. I don't recall hearing "different to" before. Just learned something new about British usage.
 

Sophia

Staff member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
4,540
Reaction score
1,751
Location
U.K.
the British "taking a decision." I always want to ask, "Where are you taking it?" :greenie But that's one I see and hear more and more in the US. Sorry, my British friends, but ugh.

I associate that with a more formal way of talking, and would normally say "decided to [...]" I think of the taking as coming to a crossroads, and you decide which way to go. The decision = the left or right path. So you take a decision.

Different to/than/from is something I always mini-panic over. I have to really think about it, and none of them sound completely correct or incorrect. I usually avoid it and talk about what specifically the difference between X and Y is.
 

Friendly Frog

Snarkenfaugister
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
4,098
Reaction score
4,943
Location
Belgium
I wonder whether 'different than' may have borrowed that structure from Dutch. In Dutch 'different from/to is translated to 'anders dan'.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,777
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I know that usage shifts. I have a friend who is British (and a decade or so older than I am) who insists "different to" in incorrect, but most of the British people I know use it at least occasionally, and in writing as well as in speech. I suspect it's shifting into mainstream usage, if it wasn't always.

The thing that surprised me is I am starting to hear US English speakers using an occasional "different to" on the air. We've resisted adopting so many British turns of phrase and words--I got reamed on a critique because I prefer towards over toward (towards is British and I am US), it surprises me this one is catching on.

Everyone has their little pet peeves with regards to evolving language, but I am trying to get used to "different to."

The one I will go down fighting, though, is the word "loose" replacing "lose." It's getting pretty entrenched and a genuine shift in usage may be happening. My husband was sputtering indignantly the other day, because he was writing an announcement on Canvas to his students, telling them how they could lose points on an assignment. The spellchecker kept redlining "lose" and insisting it should be "loose." I assume this is because some dictionary or the other now has a definition of the word "loose" as meaning "lose."

I used to wonder if it was simply a typo, but it happens often enough I think many people are genuinely confused about the meanings of the two words.
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
Weird- not even pronounced the same. Wonder if the spellchecker also redlines 'loose'.
 

Sage

Currently titleless
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
64,562
Reaction score
22,367
Age
43
Location
Cheering you all on!
The one I will go down fighting, though, is the word "loose" replacing "lose." It's getting pretty entrenched and a genuine shift in usage may be happening. My husband was sputtering indignantly the other day, because he was writing an announcement on Canvas to his students, telling them how they could lose points on an assignment. The spellchecker kept redlining "lose" and insisting it should be "loose." I assume this is because some dictionary or the other now has a definition of the word "loose" as meaning "lose."

I used to wonder if it was simply a typo, but it happens often enough I think many people are genuinely confused about the meanings of the two words.

I've never heard of this one, other than people just not knowing how to spell. The spellchecker thing can often be that some other part of the sentence makes the spellchecker convinced that he's writing an adjective (loose) and not a verb (lose).
 

angeliz2k

never mind the shorty
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
3,727
Reaction score
488
Location
Commonwealth of Virginia--it's for lovers
Website
www.elizabethhuhn.com
I'm all for language changing. But we can't do away with necessary distinctions.

For instance, you can't have "lose the horses" mean either "loose the horses" or "lose the horses". You need a separate word and spelling for each meaning or you end up with confusion. I would think it's very rare for a change in language to favor more confusing usage. People who get this wrong are simply getting it wrong, which is different from a genuine shift in usage.

Same with "couldn't care less" and "could care less". People do use them interchangeably at times, but again this is bluntly wrong because of logic. If you "could care less", then you care a certain amount, since there's the potential you could care less than you do now. If you say I could NOT care less, you're saying you care so little that there is no chance you could care less than you do now. Just because people say it wrong doesn't change the meaning of that "not" (or the lack thereof). It will never not be illogical to say "I could care less" for "I don't care much."

To address the original topic . . . I haven't actually heard many instances of Americans saying "different to". I haven't noticed it as a trend myself. I'm not fussed about the difference there. Either is fine by me.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,777
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I've never heard of this one, other than people just not knowing how to spell. The spellchecker thing can often be that some other part of the sentence makes the spellchecker convinced that he's writing an adjective (loose) and not a verb (lose).

I've wondered if it's that, but given how loose rhymes with "moose," "goose," and "noose" etc. (words few have trouble spelling or pronouncing), it seems odd. Of course, there is the word "choose" which rhymes with "lose," so eh. English is a strange one.

That a spellchecker would insist the correct word to use in the above context was "loose," however, not "lose," suggests a shift in word meaning is taking place. Spellcheckers are horrific, mind you, often insisting a word doesn't exist, or suggesting "per" as a prefix instead of "pre" or "pro" in cases where the former makes no sense at all.

I wonder how many people who write "loose" for "lose" are doing so because their spellchecker insisted it was correct.
 

Fallen

Stood at the coalface
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
5,500
Reaction score
1,957
Website
www.jacklpyke.com
"Different to" is pretty everyday usage here in the UK, especially in speech. It's not something I've seen as incorrect, just conversational and a shorter version of 'different [compared] to'. 'Different than' sounds on the ear, though.
 

lonestarlibrarian

senior bean supervisor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
756
Reaction score
169
I've never heard "different to" in the wild in my part of the US. (Louisiana/Colorado/various parts of Texas.)

Usually, I hear "different from."

"The weather this Halloween is different from the weather last Halloween."

"She looks different from her yearbook picture."

"These flowers look different from what I thought I was buying."

"This game is different from what I expected."

But if there's a clause at the end-- a subject/verb-- then you can use "different than" instead, if you want. And then "different from" is more casual-conversation, and "different than" is more formal-written, if that makes sense?

"These flowers look different than what I thought I was buying."

"This game is different than what I expected."

"Parenthood is different than what I thought it was going to be."
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,777
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
"Gotten" is part of some UK dialects - I suspect you got it from us anyway.

I believe that's correct. The idiom "ill-gotten gains" goes a long way back in UK English. It's sort of fossilized, even thought many British people today insist it was never a proper word on their side of the pond (even as some groups in Britain still use it).

Some expressions and words now regarded as US deviations from UK usage are actually retained from the form of English spoken by the original Colonists from the UK. No idea why "gotten" would be largely abandoned in one place and not the other, but language doesn't always evolve logically or consistently.

As an aside, I was interested to learn how abhorrent "gotten" is to some British-English speakers, to the point some can't admit they're wrong when corrected. There are different forms of English spoken, and insisting that one form (assuming the usage follows rules and has internal consistency) is "lazier" or "less imaginative" than another seems rather harsh, even in cases where a US word actually does represent a change from British usage.

Let's save our grammatical ire for usages that actually affect the meaning of sentences, especially when they cost people money :greenie
 
Last edited:

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,285
"Gotten" is part of some UK dialects - I suspect you got it from us anyway.

Yes; it's a marker for Northern dialects of Middle English, and used in Middle Scots. It's one of the helping verbs in Old English and was stolen borrowed into Old English from Old Norse.
 

Sonya Heaney

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 16, 2019
Messages
565
Reaction score
85
Location
Canberra
In the genres I read/write the issue people have with "gotten" is that US editors put into the mouths of dukes and duchesses in London ...
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,777
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
In the genres I read/write the issue people have with "gotten" is that US editors put into the mouths of dukes and duchesses in London ...

True, though it would depend on the period. Not sure when it fell out of "respectable" usage in the UK (sometime after North America was colonized), but if you go back far enough, "gotten" was more commonly used in Britain than it is today.

I was referring more to some of the folks making comments in the article I linked. A number just couldn't admit that it is ever okay to use "gotten," and their implication was that it is sloppy and unimaginative, even in dialects where it is still normal.

The issue of historical fiction and historical romances (or even a contemporary work) set in Britain being edited into (or simply written in) modern US English is something I notice. It becomes more distracting to me, actually, the closer a setting gets to modern times. Maybe it's because books set really far back would entail characters speaking dialects so different from modern English (in any country) that the author is almost translating from another language, so they might as well write it in modern English (minus glaringly modern idioms or anachronistic concepts).
 
Last edited: