|
|
It's "taller than I" not "taller than me"
<<Regardless of what you say, CID, most people do use it as preposition. You may not like, but you can hardly change their speaking habits. >>
Again, many people use it LIKE a preposition, but not *as* a preposition for sake it is not a preposition. 'Than' is a conjunction because it can join two separate and independent sentences
(They do it better) + than + (I do)
This is what makes it a conjunction.
I think what CID was referring to here,
<<<<He is than the house?
I ran than that bookshelf?
I put the book than the table? >>
I don't understand what your point is. >>
is that those would be prepositional uses of 'than'. Prepositions are used before nouns and pronouns to form phrases which function as modifiers and answer questions like "where, what, etc". They also denote spatial or temporal relationships.
She stopped 'at the gate' -- the gate = the place where she stopped
This fruit is ripe 'for the picking' -- the picking = what this fruit is ripe for
with prepositions, we should be able to change them out for one another and still have some semblance of meaning (though it might not make sense or sound funny to our ears, but grammatically it should make sense)
"She stopped than the gate" makes no sense. Since the word 'than' is in fact the same word as 'then' (just a scribal distinction made in Middle English to reserve it for comparitive uses) the question begs: "then what???"
"She stopped at the gate, then ???"
This indicates the conjunctive nature and origin of the word.
Also, "the fruit is ripe than the picking"..."than/then the picking what?
Admittedly, one benefits from an understanding of how the English language got to where it's at in order to see how these weird contructions actually are the way they are. Otherwise, you'll just be guessing.
Also, here it cannot be a preposition:
This car goes faster than the speed limit would allow
So preposition can be ruled out
than
Pronounced:
/ˈðæn, ðən/Listen to audio
Function:
conjunction
Meaning:
1 —used to introduce the second or last of two or more things or people that are being compared —used with the comparative form of an adjective or adverb ▪ Ten is less than 20. ▪ She is younger than I am. = (somewhat formal) She is younger than I. ▪ He can run more quickly than his father (can). ▪ Both recipes use more salt than mine (does). ▪ The situation will improve sooner than you think (it will). ▪ The meeting will end no later than noon. [=it will end at noon or some time before noon] ▪ Losing weight is easier said than done. [=is difficult to do] ▪ I would rather go out to dinner than cook at home tonight. ▪ Your hair looks better (when it's) brown than (when it's) blond. ▪ She would rather/sooner work four jobs than move out of Manhattan to live somewhere cheaper. —see also other than at 1other rather than at rather
2 —used to say that something happens immediately after something else ▪ Hardly/scarcely had the sun come up than dark clouds began to roll in. ▪ No sooner had I spoken than he appeared. [=he appeared immediately after I spoke]
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/than%5B1%5D
2 than
Function:
preposition
Meaning:
: when compared to —used with pronouns in the objective case (me, her, him, them, and us) in the same way that the conjunction than is used with pronouns in the subjective case (I, she, he, they, and we) ▪ She is younger than me. [=she is younger than I (am)] ▪ I'm taller than him. [=I'm taller than he (is)]
usage: Some people consider the use of than as a preposition to be incorrect. It is very common, however, especially in the phrase than me.
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/than%5B2%5D
<<usage: Some people consider the use of than as a preposition to be incorrect. It is very common, however, especially in the phrase than me.
>>
Right, allowances have been made to consider "than" as a preposition, and some dictionaries list it as informally so, but that is the base of the discussion--whether that is really correct or not.
It's incorrect usage, but it is common usage for "than" to function like a preposition, even though it is not
<<It's incorrect usage, but it is common usage for "than" to function like a preposition, even though it is not >>
I need to clarify:
Reason being that when used like a proposition, it does not always make sense, or is not always consistent in meaning.
The sentence:
"They like pizza better than me" is a perfect example. One cannot really tell how "me" is related to "like". A true preposition makes that clear.
"Than", however, does not completely fit that bill.
Some people consider the use of than as a preposition to be incorrect.//
According to MW learner's dictionary, only SOME people consider it incorrect...''Some'', in statistics, is less than 20 %.
<<Some people consider the use of than as a preposition to be incorrect.//
According to MW learner's dictionary, only SOME people consider it incorrect...''Some'', in statistics, is less than 20 %. >>
I think it's use like a preposition is fine. I only say/write "...than I" in writing or when being conscious. Otherwise, informally it's always "...than me"
However, even though I think it's fine to use 'than' like a preposition, I don't think that it's ever right to CALL 'than' a preposition. It is still ALWAYS a conjunction, even if it is followed by the object case.
That's the only beef I have with the issue.
Leasnam:
<<This seems to be the only point for those proponents who say it's a preposition--"because it's followed by the object case, therefore it has to be a preposition", but does it? >>
Well, this issue of whether it's a preposition is really a matter of nomenclature; the only question that actually matters is whether it is correct for it to be followed by the object case. We seem to be going around in circles rather than actually having a discussion; your side consists of the argument that it can't be followed by the object case because it's not a preposition, and it's not a preposition because it can't be properly followed by the object case.
<<'Than' is a conjuntion, but today's usage dictates that it *can* (and most like *will be*) followed by the object. Is this correct usage? No. Is it real usage. Yes. >>
What is incorrect about it? Nomenclature should be determined by usage, not vice versa. It's absurd to say that a usage is incorrect simply because it has been categorized as being under some label for which the usage is incorrect.
<<Again, many people use it LIKE a preposition, but not *as* a preposition for sake it is not a preposition.>>
You seem to have a Platonic conception of grammar, in which there is some transcendental Form of grammatical categories separate from and superior to actual usage. If I bang a nail with can of peas, am I using the can like a hammer, or as a hammer? If cans of peas are produced, sold, and bought for the specific purpose of banging nails, is it somehow incorrect to refer to them as “hammers”?
<< 'Than' is a conjunction because it can join two separate and independent sentences
(They do it better) + than + (I do) >>
Interesting. You are attacking correct usage, and using incorrect usage to do so. “They do it better” is not an independent clause. People who use it as (or like) an independent clause are using the word “better” incorrectly. “better” is a comparative. You can't have a comparison with only one element. Furthermore, this is not what I understand the definition of a conjunction to be.
<< think what CID was referring to here, is that those would be prepositional uses of 'than'. >>
One cannot counter the claim that “than” is a preposition by presenting specific examples where it doesn't work, any more than one can counter the claim that Tiger Woods is a golfer by presenting specific golf tournaments in which he did not play.
<<with prepositions, we should be able to change them out for one another and still have some semblance of meaning>>
I don't see why. We can't just swap out words of the same part of speech and be guaranteed that it will make sense. “We saw the play” -> “We died the play”. Doesn't work.
<<Also, here it cannot be a preposition:
This car goes faster than the speed limit would allow >>
Not only are you begging the question, you just skewered your own argument. Isn't “than” supposed to connect two independent clauses? Since “allow” is a transitive verb, and there is no object given, “the speed limit would allow” is not an independent clause. There is clearly an implied object here: “This car goes faster than WHAT the speed limit would allow”. “than” clearly connects “This car goes faster” with “what”, a PRONOUN. “than” is a preposition.
<<I think it's use like a preposition is fine.>>
Its use.
<<However, even though I think it's fine to use 'than' like a preposition, I don't think that it's ever right to CALL 'than' a preposition.>>
What does it mean to be conjunction, other than to BE a conjunction?
Guest:
<<Right, allowances have been made to consider "than" as a preposition, and some dictionaries list it as informally so, but that is the base of the discussion--whether that is really correct or not. >>
Usage says it's correct. Dictionaries say it is correct. Logic says it is correct. On what basis can you say it's wrong?
<<A true preposition makes that clear. >>
Absence of ambiguity is not a requirement for something to be a particular part of speech. The fact that people use it one way when they mean another is irrelevant to whether the first way is correct.
<<If I bang a nail with can of peas, am I using the can like a hammer, or as a hammer? >>
If you bang it with a can, is the can then a hammer? --LITERALLY no. But it is figuratively a hammer.
<<Furthermore, this is not what I understand the definition of a conjunction to be. >>
Then you are alone in the Midi of your understanding.
<<“We saw the play” -> “We died the play”. Doesn't work. >>
You're wrong, this does work grammatically. For someone who touts the virtues of re-assigning semantical terms you should know that. Both are verbs, and that's what is important.
<<Since “allow” is a transitive verb, and there is no object given, “the speed limit would allow” is not an independent clause. There is clearly an implied object here: “This car goes faster than WHAT the speed limit would allow”. “than” clearly connects “This car goes faster” with “what”, a PRONOUN. “than” is a preposition. >>
See? You need to just shaddap and learn. The only right thing you've said was that you were no linguist. You're right about that!
"I allow." is a sentence. No object needed.
Okay, this is a waste of my time. I won't read any more nonsense...PEACE...
"One cannot counter the claim that “than” is a preposition by presenting specific examples where it doesn't work, any more than one can counter the claim that Tiger Woods is a golfer by presenting specific golf tournaments in which he did not play. "
They can't? Well, how come? A noun can be replaced with another noun, and verbs with other verbs, can't they? This is what makes them a class of words called Nouns and Verbs.
-----------------------
"I don't see why. We can't just swap out words of the same part of speech and be guaranteed that it will make sense. "
They didn't say it would make sense in an idiomatic way, but that it would and should feel like the same category or type of word.
-----------------------
"Not only are you begging the question, you just skewered your own argument."
I think someone is over-analyzing, it might be you. This is not about arguments, presentations, the messenger, but the message, which seems to be that than is not a preposition, which I do not believe it is myself.
Instead of admitting this, you incessantly attempt to turn the attention on those whose views are grammatical. Let me guess, you're a people-person :|
---------------------
"Since “allow” is a transitive verb, and there is no object given, “the speed limit would allow” is not an independent clause. There is clearly an implied object here: “This car goes faster than WHAT the speed limit would allow”. “than” clearly connects “This car goes faster” with “what”, a PRONOUN. “than” is a preposition. "
This is not sound, but I believe you're convinced of it.
----------------
"Absence of ambiguity is not a requirement for something to be a particular part of speech. The fact that people use it one way when they mean another is irrelevant to whether the first way is correct. "
For someone who doesn't seem to like rules you sure make a lot yourself. You like to be the one who tells things to others huh? You hate when it's not all about you.
I know I'm right.
CID:
<<Then you are alone in the Midi of your understanding. >>
The word "Midi" makes no sense in that context. And if you believe that I am lacking in my understanding, you could discuss that civilly and present what you believe the definition to be. Instead you are attacking me.
<<You're wrong, this does work grammatically.>>
No, it doesn't. "Dead" is a strictly non-transitive verb, and cannot be substituted into a sentence that has an object.
<<For someone who touts the virtues of re-assigning semantical terms you should know that.>>
I don't appreciate your falsely assigning positions to me.
<<See? You need to just shaddap and learn. The only right thing you've said was that you were no linguist. You're right about that!
"I allow." is a sentence. No object needed.
Okay, this is a waste of my time. I won't read any more nonsense...PEACE...>>
You are substituting personal abuse and argument by assertion for valid argument. "I allow" is not a grammatically valid sentence, without considering there to be an elliptical object. Instead of admitting that you are wrong, you are simply declaring me to be wrong and then running away.
An observer:
<<I think someone is over-analyzing, it might be you. This is not about arguments, presentations, the messenger, but the message, which seems to be that than is not a preposition, which I do not believe it is myself.
Instead of admitting this, you incessantly attempt to turn the attention on those whose views are grammatical. Let me guess, you're a people-person :| >>
You have come out of nowhere and contributed nothing to this discussion except launching into a personal attack while hypocritically accusing me of engaging in personal attacks. Only in reaction to two suspiciously concurrent attacks have I discussed the people behind them.
Another Guest,
You are too much.
You condemn yourself and accuse others of what YOU are guilty of. This is why you received flack in the first place.
Maybe you should go aside awhile and really contemplate...
That's what some people here on Antimoon do.
Instead of having to deal with the possibility that there is another opinion that may be better than theirs or that what they've tried so hard to do (which is sound like a native english speaker, a point of great personal pride for them), they try to control the situation like they really thought they were best to be in that position of control in the first place. What occurs is that their pride gets offended instead. Oh well. Sorry, but get over it.
It's very apparent that there are a few who, when faced with the likelihood that they are not in control, resort instead to undermining the credibility of the ones whom they feel threatened by (not a real threat indeed, but one perceived in their minds).
Such is the case here, where a poster "goes after" those whom her does not "like" (and does it is logical and orderly a fashion. hmmm). And then accuses them of the actions which he/she commited against them first (hmm). There's no reason for this. This person is capabale if not more so than his would-be victims. So what's the deal? Why the insecurity?
We're talking about "than"
"<<You're wrong, this does work grammatically.>>
No, it doesn't. "Dead" is a strictly non-transitive verb, and cannot be substituted into a sentence that has an object. "
Sorry but "Dead" is not a verb
Yes, I wrote "dead" when I wrote "die". As for all of you sock puppets, I don't see what purpose you see to making a bunch of wild accusations. You haven't presented a single example of me directing my comments towards a poster prior to your attacks.
at least I don't have my girlfriend/boyfriend fight my battles for me
|