=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 7, no. 7 (14 January 2002) Editorial mailing list (digest version) Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A [2rc] 'Between' or 'among'? [Offshoot of [2qy] Collective Nouns] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2]-- Q & A -------------------------------------------------- ** [2rc] 'Between' or 'among'? [Offshoot of [2qy] Collective Nouns] Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: Caroline Burns, carolinegburns@hotmail.com Geoff Palmer wrote: > "Ask the pupils to consider and share their views as to whether > differences in detail between the Gospels .. among the gospels, no? ---------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: Victor Dewsbery, translation@dewsbery.de No, betweeen the gospels is right here. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: Caroline Burns, carolinegburns@hotmail.com Why? Because the differences are always between two of the Gospel at any given time? But then we are talking about inconsistencies among them, aren't we? Please explain! ---------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: Hannah Hyam, hhyam@clara.co.uk > > among the gospels, no? > > No, betweeen the gospels is right here. > > Help! Yes, there are more than two! I disagree! (with the first and third comment) I don't think you can ever have differences 'among' things, however many there are. It should always be 'between'. Burchfield/Fowler gives plenty of examples of the correct use of 'between' with more than two. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: Yoel Strimling, yoel@docustar.co.il Just as an FYI, the EnglishPlus! Grammar Slammer on-line (hyphenated, thank you very much) resource says that between is always between two, where as among is three or more: < http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000180.htm > ---------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: Nancy Boston, boston.editorial@ntlworld.com I agree with Hannah that "differences" should nearly always be followed by "between" rather than "among". Stretching a point, you could perhaps say "differences among friends" but this would be in the sense of "disagreements among friends" rather than any physical differences between them. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: Caroline Burns, carolinegburns@hotmail.com But certainly: differences among the details recounted by the several versions of the same event. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: Victor Dewsbery, translation@dewsbery.de Caroline wrote: > Why? Because the differences are always between two of the > Gospel at any given time? But then we are talking about > inconsistencies among them, aren't we? Please explain! I understand it as "between two or more". The word "pair" is specifically restricted to two. So is "couple" in the strict usage. But "between" is not by definition restricted to two (in my view). There are of course cases in which logic restricts it to two (e.g. between 25 and 30 degrees, between 80 and 100 miles etc.). But this does not apply to every use of the word. Yoel wrote: > Just as an FYI, the EnglishPlus! Grammar Slammer on-line > (hyphenated, thank you very much) resource says that between > is always between two, where as among is three or more: In spite of the redeeming feature (the hyphen in on-line), I beg to differ. Of course, that's just between you, me and the gatepost. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: Caroline Burns, carolinegburns@hotmail.com My lovely husband, who does not subscribe to this list, has suggested: differences in the Gospels What make ye of that? ---------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: Victor Dewsbery, translation@dewsbery.de My preference is based on pragmatic semantics, not on grammatical categories. The original reference sentence (... differences between the Gospels...) involves a contrastive element. IMHO, "between" expresses this contrastive element, whereas "among" does not. "in" does not cover the contrastive element, and it is ambiguous in that it could be understood to include differences within the same Gospel. Here we are exchanging views about the form, where I would much rather talk about the content (especially of the Gospels). But that's another story. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: Geoff Palmer, gdp@lineone.net I think I'm right in saying, then, that you'd be happy with both of the following: (a) There were differences of opinion between members of the congregation. (b) There was a consensus amongst the members of the congregation. Sorry to touch upon the among/amongst issue here, if only obliquely. Sentence (a) expresses a contrast/disagreement, whereas (b) expresses a similarity/agreement. I can see this pictorially: in (a), members of the congregation argue in pairs, as it were; while in (b), everyone says "Mmmm" together! ---------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: Judy Stein, jstein@panix.com Yoel Strimling wrote: > Just as an FYI, the EnglishPlus! Grammar Slammer on-line ... > resource says that between is always between two, where as > among is three or more This resource is giving an abbreviated and hence misleading version of the rule. You can compare more than two things, but you can't compare more than two things at one time. You may have a sequence of comparisons--A to B, A to C, B to C, or even A to B and C--but still only two things are being compared at each step in the sequence, hence "between" is required. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: Caroline Burns, carolinegburns@hotmail.com Since the semantic sense of this dispute was (I think) that the Gospels, vary though they do, tell the same unitary story, maybe among -- without the contrastive implication of between -- is afterall the bestest option. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: Victor Dewsbery, translation@dewsbery.de Geoff Palmer wrote, > I think I'm right in saying, then, that you'd be happy with > both of the following: > > (a) There were differences of opinion between members of the > congregation. > > (b) There was a consensus amongst the members of the > congregation. I'm perfectly happy with your examples (a) and (b). In case (a), however, arguing in pairs is only ***one*** of the options. In my mind, they could equally well have been "pulling" in four or five different directions at once -- "between" would be equally appropriate (and among/amongst equally inappropriate) in my view. I would also be happy to say: Nuneaton is between Birmingham, Leicester and Coventry. Any alternatives to that? ---------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: Michael Lewis, mlewis@brandle.com.au Caroline Burns wrote: > among the gospels, no? It's only in the US that the "rule" for "between two, among more than two" is applied rigidly (perhaps I should say rigorously). ---------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: Judy Stein, jstein@panix.com Michael Lewis wrote: > It's only in the US that the "rule" for "between two, among > more than two" is applied rigidly (perhaps I should say > rigorously). It's applied rigidly only by those who don't understand the rule, actually. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: Michael Lewis, mlewis@brandle.com.au But Burchfield/Fowler focuses on British English, and the rigorous use of "among" for more than two elements is very much a US English phenomenon... ---------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu Michael Lewis wrote: > It's only in the US that the "rule" for "between two, among > more than two" is applied rigidly (perhaps I should say > rigorously). It's not applied either rigidly or rigorously here. Some people apparently are taught the overly simplified "rule" that "between" can be used only with two. But any book on (U.S.) English will tell them otherwise. It simply is not a rule--and when I see "among" where "between" is needed, I always suspect an overly zealous editor! Edward D. Johnson says, "_Between_ indicates a relation to two items. . . . _Among_ indicates a relation to more than two items. . . . However, this basic distinction should not be thoughtlessly applied to every occurrence. For example, _between_ is also often correct and sometimes is required when the relation concerns three or more items. . . . [Often] the writer knows the basic distinction between the words and thinks that distinction must be forced on every situation. Inexperienced editors often impose it on writers, too. . . ." In _A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage_, the authors say, "_between_ indicates a relation involving two things, and only two. But it does not follow that we cannot use the word whenever more than two things are mentioned. We say _the difference between the three men_ when we are thinking of each man compared with each of the others, separately and individually. But we would say _the three men quarreled among themselves_ because we are then thinking of them as a group of three, and not as a series of pairs." ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 13 Dec 2001 From: Caroline Burns, carolinegburns@hotmail.com Good. This is information I can rightly grapple with. I would still maintain that among the gospels is correct: we are not comparing Luke with Mark, Mark with John. ("We say _the difference between the three men_ when we are thinking of each man compared with each of the others, separately and individually." see below.) We are thinking of inconsistencies among the four of them. I'm not rigid; I'm right!! ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 13 Dec 2001 From: Simon Cauchi, cauchi@wave.co.nz Sorry, but you are mistaken. The article on the (three) synoptic gospels in the Oxford Companion to the Bible argues the three main competing theories about them all meet the conditions "that there must be a literary connection *between* the Greek texts, and that Mark has a position in the middle" (p. 727, l.h. col., under "Concluding comments"). See also the OED, between, V. 19: "In all senses, _between_ has been, from its earliest appearance, extended to more than two. [...] It is still the only word available to express the relation of a thing to many surrounding things severally and individually, _among_ expressing a relation to them collectively and vaguely: we should not say 'the space lying among the three points,' or 'a treaty among three powers,' or 'the choice lies among the three candidates in the select list,' or 'to insert a needle among the closed petals of a flower.'" However, you're in good company. The OED quotations include these two from Dr Johnson: 1755 Johnson Dict., _Between_ is properly used of two, and _among_ of more; but perhaps this accuracy is not always preserved. 1771 Johnson in Boswell (1826) II. 127, I..hope, that, between publick business, improving studies, and domestick pleasures, neither melancholy nor caprice will find any place for entrance. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 13 Dec 2001 From: Michael Lewis, mlewis@brandle.com.au Caroline, please don't think I was aiming at you when I said "rigidly". I'm as pleased as you are to see Jane Lyle's clarification; it's a long time since I was first introduced to the "'rigid' US usage", and I'm happy to say that I can't remember where I saw it, because obviously I was misled! (Mind you, in Britain or Australia we would still say "between the Gospels"; "among" is simply not used as a synonym -- more or less -- for "between". We might say "there are divided opinions among the committee", but we would say "the committee is divided between those who want to do X, those who prefer Y, and those who don't understand the problem". After Jane's input, I suspect that the latter would also be preferred US usage.) ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 13 Dec 2001 From: Caroline Burns, carolinegburns@hotmail.com I believe all your examples involve conjoined immediate comparisons. A and B differ thus, B and C, thisway. In the given example: the gospels, of which there are four, differ from each other, as a group. Face it, y'all: I'm right. (The mere fact that the Oxford Companion is talking about the gospels in one context does not mean that their usage applies to every mention -- does it?) ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 13 Dec 2001 From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu Michael Lewis wrote: > (Mind you, in Britain or Australia we would still say "between > the Gospels"; "among" is simply not used as a synonym -- more > or less -- for "between". We might say "there are divided > opinions among the committee", but we would say "the committee > is divided between those who want to do X, those who prefer Y, > and those who don't understand the problem". After Jane's > input, I suspect that the latter would also be preferred US > usage.) Yep! When I went home last night, I checked to see what Bernstein (a U.S. grammarian) had to say in his old classic The Careful Writer: "If Miss Thistlebottom taught you in elementary school that _between_ applies to two things and _among_ to more than two, she probably knew what she was doing: She was making things easy for herself. It is simpler to lay down a rule than to try to stimulate discriminating thinking, particularly in a school class that ranges from blockheads to eggheads. _Among_, to be sure, applies to more than two things, but the relationship it expresses is usually a rather loose one. When three or more things are brought into a relationship severally and reciprocally, _between_ is proper. In the following passage _between_ would be better than _among_: 'Apart from discussions among Washington, Paris, and London on the prospective conference . . .' The idea of two is inherent etymologically in the word _between_, but so is it inherent in the discussions here referred to: The meetings were being held by Washington and Paris, by Paris and London, by London and Washington. Similarly, to speak of a treaty _between_ nine powers would be completely proper and exact. When the relationship is looser, _among_ is the proper word: 'War reparations were distributed among the nine victorious powers." ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 13 Dec 2001 From: Judy Stein, jstein@panix.com Caroline Burns wrote: > I believe all your examples involve conjoined immediate > comparisons. A and B differ thus, B and C, thisway. In the > given example: the gospels, of which there are four, differ > from each other, as a group. But they *can't* differ from one another "as a group." That's the point. You can see that they differ from one another only by comparing individual members of the group to each other, one at a time. Those comparisons may all be telescoped into one *statement*, but the act of comparing takes place one by one, and that's what mandates the use of "between" rather than "among." OK, here's a new fine point offered up for communal niggling: Does anyone else observe the rule I was taught, and which is demonstrated in the above paragraph, that "each other" refers to two and "one another" to more than two? (I'm sure there's a better way of stating this rule...) ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 13 Dec 2001 From: Caroline Burns, carolinegburns@hotmail.com We've neglected the necessary starting point, haven't we? What are the differences? Flat out contrasts? or slight inconsistencies? Are we talking A v. B or A is different from B, C, and D.? Yes of course you are right. The gospels differ from one another. There are differences among them. (Really, this still seems right!) ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 13 Dec 2001 From: Victor Dewsbery, translation@dewsbery.de Jane Lyle wrote: > When I went home last night, I checked to see what Bernstein > (a U.S. grammarian) had to say in his old classic The Careful > Writer: > > . . . . . . .' The idea of two is inherent etymologically > in the word _between_, I get the definite impression that we are dealing with a specific phenomenon of U.S. English here. The logical tricks used to "find excuses" for using "between" when more than two items are being compared sound rather strange to my ears (along the lines of "between A, B and C really means single and separate comparisons between A and B, B and C and C and A, otherwise we would have to say among"). I wonder how this logic could be applied to the following examples from the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary: "Switzerland is between France, Germany, Italy and Austria". "She divided the money equally between her four children". I find it linguistically fascinating to observe the strictness of U.S. grammar at this point -- and the fact that "among" seems to have a wider meaning to many U.S. colleagues than it does in British English. All of you are right -- but I'm right, too. Each of us within our own (perhaps largely national) frame of reference. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 13 Dec 2001 From: Judy Stein, jstein@panix.com Victor Dewsbery wrote: > I get the definite impression that we are dealing with a > specific phenomenon of U.S. English here. The logical tricks > used to "find excuses" for using "between" when more than two > items are being compared sound rather strange to my ears ... But that's the reality of the situation when one is doing comparisons. It's logically impossible--*physically* impossible--to make comparisons other than serially between two items. You have to consider the actual process. It's not a "logical trick" or an "excuse," it's what this application of the rule is based on to start with. > I wonder how this logic could be applied to the following > examples from the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary: > > "Switzerland is between France, Germany, Italy and Austria". This isn't distributive, it's about physical location, so it's a different use of the term altogether. You couldn't possibly use "among." > "She divided the money equally between her four children". Huh, here I'd use "among." ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 13 Dec 2001 From: Caroline Burns, carolinegburns@hotmail.com As accounts of Jesus' life, the gospels differ. Do these differences weaken believability or add to it? "When three or more things are brought into a relationship severally and reciprocally" between is correct. But as we are comparing four accounts of the same events, the gospels are not being held up severally and reciprocally. They are being discussed as a group. I'm amazed at the speedy resort to anti-school-marmary tactics evidenced by this discussion. Who was teased as a child? ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 13 Dec 2001 From: Judy Stein, jstein@panix.com Caroline Burns wrote: > Yes of course you are right. The gospels differ from one > another. There are differences among them. (Really, this still > seems right!) It doesn't click with you that differences can be discerned only serially, between one item and another, and not group-wise? The *conclusion* that they all differ from one another after such serial comparisons may seem to suggest "among," but that isn't what determines which term to use; it's the nature of the process by which one arrives at the conclusion that's determinative. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 13 Dec 2001 From: Geoffrey D. Palmer, gdp@lineone.net I can't express your "each other"/"one another" rule in a better way, but I'd go along with it. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF EDline 7.7 EDline homepage: < http://www.electriceditors.net/edline/ > ** The views expressed in this mailing list are strictly those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the moderators or of the Electric Editors. ** Articles (c) 2001, 2002, by individual contributors Design (c) 1996--2002 Iain Brown Compilation (c) 2002, Iain Brown / The Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=