In the book I'm reading, the author writes of an argument about the language to use with converts to Judaism. One group of rabbis wanted "Are you ready to sever your allegiance to the religion in which you were born and reared?" Another group argued that isn't it enough to be one with the new religion without disclaiming the old? So, here was the compromise: They now ask converts to "renounce," but not "sever their allegiance to."

To me "renounce" is stronger than "sever your allegiance to." Am I missing something?

Sounds like two ways of saying the same thing to me.

"Denounce" would be even stronger. It seems to me it's just ceasing advocacy.

It's different in Rhode Island.

I think you are right, Asa. I was thinking more of "denounce" than "renounce." Perhaps this way is a compromise.

It does sound harsh to ask new converts to renounce their old religions. But I think the general idea behind it is pretty standard. Even among different denominations of Protestant churches, if you leave one to join another, you must send a letter that amounts to a resignation to the old one before you may join the next. I have done this three or four times in my life. I actually didn't question it. It was more like just moving my membership from one place to another. In fact, that was all it was. Of course, I wasn't asked to state that I gave up the beliefs of the old churches--they were all pretty similar. But it seemed to be a standard formality, so I can understand why a person leaving Christianity for Judaism or Islam would be asked to do the same thing. The word may sound harsh, but it actually reflects the reality of what the person is doing.

Wordmatic

It's an Abrahamic thang. Back in the day (and by "day" I mean "2000 years ago") telling a pagan that he could only have one god was, as Bart Ehrman says, like telling him he could only have one friend.

Presumably those who convert from a monotheistic religion to a polytheistic religion don't have to make any such renunciation.

I recall mentioning this in another thread (which Search doesn't find).
There's a commercial for a denture cleaner where the "dentist" says, "Dentures are different to teeth in that...."
I find this construction a bit odd. I would have said, "Dentures are different, compared to teeth," or, "Dentures are different from teeth."\
Am I alone once more in this grammatical hinterland?

Deleted

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Geoff,

Seems a very odd thread to place a post about dentures, but

No, you are alone. There are quite a lot of people with you out there in the One-Right-Way desert. The rest of us are thinking of building an electrified fence around it to stop you escaping into the real world.

The "different from"/"different to" debate has gone on pointlessly for years. It seems to centre around the idea that there is no logic to "different to" so "different from" should be used. The people out in that desert with you roll their eyes and say in exasperated voices "It's 'similar to' so it's 'different from'". Then I roll my eyes and say inwardly "Oh no, not again."

Trouble is language ain't logic and the "different to" usage is much more common in some regions (UK for example) than the "different from" usage. There is nothing at all wrong with it.

Proof, cast off those prescriptivist shackles. Come out and play in the sunshine.


(Incidentally "Dentures are different, compared to teeth" sounds just plain weird to me but if that's a way some people use the language then so be it.)

Language isn't anarchism. There are accepted rules and practices involved in its use. You are free to ignore the strictures or alter them if you wish but at the risk of appearing illiterate to those who ascribe to such grammatical rules and logic.

Indeed but many of the things that some people think are accepted practices and rules simply aren't.

By far the commonest UK form is "different to" and that makes it the accepted practice so that "different from" is the one that goes against the practice here. Or does "accepted practice" mean "my accepted practice"?

So many of these strictures have been imposed by people who think language should be done their way. It simply isn't true that "different to" is wrong. It never was and it isn't now.

As I said before language isn't logic and it doesn't have to be logical.

Now from your point of view it may "sound wrong" but that doesn't make it wrong. As I said before "different compared to" sounds ludicrous to my ears but, as they say, your mileage may vary and I would never dream of saying it is wrong - just that it sounds weird to me and doesn't form part of my particular idiolect.

"Language isn't anarchism" is one of the standard cries of the prescriptive forces as if they think that my acceptance of "different to" means I would also accept "different in", "different up" and "different banana" as valid options. I don't. I simply don't accept that all of the thou-shallt-not-split-an-infinitive/ thou-shallt-not-dangle-particples/ thou-shallt-not-say-different-to commandments are actually bone fide grammatical rules.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

Language isn't anarchism. There are accepted rules and practices involved in its use. You are free to ignore the strictures or alter them if you wish but at the risk of appearing illiterate to those who ascribe to such grammatical rules and logic.

+1, Bob.

The problem I have with most diktats and ukases from peevers is that they simply get it wrong so many times that the signal-to-noise ratio is too high for me to glean anything from their message. As Bob points out, this there are no rules let anarchy prevail cry is simply a strawman the prescriptivists have foisted upon the rest of us.

Almost everything that they call grammatical rules, I call style choices. Over and over again we see that according to what I learned about grammar in school and by studying languages has little to do with what the Guardians of the Language mean.

Your sentence boils down to aesthetics in the end. Of course we do not want other folks to think we are illiterate, but it has been my observation that folks think ill of other folks for all sorts of reasons, very few of them having to do with facts or reason. For some, speaking with a regional accent is a sign of boorish provincialism and a lack of education. Again, "different from" and "different to" are not grammatical rules but shibboleths by which those who happen to speak and write like the peever are privileged over those who do not. And, descriptivists are not immune to these feelings, we just try not to fool ourselves that these opinions are "correct".

The use of "prescriptivists" vs. "descriptivists" rather reminds me of the difference between "liberals" vs. "conservatives." Many have characteristics of each.

I tried to search Language Log for a "different to"/"different from" discussion, but couldn't find it. I am sure it's there. I often find that a useful "evidence based" site for my clearly 100% prescriptive editors. I love Language Log's historical research proving my editors wrong. One of my editors' biggest bugaboos is ending a sentence with a preposition, and I have sent that piece from Language Log to them. Of course, it makes no difference to them, but it makes me feel better!

david-crystal.blogspot.com is another very good one.

BTW, even my editors aren't 100% prescriptivist. While you can't end any sentence in the entire world with a preposition (in their eyes), they are fine with something like: The nurse gave their stethoscope to the little boy so that he could play (or some such...they'd never say "to play with," of course). They like to avoid "his/her," and I know that is becoming more acceptable. However, I don't much like it.

quote:

even my editors aren't 100% prescriptivist

That's the point. They tend to pick and choose the "rules" to suit the way they want people to write. "You don't use the same rules as me so your English must be wrong".

Agreed, and that's why the labels sometimes don't work.

quote:

Whatever a grammar of a language is, it is largely impervious to human intervention. That is, the really interesting rules and principles are so basic that we cannot do anything at all about them. What we can do is try to influence some of the minor outcomes, for example, try to insist that people say I drank instead of I drunk or It's I instead of It's me. Essentially that is tinkering with matters of no linguistic consequence. To elevate the study of grammar to the task of trying to bring about "correction" in such matters is to trivialize that study. These matters may be of social consequence and often are, but that is a social observation and not a linguistic one, because I drunk and It's me are linguistically on a par with I drank and It's I. Furthermore, it is an observation that tells us much about social organization and the function of trivia in such organization and nothing about the structure of language.

Ronald Wardhaugh, Proper English: Myths and Misunderstandings about Language

Ronald Wardhaugh, Proper English: Myths and Misunderstandings about Language.

A well-written and easily-readable book that should be a part of everybody's library.

Thanks for identifying it, Zmj, because I had wondered. It will become a part of my library!