Different to, than, or from?

@js357 said
Which is correct, or is another word correct after ‘different’?

While at it, which is correct, ‘none of them is here’ or ‘none of them are here’?

Are you trying to start a holy war here?

I tend to think of myself as rather decent at grammar, but there are still certain issues I have...

1) "Jim and I were there."
2) "I and Jim were there."
3) "Jim and me were there."
4) "Me and Jim were there."

Now, I believe (1) and (2) are the correct sentences. But (2) sounds seriously affected and I almost never hear such a thing spoken. Instead of (2) most people go for (4), whereas (1) and (3) are more or less considered normal on the street.

In German it is almost always more clear-cut.

@soothfast said
Are you trying to start a holy war here?

I tend to think of myself as rather decent at grammar, but there are still certain issues I have...

1) "Jim and I were there."
2) "I and Jim were there."
3) "Jim and me were there."
4) "Me and Jim were there."

Now, I believe (1) and (2) are the correct sentences. But (2) sounds seriously affected and I almost never h ...[text shortened]... ) are more or less considered normal on the street.

In German it is almost always more clear-cut.

You are correct.
#1 and #2 are grammatically correct.
#2 is considered impolite.

@handyandy said
Yes, I have several, but none of them is available to display.

They need restoration?

@handyandy said
JS357. He wants our help.

He’s too smart for that, he taunts us with his smarts.

Living language that evolves according to usage is a really important concept. Particularly because it will evolve differently in different regions and therefore, whether intended or not results in selective employment on grounds of perceived correctness. It is only relatively recently that the BBC started to use announcers and link people with regional accents. I was told by a teacher who I would guess trained in the 1950s that she had to do elocution lessons to be able to train in London as a result of a northern accent.

@petewxyz said
Living language that evolves according to usage is a really important concept. Particularly because it will evolve differently in different regions and therefore, whether intended or not results in selective employment on grounds of perceived correctness. It is only relatively recently that the BBC started to use announcers and link people with regional accents. I was told b ...[text shortened]... that she had to do elocution lessons to be able to train in London as a result of a northern accent.

My dad had elocution lessons. He was from Halifax and became a french teacher.

@neilarini said
My dad had elocution lessons. He was from Halifax and became a french teacher.

Exactly. It's like being told that, for example, different use of 'the' that you might get in Yorkshire makes you less fit to teach. It may even make you better at engaging with kids than people who are perceived as doing it the correct way.

Edit: In Lancashire you get 'Will you not be going?'. Is that less correct than 'Won't you be going?'

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You didn't take me as the type that would know much about swinger's lines. 😉

-VR

@very-rusty said
You didn't take me as the type that would know much about swinger's lines. 😉

-VR

Sir, we didn't take you as the type who knew much about anything.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Sir, we didn't take you as the type who knew much about anything.

You might be surprised oh cocky one! 😛 😉

You never seem to speak for yourself. It is always 'we' this or 'we' that, can't you say anything without having a 'we' in it. Who are these people who you call 'we'?

-VR

@very-rusty said
You might be surprised oh cocky one! 😛 😉

You never seem to speak for yourself. It is always 'we' this or 'we' that, can't you say anything without having a 'we' in it. Who are these people who you call 'we'?

-VR

Fair enough.

I didn't take you as the type who knew much about anything.