Gherson2

testing

Grammar

"key difference of the sieve" is actually not grammatical in that context -- a difference has valence 2, while you're giving it valence 1. If you insist on using this phrasing, please change it so it's grammatical. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow you -- the difference is clearly between two items: the sieve and trial division. Gherson2 (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is contextually clear -- in fact this is why I think there's no reason to include the extra wording. But if you're going to include it, you can't write it the way it is now or it ungrammatically claims the difference for one of the two not both. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow you. x - y = the difference. I don't see where "ungrammatically claiming the difference for one of the two not both" x and y fits into a normal definition of "difference". Can you make your case based on the semantics of what's being said please? Gherson2 (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Key difference of X" is ungrammatical (valence 1). "Key difference between X and Y" is grammatical (valence 2). But since in this case the objects are clear (as you said yourself!) I would omit them. But in any case you can't just omit one, it's both or neither. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"key difference of the [X] from using [Y]", the current wording, is valence 2, then, by your definition (X and Y are in the sentence, correctly referenced). Meanwhile, you've been claiming "you're giving it valence 1", a contradiction. As for my saying the objects are clear, yes, they are clear when X and Y are in the sentence. Gherson2 (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That would hold if it used "between" rather than "of", but it does not. It it was rephrased "This is the key difference between the sieve and trial division" it would be grammatical, though pedantic. But as written it's not grammatical at all. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that there is any grammar or clarity or style problem with "difference of X from Y" but your suggestion is fine, i will change it now. This has not been a good use of our time, however. Gherson2 (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, i was not able to find a reformulation that is as good as what's there now. Gherson2 (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably best would be a rewrite of the paragraph removing the need for that sentence in its present form. But certainly it should not stay as it is! It's a perfect trifecta of redundant + ungrammatical + wordy at the moment. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, excuse my intrusion, as I'm an unfortunate party to this too. :) Although all I ever got from the other editor in this matter was a dismissal and unexplained reversal after another, never even this simple explanation. I guess in their eyes i'm not worthy of any explnations since I usually dont agree and they mistake it for dismissal on my part. It was easier for them to make a dozen reversals than just saying "difference ... between" to me. But anyway,

dailywritingtips.com says,

According to the entry for different from, different to, different than at Bartleby.com,

"These three have been usage items for many years. All are Standard and have long been so (different to is limited to British English, however), but only different from seems never to meet objections."

I guess, there's a first time for anything. :) My attempt at rephrasing is at my sandbox, but it's even "wordier". My original version of the lead is here. Best, WillNess (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, a yeoman's effort. But this is way beyond my interest, which is to be clear and correct enough that a large majority of well-educated native speakers would not correctly object. I think we're already there. Gherson2 (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)