Talk:Than

VfD
This article was listed on VfD, as it resembled a dictionary definition at an earlier stage in its history. The page was improved and kept. Here is the archived debate:

Than

 * Dicdef --Rlandmann 05:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - dicdef - Texture 14:14, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think we should allow dicdefs to be speedy-deletion candidates. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:49, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Information on contested issues of English usage is valuable and encyclopedic.  Smerdis of Tlön 17:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Expanded with etymologies, reworded. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, transwiki to Wikipedia where its new expanded form will fit well. Warofdreams 18:19, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a description of language, not a dictionary definition. Jamesday 00:36, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This gives encyclopedic information that cannot be found in a dictionary. --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Devoid of content?
While much is made of the common confusion with then, and the word's status as both a preposition and conjunction, the article contains basically nothing about the word and its function in relation to the rest of the English language. After reading the article, I was left with the feeling that it said very little. While I'm not an expert, as an English speaker, I get the impression that than is a rather fundamental word, but the article as it currently stands doesn't shed much light on this. Karatorian (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, one could argue that it would be preferable to have a comprehensive functional grammar entry than entries on each particle or class of words -- but given the existence of people (numerous in English) who like to niggle over precise prescriptive usage, this article does at least lay out (I think) the basic issue rather better than most grammar handbooks I've seen. As a professor of English who has taught a course in grammar at the college level for fifteen years, I've seen quite a few! Clevelander96 (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just had an argument with my girlfriend about this. It's a worthy discussion, though since it is obviously a preposition, you would think the debate would have been settled. --69.181.183.140 (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Need for more counter-examples?

I have inserted the following at the end, but more counter-examples could clearly be helpful to readers:

In certain cases, one may simply consider the result of replacing a noun with a pronoun, as in going from "She loves Tom more than Bill" to "She loves Tom more than him." If one insists in this case that than is a conjunction (requiring the nominative case), one winds up with "She loves Tom more than he," a usage which is both awkward and misleading. Insisting, as Robert Lowth did, that than is always a conjunction requiring the nominative case thus seems both arbitrary and erroneous.

Landrumkelly (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Than is not a preposition
When native English speakers say "he is bigger than me", they are not using than prepositionally. The same linguistic phenomenon that produces the constructions "him and me are both big" and "it's me" also produces this construction. The pattern is standard in French and Italian. It can be explained thus: Whenever a pronoun is disconnected from its verb, it takes a special case. In English, that case coincides with the objective case. With this view, "he and I are" is illogical because neither he nor I are subjects of are. It's something like a contraction of "they who comprise him and me are". The non-linguistic (i.e., non-scientific) grammarians accept "it's me" and "me, I'm the person" but inconsistently reject "it's bigger than me" and "the book and me are". Consequently, English-language etiquette is further removed from linguistics.

The relevancy of this to the article? Facts about conjunctive and prepositional thans in foreign languages could be added to the article.70.225.65.90 (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am a linguist, but would add that, even within linguistics, there are differing explicative models -- proscriptive, descriptive, generative, and so on -- which regard such constructions differently. English, a hybrid of Germanic and Romance language structures, is so full of inconsistencies even in its most formal incarnation, is not a language where consistency per se has much force.  A great many speakers of English apparently regard "than" as a preposition, or (more accurately) use it as such.  Whereas (in your example) "it's me," I would say that this sounds so artificial, so false to natural-language English speakers that to say "it is I" provokes laughter in my classroom.  So,  if we are going to keep up this entry it seems to me that the descriptivist view should have as much weight as purportedly more "scientific" ones. Clevelander96 (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My thesis is that the constructions "him and me are", "he's bigger than me" and "it's me" are all part of the same linguistic phenomenon. Grammarians have conceded the last construction, are conceding the second and will probably concede the first. English has evolved a new pronoun class which is identical in form to the objective pronouns. Than as a preposition is a contrived explanation for the construction, made by English grammarians with a narrow view of grammar.70.225.65.90 (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this page is not the right space to debate larger philosophical issues -- it is only for comments about how to present information in the entry about "than." But in point of historical fact, until Bishop Lowth opined on the issue in the 18th century, everyone -- from Shakespeare to Milton -- employed "than" as a preposition.  It was only Lowth's claim that cast this common usage in doubt, and I believe this ought to be addressed in the entry somehow, whatever your and my opinions about same. Clevelander96 (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't understand my point. I was clarifying. You are wrong about Shakespeare. You can search his plays at www.rhymezone.com/shakespeare/. Search "than me", there are only three occurences. Two clearly appropriately use the objective case ("you love warwick more than [you love] me"); one apparently uses than "prepositonally" ("charges she more than me?") but, taken in context, is there, too, appropriately in the objective case ("charges she [your husband] more than [she charges] me?"). Conversely, "than I" is markedly common (one example: "no honester than i.") The example provided in the article ("a man no mightier than thyself or me") may be the only example in Shakespeare of "prepositional" than.70.225.65.90 (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, one could argue that Shakespeare didn't use anything as a "preposition" because no one at that time had written a grammar of English -- but the debate we are having here is centuries old; see this apt summary in Merriam-Webster's Handbook of English Usage or this  which offers not only Shakespeare, but Johnson, Richardson, Goldsmith, Milton, Hazlitt, Dickens, and many other using "than" as a preposition.  But what is the question here is not whether we should settle this debate (we can't) but rather how we should represent it, and document it, in the article. Clevelander96 (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, I was discussing phenomena, not terms. When Shakespeare says "honester than I", he's using than conjunctively. Shakespeare overwhelmingly uses than as a conjunction (i.e., he follows than with verbless subject pronouns frequently). I suspect the same is true for Milton. The article gives a false impression of Shakespeare's usage: The cited example is the only instance of "prepositional than". It could be better understood as an error comparable to using whomever in "I'll love whomever loves me". Second, I ' m not discussing whether "prepositional than" is correct. I'm discussing--citing similar phenomena in foreign languages--whether the analysis of the construction as a prepositional phrase is correct. A similar controversy surrounds "prepositional and" as in "the man and me are". This is more obviously a wrong analysis because for whomever "the man and me are" is natural, so too is "him and me are". Where is the preposition in "him and me are"? In French, "him and me are" and "bigger than me" are established while "he and I are" and "bigger than I" are incorrect. They're established in vernacular English, too. But schoolmarms force a pidgin of Early Modern English and Modern English on their pupils.  My view is an original one. Then again, it might not be. A language scientist aware of a reference of the view I've presented here should participate in the discussion or add the reference to the article. Naturally, the common view absolutely should be presented in the article. But to give readers a fuller linguistic view, information on than usage in foreign languages and analogous controversies should be included.70.225.65.90 (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whenever English speakers say "bigger than me", than still registers as a conjunction and me as a subject pronoun. Here's a similar situation: "He will pay with cash; and me [=I will], too." English has simply evolved to have a third pronoun class of "verbally orphaned nominatives" beside subjective and objective pronouns.70.225.65.90 (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that the cited quote from Shakespeare is, in the context of your voluminous list, clearly an anomaly. But the range of authors who have written similarly is broad enough that I don't think the position of the article should be that than is not a preposition but rather that than has been regarded, by different writers and grammarians, as both a preposition and conjunction.   And please do not remove properly sourced parts of the entry based on discussions here -- if it would be better to place such comments in a section on, say,Historical attitudes to the usage of "than", then by all means move them,but they are properly sourced from reliable printed sources.  I am going to recuse myself from any other work on this article for now. Clevelander96 (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't find in your references any substantiation of "Before Lowth's assertion, than was more commonly taken to govern the oblique case". You've removed "more", leaving a weaselly "commonly". The references substantiate neither that Lowth instigated a revolution nor that "prepositional than" was noteworthily common (among writers, that is) before Lowth's commentary. Lowth may have been speaking to common errors (similar to our "between you and I"), rather than speaking to our present situation (an endemic grammatical shift, not just an easily made error). Please prove the references substantiate the line they follow, as by quoting the pertinent sentence. 70.225.65.90 (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel no need to provide evidence for facts which are quite well-known in my field of academic training -- I have added multiple references, but can't afford to spend hours providing further sources to satisfy a single anonymous user when the actual significance of this entry is as small as it is. I hope my students, and others, will consult reliable reference works rather than turning to the Wikipedia for this issue. I wil not contribute any further to this entry; you may of course edit it as you wish -- it is, after all, the encyclopedia anyone can edit.  Clevelander96 (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for further references. I'm asking you to point out where in your already given references is it substantiated that (1) than "commonly" took oblique pronouns before the 18th century as opposed to "occasionally" and "commonly but erroneously" and that (2) Lowth is responsible for diminishing the commonness of "prepositional than". (I'm the IP-address contributor above.) macjacobus (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a philosophical question here, as to whether a writer can indeed commit something we can call an "error" when writing in a vernacular language that, as Dante once remarked of Italian, is learned by imitation and thus sine omnia regula. There can be variations in usage, surely, but who is to say which are "correct"?  Your examples from Shakespeare show that, in the vast majority of cases, he did use "than" in a manner consistent with Lowth's later view that it ought to be treated as a conjunction, but this could not have been a conscious choice, as he had no notion that there was a "rule" at stake -- he was inconsistent (even if only rarely) -- something perhaps to be expected from a man who spelled his own name six different ways in the six signatures he made on his Will.  Lowth was one of a class of men who felt that inconsistency was inelegant, and sought to "purify" and "refine" English speech -- that is, to make it more like Latin.  In the words of former New York Times Book Review editor Patricia O'Connor, "From the mid-eighteenth century, writers routinely used "than" with whatever personal pronoun sounded best the them … common sense reigned, and everything was fine and dandy.  Some Latinist was bound to take notice, and some Latinist did. Enter Robert Lowth, the fellow who helped popularize the myth that it's wrong to end a sentence with a preposition. In his Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762), Lowth decreed that "than" should be treated as a conjunction, not a preposition, when followed by a personal pronoun.  Never mind Shakespeare, Milton, and all the rest.  Lowth must have had a hang-up about prepositions.  At any rate, his pronouncement, like so many others dreamed up by Latinists, caught on.  To this day, millions of educated people use "than" as a preposition too.  And the more sensible authorities are on their side. "Than is both a preposition and a conjunction," says Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage." (Origins of the Specious: Myths and Misconceptions of the English Language‎ - pp. 40-41).  But beyond O'Connor's point (which I've added as a reference in the main entry), I think all this shows the deep problems with the "parts of speech" model of English grammar, and the enormous advantages of a functionalist approach, within which it's perfectly possible to say that than can be used as a conjunction and a preposition. Clevelander96 (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare agrees with Lowth
Robert Lowth did not invent "conjunctive than". Lowth's view of what pronouns should follow than is consistent with Shakespeare's: And some more: And still more: I think we know what follows: Compare the above (incomplete) citations to the single counterexample ("a man no mightier than thyself or me" [Julius Caesar: I, iii]), which may vary well be a simple error instigated by the complexity of the phrasing. 70.225.65.90 (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "And could command no more content than I?" (King Henry VI, part II: IV, ix)
 * "But you have done more miracles than I;" (King Henry VI, part II: II, i)
 * "there are other men fitter to go out than I." (King Henry IV, part II: III, ii )
 * "Though no man lesser fears the greeks than I" (Toilus and Cressida: II, ii)
 * "Then is he more beholding to you than I."(King Richard III: III, i)
 * "The villain is much lighter-heel'd than I:" (A Midsummer Night's Dream: III, ii)
 * "That is an old man and no honester than I." (Much Ado About Nothing: III, v)
 * "There's none stands under more calumnious tongues than I myself, poor man." (King Henry VIII: V, i)
 * "No contraries hold more antipathy than I and such a knave." (King Lear: II, ii)
 * "But that the tennis-court-keeper knows better than I;" (King Henry IV, part II: II, ii)
 * "Senseless linen! happier therein than I!" (Cymbeline: I, iii)
 * "No worse than I, upon some agreement" (The Taming of the Shrew: IV, iv)
 * "More womanly than he;" (Antony and Cleopatra: I, iv)
 * "More wit than he," (The Two Gentlemen of Verona: IV, iv)
 * "That caesar is more dangerous than he:" (Julius Caesar: II, ii)
 * "shall he be worshipp'd of that we hold an idol more than he?" (Toilus and Cressida: II, iii)
 * "Not better than he, by her own report." (Measure for Measure: V, i)
 * "No, nor a man that fears you less than he," (Coriolanus: I, iv)
 * "'tis better thee without than he within." (Macbeth: III, iv)
 * "I think he is: but a greater soldier than he you wot on." (Coriolanus: IV, v) [Note: He is used here incorrectly. It is the object of on and therefore should be him.]
 * "for my soul, yet I know not why, hates nothing more than he." (As You Like It: I, i)
 * "Do fructify in us more than he." (Love's Labour's Lost: IV, ii)
 * "If I would sell my horse, and buy twenty more better than he," (Timon of Athens: II, i)
 * "That thou her maid art far more fair than she:" (Romeo and Juliet: II, ii)
 * "By this reckoning he is more shrew than she." (The Taming of the Shrew: IV, i)
 * "less noble mind than she" (Antony and Cleopatra: IV, xiv)
 * "You are a thousand times a properer man than she a woman:" (As You Like It: III, v)
 * "Am I not an inch of fortune better than she?" (Antony and Cleopatra: I, ii)
 * "Curster than she? why, 'tis impossible." (The Taming of the Shrew: III, ii)
 * "To show less sovereignty than they," (Cymbeline: III, v)
 * "He that no more must say is listen'd more than they whom youth and ease have taught to glose;" (King Richard II: II, i)
 * "From rascals worse than they." (Coriolanus: I, vi)
 * "By being worse than they." (Cymbeline: V, v)
 * "Because thy flinty heart, more hard than they," (King Henry VI, part II: III, ii)

Some clarification
It's incorrect to say that conjunctions govern the nominative case. Conjunctions govern no case--that's the point. Lowth would agree that "she loves him more than me" is correct when the comparison is between objects (of "she loves"), but not when the comparison's between an object and a subject (of an implicit "love"). 70.225.65.90 (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside view
Hi all; I'm responding to a request for editor assistance by Clevelander96 over at WP:EAR. I'm not here to mediate or be neutral (though I'm not here to take sides either). I just want to help clear up this disagreement and maybe improve the article while we're at it. My background is in linguistics, and though I'm a bit out of practice and definitely not as well read as you both are, I think I can keep up with what's going on here. I'm sorry if what follows is a bit long and repetitive, but I'm hoping to address as much of the above as possible in this single post.

What I'm getting out of the above discussion is that the IP editor (Macjacobus now?) is asserting a number of claims not consistent with what the current sources say. Indeed Mac, I'm drawn to the statement that your view might be an original one; this isn't consistent with Wikipedia policy, and the burden of evidence lies upon you to provide a source for that view if you want it represented in the article. Working from examples of phenomena, such as what we can find in a corpus of Shakespeare's works, is also original research; Wikipedia is generally only supposed to reflect what's already been published in reliable secondary sources. What you attribute as evidence of your own view could very well be the result of errors in transcription, or even unintentional writing mistakes by Shakespeare himself. A similar problem goes for comparisons to other languages- though if the view has been published, we may want to reflect on it in the article.

Removing sourced statements is a problem as well. If a statement isn't supported by the provided source, we should change the statement to reflect the source. If the provided source is blatantly wrong, we should find a new source. If the provided source doesn't represent the academic consensus, we should find that consensus in a source and give it due weight. If there are multiple viewpoints with no clear academic consensus, we should discuss them all giving them all due weight.

The bottom line is that we need sources for everything that is challenged or likely to be challenged, even (or perhaps especially) for things that academics might consider obvious. Wikipedia is intended to be written as a reference for the general population. While that doesn't mean that we dumb things down, it definitely means that we make as few assumptions as possible about our readers.

I also saw that Cleavelander96 mentioned that articles on individual parts of speech may be inappropriate. I strongly agree with this view, with the caveat that a particular part of speech with a well-documented history may merit an article for the primary purpose of recounting this history (and secondary purpose of presenting a summarized account of the linguistics that are covered in a parent article). That said, I'm not sure what the proper parent article would be (though I imagine English grammar would be its parent article in turn).

Anyhow, I hope this helps facilitate an understanding about where to go with this article, or at least gets us all on the same page. I've got this article watchlisted and will try to keep an eye on things and help out as need be. If you want additional outside help, you might want to try leaving a message at WT:LING, which is the talk page for the Linguistics WikiProject. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked Clevelander96 to prove his references substantiate the claim in the article. I can search the references, but can't find the substantiation. That's a fair request. (Calling it "combative" is taking it personally.) Moreover, Clevelander96 responded to my posts without carefully considering them, prompting further clarification from me. That's fair, too. Yes, my view may be original. But I never asked for it to be included in the article unsourced. I think it's a valuable perspective that could eventually improve the article. Actual linguistic references, as opposed to English-language etiquette references, likely comment on English's evolving to have a French pronoun system. I don't have much access to these references. The article Disjunctive pronouns comments on my view without mentioning the specific case of conjunctions as than. This strongly suggests that my view is not original but sourceable.  You've misunderstood why I referenced Shakespeare. No source claims Shakespeare uses than mostly or exclusively prepositonally. I've proven that claim false in the talk page for the benefit of the editor(s) who added it to article. The explicit or implicit claim that Shakespeare uses than mostly or exclusively prepositionally is spurious and definitely should not be in the article without a clear, reliable source. The same is true for Samuel Johnson's usage. As the article is, it implies Shakespeare and Johnson used than prepositionally mostly or primarily.  I don't think it is correct that the relevancy of information must be explicitly stated in a reliable source. Different criteria determine relevancy. Naturally, if I'm wrong, please clarify. The ridiculously-analyzed "prepositional and" (which is discussed in several usage commentaries, as The New Oxford American Dictionary ' s) is so analogous it is arguably relevant. How foreign languages contruct comparisons is also relevant: It's what the article's section "Case of pronouns following than" is about. macjacobus (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: I asked for a third party primarily because it seemed to me that Macjacobus and I were starting to ping-pong -- it was not quite an edit war, but it felt as though it could be headed that way, and I hoped that a cooler head or two would "head" that off. In response to Macjacobus's concerns, I did take the time to locate, and cite, a much more specific reference giving an account of Lowth's view and its influence.  And I was actually grateful to see the Shakespeare quotes (a few of which, just to be sure, I checked against my facsimile of the First Folio), which showed that the oft-cited passage in Julius Caesar was in fact an anomaly.  So I think things are getting back on track here, and welcome the involvement of anyone from the Linguistics group.  However "than" is categorized, I think that the larger issue, of whether WP should use the old "parts of speech" model, or more contemporary linguistic models, or both, is an important question, especially for a language as riddled with inconsistencies as is English.  Many thanks to Mendaliv (can't replicate that typography) for the comments and suggestions!  Clevelander96 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the slow response, folks; the last week has been a bit busy. In response to Macjacobus, I think it's fair to ask one editor to show how a reference supports a statement if you can't understand how the reference supports the statement yourself. It's definitely a route to improving wording or (I'm not saying this is the case) finding mistakes and errors. I would also agree that it's a good thing to have references to academic linguistics references, rather than prescriptivist style guides, especially when discussing historical and "non-standard" usage. That said, it's important to give due weight to these prescriptivist views when they are well-regarded in the language (e.g., what's generally taught in schools). As to your view, I admit it's possible that it's been covered. But I'm not sure where to look for it either. The people at WikiProject Linguistics might be more helpful, but I just don't know.
 * If I understand you correctly, with respect to Shakespeare, you mean to say that we shouldn't be using examples at all? I'll definitely agree to that (per WP:SYN) with one caveat: if a reliable source describing a particular phenomenon gives us an example, we would be following that source if we reproduced the example. That is to say, if a reliable source says Shakespeare used than primarily in one way and provides an example, it's probably OK for us to reproduce that example. I'm not sure if that's happening here, but I hope that provides a guide for further work.
 * You're right that there are other criteria by which we can judge relevancy- typically with competing views you give weight to the one with the most coverage, while still providing weight to major alternative views. It's all about sources in the end.
 * As to Clevelander's response; I think the Linguistics WikiProject is definitely the next step. A discussion at their talk page may spark off something. Best of luck folks! &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)