Talk:Than

message: 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)
thread_title:  VfD 

message: *Dicdef --Rlandmann 05:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Than]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Devoid of content? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ''Than'' is not a preposition

message: Robert Lowth did not invent "conjunctive than". Lowth's view of what pronouns should follow than is consistent with Shakespeare's:
* "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)
And some more:
* "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)
And still more:
* "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)
I think we know what follows:
* "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)
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)
thread_title: Shakespeare agrees with Lowth

message: 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)
thread_title: Some clarification