I have long been a stickler in preferring the idiom one another for interaction between three or more, while reserving each other for interaction between exactly two.
Even though this little nicety supposedly harks back to fussbudgets of the 18th Century, I reject my former preference on grounds of logic. The phrase one another appears to be a contraction of "one and other," which, when applied to three individuals, must have arisen as a slurring of "one and others."
Observe that often modern translations of John 13:35 tell Christians to "love one another." But the King James Bible has
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
In any case, I prefer to use between when two individuals hold something in common, whether in a spatial, temporal or personal sense. For three or more I would ordinarily use among. "There was love between the two of them" but "There was love among the three of them."
The etymology of between supports my preference, as does normal usage. The word in Old English means literally “by the two, near both.”
But, hold up! According to Wiktionary, the Old English forms betwēonan, betwēonum were also used for the concepts among, amid, in the midst, meanwhile.
Yet, says Wiktionary, among derives from Old English amang, onġemang. It is equivalent to a- + mong (crowd, group, throng).1 So on that basis, I think it safe to preserve custom of assigning between to a twosome of some sort, while reserving among for groups of three or more.
1. Thus I guessed that monger meant, not salesperson but rather was closer to someone who works the crowd. Wiktionary reports however that the word tracks back to Middle English mongere, mangere, which in turn harks back to Old English mangere (merchant, trader, dealer), which is related to Old English mangian (to trade, to traffic). Looking farther back, we have from Proto-Germanic mangōną, the Latin mangō (dealer, trader). It is conjectured that the lineage extends through the Ancient Greek μάγγανον (pronounced mánganon and meaning contrivance, means of enchantment), to the Proto-Indo-European mang (to embellish, dress, trim).
¶ Even so, it is not impossible that a number of Old English speakers made the association of monger and crowd.
1a. In his book Logic for Mathematicians (Chelsea Publishing 1978, McGraw Hill 1953), J. Barkley Rosser cautions against the word any. "Sometimes any means each and sometimes it means some. Thus, sometimes "for any x..." means (x) and sometimes "for any x..." means (Ex)."
¶ [Note: (x) is an old-fashioned way to denote ∀x and (Ex) is Barkley's way of denoting ∃x.]
¶ After giving an ambiguous example, Rosser says, "If one wishes to be sure that one will be understood, one should never use any in a place where either each or some can be used. For instance, "I will not violate any law." The statement "I will not violate each law" has quite a different meaning, and the statement, "I will not violate some law" might be interpreted to mean that there is a particular law which I am determined not to violate.
"Nonetheless," says Rosser, "many writers use any in places where each or some would be preferable."
Even though this little nicety supposedly harks back to fussbudgets of the 18th Century, I reject my former preference on grounds of logic. The phrase one another appears to be a contraction of "one and other," which, when applied to three individuals, must have arisen as a slurring of "one and others."
Observe that often modern translations of John 13:35 tell Christians to "love one another." But the King James Bible has
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
That is, "...if you show love from one to an other. " Logical. And it means the same as "if you have love for each other."
Each other seems to imply two by virtue of the minor distinctions among each, every and all,1a which are not worth going into here but which anyone who has taken a bit of set theory knows are distinctions that don't amount to much. This is why the phrase each and every might convey an impression of two kinds of procedure but the distinction is so trivial as to make the phrase a pompous redundancy.
Moreover, consider that we might prefer, "He spoke to every other person" but would be hard put not to accept, "He spoke to each other person." The point is that in this case each other could well apply to three or more.
Now if we say, "They spoke with each other," we are talking about members of a group. We have not specified that the group is limited to two persons. What is happening with the purists is that they can only imagine that one person holds a dialogue (di=two) with one and only one other, and vice versa. But why does this exclude various pairs of persons interacting at different times? The time element is usually left implicit, being conveyed by the context.
So to me, "They spoke with (or "to") one another" is less logical and less precise than "They spoke with each other." Of course, if you are used to the idea that the latter sentence implies only one pair, then that locution is less precise.
Each other seems to imply two by virtue of the minor distinctions among each, every and all,1a which are not worth going into here but which anyone who has taken a bit of set theory knows are distinctions that don't amount to much. This is why the phrase each and every might convey an impression of two kinds of procedure but the distinction is so trivial as to make the phrase a pompous redundancy.
Moreover, consider that we might prefer, "He spoke to every other person" but would be hard put not to accept, "He spoke to each other person." The point is that in this case each other could well apply to three or more.
Now if we say, "They spoke with each other," we are talking about members of a group. We have not specified that the group is limited to two persons. What is happening with the purists is that they can only imagine that one person holds a dialogue (di=two) with one and only one other, and vice versa. But why does this exclude various pairs of persons interacting at different times? The time element is usually left implicit, being conveyed by the context.
So to me, "They spoke with (or "to") one another" is less logical and less precise than "They spoke with each other." Of course, if you are used to the idea that the latter sentence implies only one pair, then that locution is less precise.
In any case, I prefer to use between when two individuals hold something in common, whether in a spatial, temporal or personal sense. For three or more I would ordinarily use among. "There was love between the two of them" but "There was love among the three of them."
The etymology of between supports my preference, as does normal usage. The word in Old English means literally “by the two, near both.”
But, hold up! According to Wiktionary, the Old English forms betwēonan, betwēonum were also used for the concepts among, amid, in the midst, meanwhile.
Yet, says Wiktionary, among derives from Old English amang, onġemang. It is equivalent to a- + mong (crowd, group, throng).1 So on that basis, I think it safe to preserve custom of assigning between to a twosome of some sort, while reserving among for groups of three or more.
1. Thus I guessed that monger meant, not salesperson but rather was closer to someone who works the crowd. Wiktionary reports however that the word tracks back to Middle English mongere, mangere, which in turn harks back to Old English mangere (merchant, trader, dealer), which is related to Old English mangian (to trade, to traffic). Looking farther back, we have from Proto-Germanic mangōną, the Latin mangō (dealer, trader). It is conjectured that the lineage extends through the Ancient Greek μάγγανον (pronounced mánganon and meaning contrivance, means of enchantment), to the Proto-Indo-European mang (to embellish, dress, trim).
¶ Even so, it is not impossible that a number of Old English speakers made the association of monger and crowd.
1a. In his book Logic for Mathematicians (Chelsea Publishing 1978, McGraw Hill 1953), J. Barkley Rosser cautions against the word any. "Sometimes any means each and sometimes it means some. Thus, sometimes "for any x..." means (x) and sometimes "for any x..." means (Ex)."
¶ [Note: (x) is an old-fashioned way to denote ∀x and (Ex) is Barkley's way of denoting ∃x.]
¶ After giving an ambiguous example, Rosser says, "If one wishes to be sure that one will be understood, one should never use any in a place where either each or some can be used. For instance, "I will not violate any law." The statement "I will not violate each law" has quite a different meaning, and the statement, "I will not violate some law" might be interpreted to mean that there is a particular law which I am determined not to violate.
"Nonetheless," says Rosser, "many writers use any in places where each or some would be preferable."
No comments:
Post a Comment