I know I occasionally link to my own blog, but that last comment really looks like spam to me. The page directed to isn't much more enlightening than that comment, and the whole site looks as though it was written with Google Translate. But it's quite good for a laugh; here are a few gems:

"For example, if I was to write a letter to a man named John, and I wrote "John" envelope, it would be very angry."

"In everyday life, it has the advantage of the most perfect good knowledge of grammar. Teach your child to use proper names should also be discussed"

If you remember the names used, you are probably a surprisingly successful future"

HI Hairy - I'm sorry, the tone of my last comment was a bit heavy, so I'll try and lighten (and shorten) this one.

Personally, I've no idea what we were taught about this at school, or if we were indeed taught anything, as this had never been an issue for me until it came up on PITE. I got a bit of a shock at the time, and that was why I started looking it up in dictionaries and usage guides, which seemed to back up my use as being perfectly permissible, albeit a minority usage. Before then I'd never even thought about it and probably hadn't paid much attention to what other people were saying.

Perhaps there is a Scottish vs RP or U angle here. I know that some of Fowler's predilections (I can never spell that word!) tend to be towards U words over Non-U (for example "napkin" over "serviette"). The New Murphy, however, does have an example with "to" from the Scots Magazine from 1986, and there are plenty of examples in the modern Scotsman and Glasgow Herald:

https://www.google.pl/search?q="different+to"+site:scotsman.com
https://www.google.pl/search?q="different+to"+site:heraldscotland.com

In fact there's a bit of a surprise here: the ratio of "from" to "to" is not nearly as high as I would have expected. 10,300 to 7,030 in the Scotsman, and 2,370 to 1,420 in the Herald. In fact the ratio of "to" to "from" in seems to be marginally higher in the Scottish quality press than in UK quality newspapers in general, except for the Telegraph, for some weird reason. Here are the numbers of Google hits for other British newspapers:

The Guardian - "different from" 24,300, "different to" 12,200
The Independent - "different from" 44,700, "different to" 21,800
The Times - "different from" 82,000, "different to" 1,150
The Telegraph - "different from" 11,800, "different to" 16,400
Financial Times - "different from" 79,000, "different to" 15,700
London Review of Books - "different from" 833,"different to" 53

So while Denkof Zwemmen might be largely right about the London Review of Books, he seems a bit wide of the mark when it comes to the Guardian. Not that these figures will sway your opinion; I understand that. But I find looking at actual usage interesting, and I what I like about PITE is that I learn quite a lot just by looking up stuff for my comments .

Don't you think, by the way, it's a bit much to describe something that was already being discussed over a hundred years ago as a fad? As I said in an earlier comment, "different to" (1526) is the older form, it is "different from" (1590) that is the relative newcomer which has slowly usurped the position of the former..

I know very well that you don't intend these things as attacks, but as long as you use words like "erroneous" and "aberrations", and put expressions like "acceptable" and "common usage" in inverted commas, I'm afraid they will be taken as such (by people like me). You are basically saying that those of us who sometimes use the "to" version are wrong. I dispute that.

At heart, I think there is major a philosophical difference between us. You seem to rather disdain custom ("common usage"), while I rejoice in it as what has made English what it is. Long before Robert Lowth's 'A Short Introduction to English Grammar' of 1762 ushered in the age of prescriptivism, Ben Jonson had written that "Custom is the most certain mistress of language", building on Quintilian's dictum "Consuetudovero certissima loquendi magistra". (to follow your example of ending with a Latin quote)

:-))

OK, perhaps not shorter.

@Hairy Scot - "I still await proof of correctness". Is the onus not rather on the people who criticise something to provide evidence that it is wrong. It is in fact those lambast "different to" who are the "antis" here, not those of us who use it and defend it. This all started when you pulled me up for using "different to" several months ago. We "to" users just want to get on with speaking the language we know without being criticised on no better basis than someone else's prejudices or hearsay. But we constantly find the need to defend ourselves.

I have quoted all the major British dictionaries, various reputable usage guides, newspaper style guides, as well as newspaper usage, and people like Michael Quinlan. (Are these the people who "feel a burning desire to state their case as often as possible?"). Their's may only be opinions like yours or mine, but they tend to carry quite a lot of weight, especially when they are nearly all in agreement.

On the other hand, as far as I can see, your side have not produced one single authority to support your argument. You and Skeeter Lewis may not like "different to", but you haven't produced one shred of evidence to prove it's incorrect. It may not sound right to you, but it sounds fine to me. And I fail to see how it flies in the face of logic. A reminder from Oxford Online:

"Different to is common in Britain, but is disliked by traditionalists. The argument against it is based on the relation of different to differ, which is used with from; but this is a flawed argument which is contradicted by other pairs of words such as accord (with) and according (to)." (much what Fowler said)

You say that that my evidence is perhaps a case of finding what I seek. So perhaps you can enlighten me where I should look apart from the six major British dictionaries, Fowler, original and updated, MWDEU, WorldWideWords, British quality newspapers etc. I may have found only what I sought, but you people haven't even looked!

When I said "just about every authority on British English I've seen", at least I have provided quotes or links. But then you say "Just about everyone in my generation, and the school teachers who taught us would seem to have the same opinion, or superstition." How can you make such a sweeping statement? Have you asked them? I, for one, am probably of your generation or older. I'm sorry, but you provide absolutely nothing to back that claim up.

It's very noticeable how the descriptivists on this forum give reference after reference to back their opinions, but the prescriptivists rarely if ever do so. That's why I call these assertions, because yes, they are strongly held opinions, but with nothing concrete to back them up. It's probably also true that the descriptivists on this forum also read linguistics blogs, where it is considered necessary to back up your arguments with references. And with the Internet, it is very easy to do so.

Anothger reason why we have to do this is because it us who are under attack. When have I ever criticised anyone's use of language on this forum, unless it was out and out ungrammatical, or they were asking for an opinion? No, I spend my time defending perfectly good idiomatic language from those who like to find fault with the language of others. And if people are going to criticise other people's use of language, then I think they need something a little stronger than personal opinion to support their arguments.

And as long as some people suggest that "different to" is incorrect, I will argue the opposite. But I will argue, not assert.

As you say, just a thought. :))

http://www.volokh.com/2011/10/04/descriptivism-prescriptivism-and-assertionism/

D.A.W. says (said) - "I didn't say anything about the "historical present" because that is rarely seen or heard of in the United States in American or Canadian products. "

Here's a look at some of today's stories in the American press. Note that in every case the verb in the present simple in the headline refers to something that has already happened, and is referred to in the body of the article with a past tense:

SOLDIER ADMITS PROVIDING FILES TO WIKILEAKS
Pfc. Bradley Manning confessed in open court to providing vast archives of military and diplomatic files to the antisecrecy group WikiLeaks. (New York Times)

EUROZONE JOBLESS RATE HITS NEW HIGH
The unemployment rate in the euro zone edged up in January to a new record, official data showed Friday, as the ailing European economy continued to weigh on the job market. (New York Times)

OBAMA BLAMES GOP FOR BUDGET IMPASSE
In a news conference at the White House after the meeting, Obama blamed congressional Republicans for the impasse ... (Washington Post)

KERRY SCOLDS TURKEY LEADER WHO LIKENS ZIONISM TO A 'CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY'
Secretary of State John F. Kerry scolded Turkey’s leader Friday for likening Zionism to a “crime against humanity,” (Washington Post)

STERLING SLIDES ON GRIM DATA
The pound sank below $1.50 after two separate sets of disappointing data highlighted the difficulties facing the U.K. in returning to growth. (Wall Street Journal)

PROTESTS HALT BERLIN WALL REMOVAL
Protesters prevented construction workers from removing a section of one of the few remaining stretches of the Berlin Wall (Wall Street Journal)

POLLUTION CONCERNS DELAY ENFGLEWOOD RAIL YARD EXPANSION
A group of Englewood residents along with environmental organizations persuaded a City Council committee on Thursday to delay a hearing ... (Chicago Tribune)

FIRST LADY BRINGS CAMPAIGN FOR PHYSICAL EDUCATION TO CHICAGO
First lady Michelle Obama brought her high energy "Let's Move" campaign to Chicago today (Chicago Tribune)

SPACEX LAUNCHES TO SPACE STATION, BUT EXPERIENCES PROBLEM IN ORBIT
On an overcast morning, SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket launched from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and sped through the clouds Friday on its way to the International Space Station (Los Angeles Times)

DOOR FALLS OFF MUNI METRO TRAIN
A Muni Metro train's door was knocked clean off Thursday afternoon after it didn't close correctly and hit a platform in a tunnel, officials said. (San Francisco Chronicle)

MIAMI-DADE MAYOR TOUTS PORTS
In his annual state-of-the-county address, the mayor announced the creation of an advisory panel to examine Miami-Dade’s high property-insurance rates — even though the county does not set them. (Miami Herald)

TACO BELL IN U.K. DISCOVERS HORSEMEAT IN GROUND BEEF PRODUCTS
Taco Bell withdrew ground beef from its three U.K. restaurants, the company said in a statement on its website. The adulteration was discovered in “some batches of ground beef supplied to us from one supplier in Europe,” according to the statement. (Toronto Star)

It looks to me as though North American newspapers and their readers are perfectly familiar with the historical present, even if D.A.W. apparently isn't.

I would stand that on its head and ask. Is "This amuses me to no end." as acceptable as “This amuses me no end.”? And if it is, do they mean the same thing?

"No end" is an idiomatic expression meaning something like "a great deal" and can be used as a noun - "She had no end of stories to tell." (The Free Dictionary)

and also adverbially:

"it pleases us no end"- Merriam-Webster
"this cheered me up no end" - Oxford Concise
"Her English has improved no end" - Macmillan
"Your letter cheered me up no end." - Longman

I presume you are using "This amuses me no end" in a similar way, to say that it pleases you a lot. I can see no examples in those dictionaries of "to no end" being used in this way.

It would rather change the meaning to something like "This amuses me but not to any good purpose". Of course if this is what you meant in the first place, then in my opinion the answer to your question would be no, as it would completely change the meaning. But not everyone agrees.

There's a discussion at Motivated Grammar, where Gabe asked readers if these two sentences were acceptable, and if so was there any difference in meaning:

(1a) The crank insulted me to no end.
(1b) The crank insulted me no end.

Many people answered that they were both acceptable, but that the meanings were different:

(2a) The crank insulted me without a goal or without achieving anything.
(2b) The crank insulted me endlessly.

That's how I'd see it myself, but not everyone did, and Gabe himself thought he'd use "for no end" in the first one, and I think in fact I'd prefer "to no good end". Some also saw the two expressions as synonymous.

http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/following-up-on-to-no-end/

@Hairy Scot - 'I do of course include "different to" in that category.'

Then you're at odds with just about every authority on British English I've seen. Here's what Fowler had to say in the original 1926 version:

"That different can only be followed by from and not by to is a superstition. Not only is to 'found in writers of all ages' (OED); the principle it is rejected on (You do not say 'differ to'; therefore you cannot say 'different to') involves a hasty and ill-defined generalisation. ... This does not imply that different from is wrong; on the contrary it is 'now usual' (OED); but it is only so owing to the dead set made against different to by mistaken critics."

Now I'm certainly no slave to Fowler, but on this one I think he got it right. I'm still waiting to see any evidence to show that it is wrong. So far, all we've had are assertions.

@jayles -
I think you mean "fings"

I was taught on my teacher training that the use of the continuous is a standard part of Indian English, not an "overuse".

When did I say that I "taught" RP? I simply said that it was my dialect. I have to speak something!

I thought we'd had this out about grammar and vocab a few weeks ago. Students need a balance. Personally, however, I think teaching students lots of vocab in class is rather a waste of class time, which can be much better used putting it into practice. As a student of French and Spanish myself, I learn most of my vocab from outside the class, from reading etc. That's when it sticks, and then I try it out in class later.

I do think it is important that students should know the differences you talk about. It's not much use knowing the words if you can't string them together. In fact my students sometimes complain that I don't do enough grammar. But then most of my students are pretty high level.

I don't actually insist on anything with my students. I tell them what is the norm in British English, and correct them a little, but if they go on with it, I don't push it, at least not for things that don't get in the way of understanding and communication. And that would include Present perfect and 3rd person S.

"students need English for business and/or university", and to get into university they may need IELTS, or their company expects them to do BEC, or a general Certificate exam such as FCE or CAE. If you don't teach these students the difference between the various future forms, amongst other things, I think you're short-changing them.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your opening remarks. Do I think Koreans should be taught British English? And where does Coronation Street come into it? Do I think they should be taught Lancashire dialect? I'm not sure what your point is here. I think they should be taught standard English, but the teacher's accent is neither here nor there. I have colleagues with Lancashire, Scottish, Australian, Canadian and American accents; it's simply not an issue. I wouldn't "teach" - "He were in't pub" as being Standard English, but I occasionally show a video clip from the Catherine Tate Show - "Shittake mushrooms" which includes the lines "We was on our way to see our Valda", "So we gets in to the pub", "Then he read what were in it", and explain that this is Yorkshire dialect, and that not everyone speaks Standard English all the time. You can see how I treat it here:

http://random-idea-english.blogspot.com/2012/11/shiitake-mushrooms-comedy-sketch.html

@D.A.W. - I was going to let this drop, but I think I'll follow your habit of serial comments. Coincidentally, I happened to be doing present tenses with a student this morning. This is from Intelligent Business Intermediate (published by Pearson Longman):

The present simple describes:
a) facts that will not change
b) regular events and processes
c) a scheduled event (in the future)

The present continuous (aka progressive) describes
a) things happening now
b) temporary situations
c) future arrangements

@D.A.W. A propos apologising:

You originally wrote (just check back - February 24, 2013, 6:25pm):

"So many people have lost sight or the fact that the present tense means RIGHT NOW. Here are some example (sic): The Houses of Parliament stand in London.
A large statue of Abraham Lincoln sits in Washington, D.C.
The Moon orbits the Earth once every 29 days. It is doing so right now."

I wrote (February 26, 2013, 11:02am):
"When you said that the Houses of Parliament stand in London, that's about general time"

You wrote (February 26, 2013, 12:08pm):
"Also, I actually wrote "the Houses of Parliament sit along the Thames in London", and not "stand", as you misread and miscopied"

You wrote (February 27, 2013, 1:06pm):
"I do not like people misquoting me and lying about what I said or wrote!
You have never apoligized (sic) about that, either.
You are obviously a habitual liar and a Philistine, too.
Am I making myself clear? You lied about what I wrote."

Well, once again I'm in total agreement with you. By the way, most people use copy and paste these days; you might remember that the next time you accuse somebody of miscopying what you have written!

Now I would say a good dollop of humble pie was called for, wouldn't you?

@D.A.W. - I knew it would be fun! And with such a gentleman, too!

This is from the American Heritage Dictionary, quoted in the Free Dictionary:

"Usage Note: In American usage government always takes a singular verb. In British usage government, in the sense of a governing group of officials, takes a plural verb: The government are determined to follow this course. See Usage Note at collective noun."

From New Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage:

"In BrE it is in order to use either a singular or plural verb after most collective nouns, so long as attendant pronouns are made to follow suit: 'when the jury returns to consider its verdict 'or when the jury return to consider their verdict'. The same principle applies to all the main collectives like 'army, audience, clan, company, crew, court, crew, folk, government, group, herd'. By contrast, in AmE the choice is much more restricted.''

From BBC Learning English - "For example, when we’re talking about the government we can say – “The government has won the election.” Or we can say “The government have won the election.” This depends if we see the government as a collection of individuals"

And from some well-known "tabloids":

"The Government are listening at last, must be election time" (Daily Telegraph)

"According to the TUC, the government are big meanies" (The Economist)

Sir Alex Ferguson is convinced Manchester United have a stronger squad now than their 1999 Treble-winning campaign. (The Independent)

" Liverpool have a corner, and about 20 seconds later Arsenal nearly score" (The Guardian - NB Historical Present!)

"As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have introduced the test to rectify the loophole which has occurred as a result of the decision in the Parkins v Sodexho case." Viscount Younger of Leckie, speaking in the House of Lords (Hansard - 23 Feb 2013)

"and of course the Government have set a target of 25% of procurement from small firms, too" Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, speaking in the House of Commons (Hansard 6 Nov 2012)

"The Labour Party are delighted to be able to offer our members a special discount on a subscription to New Statesman magazine." (Labour Party website)

"The Conservative Party are not responsible for webcasting or any other form of transmission" (Conservative Party website)

Just Google them to check.