compared with and compared to

Question

read strunk's rule on this, but still not sure if i gor it right. Is "compared with" used for contrasting things with differences. Is "compared to" used for comparing similar things? Please give examples for illustration.

What is more correct: "The agriculture sector grew 50% this year compared to last year." "or compared with last year."

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

Welcome to English Forums, Kroskris.

Honestly, Strunk's rule-- and Fowler's before him-- are ignored by most every native speaker now alive. If you must differentiate, use with for more extended or in-depth comparisons, and to for simpler ones.

Clive · Answer

Hi Kroskris,

Welcome to the Forum.

My dictionary says that compare followed by to often expresses similarities, and that with often implies a greater degree of formal analysis. That sounds about right to me.

However, it goes on to note that in current usage, to and with are often interchangeable. So, I would consider Strunk rather out-of-date on this.

What is more correct: "The agriculture sector grew 50% this year compared to last year." "or compared with last year." Either sounds OK to me.

[As a minor comment, it's good to get in the habit of using capital letters to start a sentence, for proper names and for the pronoun 'I'.]

Best wishes, Clive

Marius Hancu · Answer

-----------
compare with; compare to

The usual phrase is compare with, which means "to place side by side, noting differences, and similarities between":

Let us compare his goals with his actual accomplishments.

Compare to = to observe or point only to likenesses between:

The psychologist compared this action to Hinckley's assassination attempt.

Garner, Modern American Usage, p. 167
----------

Marius Hancu · Answer

Also:

--------
compare

. verb 1 (often compare to/with) estimate, measure, or note the
similarity or dissimilarity between. 2 (compare to) point out or
describe the resemblances of (something) with. 3 (usu. compare with)
be similar to or have a specified relationship with another thing or
person.

Compact Oxford English Dictionary
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/compare?view=uk
------

Anonymous · Answer

I am really surprised to find that either "to" or "with" can be used. As a child I was always told that only "compare with" was correct.

CPR, Bracknell, UK.

Tanit · Answer

AnonymousI am really surprised to find that either "to" or "with" can be used. As a child I was always told that only "compare with" was correct.

There was a famous song titled "Nothing compares to you" and sung by Sinead O 'Connor in the '90s ...

Anonymous · Answer

So Shakespeare didnt get a very good grounding in English Grammar, eh?

Shall I compare thee to a Summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And Summer's lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And oft' is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd:
But thy eternal Summer shall not fade
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;
Nor shall Death brag thou wanderest in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou growest:

So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

Sonnet #18

I rest my case

Clive · Answer

Hi,
Beautiful, of course.

But art thou suggesting that we should all be using the same grammar today that Shakespeare used in the 16th./17th. century?

Best wishes, Clive

Anonymous · Answer

Clive wrote: However, it goes on to note that in current usage, to and with are often interchangeable. So, I would consider Strunk rather out-of-date on this.

To Clive: In the past, certain rules were considered more important than they are today; however, this does not mean that Strunk is out-of-date. Strunk provides the foundation of what is correct based on decisions made by grammar experts as our language evolves, regardless of the level of importance people place upon such rules.
Kroskris wrote: Honestly, Strunk's rule-- and Fowler's before him-- are ignored by most every native speaker now alive.

To Kroskris: Rules for spoken and written English often differ, as allowances are made for relating ideas in colloquial language that are considered incorrect if formally written. For this reason, as well as the "level of importance" idea in the response to Clive's statement (see above), one cannot learn rules of grammar based on what speakers choose to ignore.

To answer the original question presented in this post, the correct usage is the following:

"The agriculture sector grew 50% this year compared to last year."

BarbaraPA · Answer

Hello Anon,

You have an interesting view of language.

Anonymouswhat is correct based on decisions made by grammar experts

We don't have an Academy of English. People do not tell us "what is correct." We have various standards of English and usage panels and such, but in fact, how a word is used in real situations determines what is correct.

Anonymousas our language evolves

You seem to ignore this part yourself. Language DOES evolve. Things not were acceptable in the past are accepable now. Words used with certain meanings in the past have different meanings now. We don't sit waiting for "grammar experts" to tell us this. The people who USE the langauge determine what is correct. You don't have to like the changes. Sometimes I don't like them. I hate that "u" is now showing up in business e-mail. But it's a fact. Language changes. Sometimes in ways we like and sometimes in ways that make us grit our teeth.

Anonymousregardless of the level of importance people place upon such rules

To the contrary, that's exactly what happens. There is no magic moment in the evolution of language in which one day something is unacceptable and the next day the "experts" say it is acceptable.

We start sentences with "Hopefully,..." now, because people chose to ignore that it should describe a person's mood. We say "I will" because people chose to ignore (if they ever knew) the difference between "I shall" and "I will." We use "their" for a singular, gender-neutral pronoun because speakers got tired of ignoring women by always saying "he" or using the cumbersome "he/she."

Anonymouslanguage evolves

I won't convince you. I know that.

But I will maintain till my dying breath that it's more important to be understood, to be clear, to be brief, or witty, or motivating, or educational, or informative, or inspiring, with your words than it is to be "correct."

compared with and compared to

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions