{"id":13430,"date":"2025-09-30T11:53:28","date_gmt":"2025-09-30T18:53:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/?p=13430"},"modified":"2025-09-30T11:53:28","modified_gmt":"2025-09-30T18:53:28","slug":"each-other-and-one-another","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2025\/09\/30\/each-other-and-one-another\/","title":{"rendered":"‘Each Other’ and ‘One Another’"},"content":{"rendered":"

“Style is the physiognomy of the mind.” (Arthur Schopenhauer) Depending on your style of mind, you will find the following either tedious and pedantic or a pleasurable exercise in precise analysis and careful thinking.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ought the title phrases be used interchangeably by good writers, or is there some distinction we need to observe? Compare ‘less’ and ‘fewer.’ Good writers know that \u2018less\u2019 is used with mass nouns such as \u2018food,\u2019 \u2018furniture,\u2019 and \u2018snow\u2019 whereas \u2018fewer\u2019 is employed with such count nouns as \u2018meals,\u2019 \u2018tables,\u2019 and \u2018snow plows.\u2019 Correct<\/i>: \u2018If you eat less, you consume fewer calories.\u2019\u00a0Incorrect<\/i>: \u2018If you eat less, you consume less calories.\u2019 The second sentence should grate against your linguistic sensibilities.<\/span><\/p>\n

No doubt there are schoolmarm strictures that good writers may violate with impunity. \u2018Never split an infinitive\u2019 and \u2018Never begin a sentence with a conjunction\u2019 are two examples. But I deny that the fewer-less <\/i>distinction is in the same grammatical boat: it reflects\u00a0prima facie<\/i>\u00a0logical and ontological distinctions that need to be acknowledged. They are distinctions of the Manifest Image, to borrow a term from\u00a0Wilfrid Sellars<\/a>, distinctions that are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Whether these distinctions can survive deeper logical and ontological analysis is a further question.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bill and Ron are chess players who play each other<\/em> on Sunday afternoons. But we could just as well say that they play one another<\/em> on Sunday afternoons. For if each plays the other, then each plays another. And if each one plays another, then each one plays the<\/i> other given that there are only two players. Now suppose Bill and Ron start a chess club with more than two members. When the members meet they play one another, not each other. Why? Suppose there are four members. Each one plays one of the others; it is not the case that each one plays the<\/i> other \u2013 for the simple reason that there are three others. Since each one plays one of the three others, each one plays another.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Sage of the Superstitions therefore lays down the following rule. \u2018Each other\u2019 and \u2018one another\u2019 are stylistic variants of each other, and are to that extent intersubstitutable salva significatione<\/i>\u00a0in contexts in which two things stand in some sort of reciprocal relation. In contexts in which more than two things stand in some sort of reciprocal relation, however, \u2018one another\u2019 is correct and \u2018each other\u2019 incorrect.<\/span><\/p>\n

How did I arrive at this? Well, I gave an argument that appeals to your reason. I did not invoke any authority \u2013 that would be unphilosophical. Nor does actual usage cut any ice with me. Since grammar has a normative component, it cannot merely describe actual usage. For if boneheads prevail, usage degenerates. Describing the details of degeneration may well be a worthwhile socio-linguistic exercise, but conservatives, here as elsewhere, want to impede degeneration rather than merely record it. Grammar must be based in logic, logic in ontology, ontology in what, onto-theology? That is one philosophical project.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Style is the physiognomy of the mind.” (Arthur Schopenhauer) Depending on your style of mind, you will find the following either tedious and pedantic or a pleasurable exercise in precise analysis and careful thinking. Ought the title phrases be used interchangeably by good writers, or is there some distinction we need to observe? Compare ‘less’ … Continue reading “‘Each Other’ and ‘One Another’”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13430","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-language-matters"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13430","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13430"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13430\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13431,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13430\/revisions\/13431"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13430"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13430"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13430"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}