They glimpsed enough of each other to know they liked one another.
Could anyone differentiate between the two highlighted phrases? Is it a blend of BrE and AmE while the number of persons involved is just two?
It’s nothing to do with BrE/AmE.
goo.gl/d9QSyr
goo.gl/v1YNeC
goo.gl/QVFSpp
goo.gl/iVg1MJ
goo.gl/Ii5Hww
goo.gl/KR7auR
goo.gl/0gyfMD
goo.gl/0C9FMU
[quote=“Anglophile”]
They glimpsed enough of each other to know they liked one another.
[color=blue]It’s a very odd sentence with the switching of the bold parts. I would simply say ‘They saw enough of each other to know they [color=blue]like(d) each other.’ [color=blue]Use ‘like’ or ‘liked’ as appropriate.
It’s not odd, it avoids repetition of the same phrase within the sentence.
[color=blue]What’s wrong with using the same phrase?
I suppose you would say something like ‘I didn’t like him any more than he was fond of me.’ Now that’s odd!
Nothing if you’re happy for your writing to be boring and lack style (and there’s a place for that within the right context). The use of a viable alternative is optional but keeps the writing interesting.
Anglophile, I know you won’t just accept my word for this, so I have added a number of references to my first message in this thread. I suggest you review them as they will provide you with a far more accurate means of reflecting on your own use of these phrases than Canadian’s blinkered view does.
If you take a look at them, you will see that they all say that although some grammarians argue that one phrase should involve more than two people, every single link I’ve posted indicates that there is no justification for such a rule, and the phrases have been used interchangeably within correct contexts for hundreds of years. In perusing the links, you’ll find that although one cannot correctly use ‘each other’ for more than two people, all the writers and contributors to those websites agree that it is perfectly permissible to use ‘one another’ for two people as well as larger groups. What’s more, I didn’t handpick the links from a wider selection, leaving out an alternative viewpoint. These are the top results of the search.
Thanks, Beeesneees, for giving a number of useful links.
In one of the links I read the following:
While we’re on the subject of “each other” and “one another,” we do recommend following one restriction on their use. Specifically, don’t use them as the subject of a clause. For example, suppose Bill thinks Ted is awesome, and Ted thinks Bill is awesome. How could you write that in a single sentence? “Bill and Ted think each other are awesome”? “Bill and Ted think one another is awesome”? No. People do write sentences like that, and you may have heard people speak them, and you may have even spoken them yourself—I know I have. But it still sounds awkward, for reasons that are unclear. The best you can do in this situation is to use what the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language calls the “split reciprocal” construction, and say “Bill and Ted each think the other is awesome.” (bold is mine)
Also, I have found the following example in ‘Practical English Usage’ (M.Swan):
They each listened carefully to what [b]the[/b] other said. (again [b]bold[/b] is mine)
When using the so-called split-reciprocal, why the definite article [i]the[/i] is added?
Thanks.
My question was simple. I just wanted to know why the writer (incidentally, a native English author of a famous book) chose to use both while they could have used either. I really wondered whether there is any nuancial denotation or connotation (of which I’m not aware) for writing it that way.
… and my links will provide the answer!
The other person/animal/item within the reference (a specific person/animal/item)
There is nothing wrong with it. In a way, it is more emphatic and stylish. The author could have used either, not both. It is confusing too. That was why I raised my question. Unfortunately, as usual, my intention was misconstrued.
Sorry, but as a native English speaker and reader, the original has more style than a repetition would.
Using both is not confusing if you read the links I provided, and you only THINK your intentions were ‘misconstrued’.
Sorry, you are absolutely wrong.
LOL. So wrong.
Yes.