identical to/with

bnjtokyo

identical to/with

Postby bnjtokyo » Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:47 am

Someone asked me to explain the difference between "identical to" and "identical with," but I couldn't find any.

Does anyone else make a distinction? If so, what is it?

Cheers,

User avatar
Slava
Grand Panjandrum
Posts: 5528
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:31 am
Location: Finger Lakes, NY

Postby Slava » Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:54 am

Personally, I would never say identical with.

Along the same lines, I have a problem with "different from/to." "To" bugs me.

User avatar
Slava
Grand Panjandrum
Posts: 5528
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:31 am
Location: Finger Lakes, NY

Postby Slava » Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:55 am

Extra thought:

Perhaps "identical with" is a confusion with "identify with"?

User avatar
Perry
Grand Panjandrum
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:50 am
Location: Asheville, NC

Postby Perry » Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:01 pm

Slava wrote:Personally, I would never say identical with.

Along the same lines, I have a problem with "different from/to." "To" bugs me.


What he said; absolutely!
"Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening all at once. Lately it hasn't been working."
Anonymous

bnjtokyo

Postby bnjtokyo » Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:59 am

Slava,

It has taken a few days to get the document with the original expression back. Please excuse the delay.

Because this expression was part of an argument presented to a patent examiner, the details must remain confidential, but I will paraphrase the context as follows:

". . . the invention determines whether [information type A] is identical to [certain stored information], while [the reference determines] whether [information type A] is identical with one element of [a stored list]."

The words "to" and "with" are in bold face in the original.
The usage is careful formal legalese.
The author clearly thinks there is a distinction between
"identical to" and "identical with."
Note that the words I have replaced with [information type A] are identical at both locations in the sentence.

Can you or anyone else define what that distinction might be?[/b][/u]

User avatar
gailr
Grand Panjandrum
Posts: 1945
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:40 am
Contact:

Postby gailr » Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:31 pm

bnjtokyo wrote:Can you or anyone else define what that distinction might be?


Mmmmm ... that distinction may only exist in the mind of the Party of the First Part, as opposed to any and all distinctions which may or may not exist, now or in the future, against and/or with the Party of the Second Part, except where prohibited by the full extent of the law...

User avatar
Slava
Grand Panjandrum
Posts: 5528
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:31 am
Location: Finger Lakes, NY

Postby Slava » Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:14 pm

Basically, I'd agree w/gailr. I'm going to vote for there being no distinction, except in the minds of the lawyers. Let's track down them what wrote this drivel, and get them to define the difference, if they can.

BTW, love the fading font size. It gives a nice visualization to the legalese.
Life is like playing chess with chessmen who each have thoughts and feelings and motives of their own.

User avatar
Stargzer
Grand Panjandrum
Posts: 2577
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 3:56 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD

Postby Stargzer » Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:21 pm

bnjtokyo wrote:Slava,

... ". . . the invention determines whether [information type A] is identical to [certain stored information], while [the reference determines] whether [information type A] is identical with one element of [a stored list]."

The words "to" and "with" are in bold face in the original.
The usage is careful formal legalese.
The author clearly thinks there is a distinction between
"identical to" and "identical with."
Note that the words I have replaced with [information type A] are identical at both locations in the sentence.

Can you or anyone else define what that distinction might be?[/b][/u]


Perhaps is has to do with "number," in that the second reference refers to "one element of a list" as opposed to
"certain information."

Doing a Yahoo! search I found an article at Pain In The English, it's postings, not a definitive answer.

Then again, the 10th link listed happend to be this particular thread. :?

I'll keep looking. My ancient Prentice Hall Handbook for Writers is around here somewhere ...
Regards//Larry

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
-- Attributed to Richard Henry Lee


Return to “Idioms”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest