Many English speakers wonder whether it is better to use subjectpronouns (I, he, she, we, they) or object pronouns (me,him, her, us, them) after comparatives than and as.
| Subject Pronoun | Object Pronoun |
|---|---|
| Jessie has the same car as I. | Jessie has the same car as me. |
| I am younger than she. | I am younger than her. |
| Nobody is happier than he. | Nobody is happier than him. |
Is there a problem with any of these sentences? Which are preferable?The answer depends on how one views their grammatical structure, andinvolves important differences in formality.
To understand the grammatical questions involved, first consider theambiguity of the following sentence.
Leo likes his neighbour more than her.
This could mean either “Leo likes his neighbour more than he likes her”or, in less formal English, “Leo likes his neighbour more than she likeshis neighbour.”
In the first interpretation, than is a conjunction, while the secondreading assumes it to be a preposition.
Competing Grammatical Analyses
One typically sees than as a subordinating conjunction, which linkstwo clauses; the part of the sentence following than is an embeddedclause.
He has more talent than you think he does.
The bag is much taller than it is wide.Than is a conjunction introducing the subordinate clauses you thinkhe does and it is wide.
Using a subject pronoun after than (or as) assumes that the pronounrepresents an elliptical sentence—one in which everything following thesubject is omitted because it repeats what follows the subject of themain clause.
Emma likes cycling more than he [likes cycling].
I am younger than she [is young].
Brian has the same car as I [have].
Elliptical clauses can only be interpreted as repeating the main clausein this way. This means if an object pronoun is used after than oras (assuming they are conjunctions), it must stand for an ellipticalclause which omits the subject and verb instead of the object. Thisproduces a contrast in structure and meaning between otherwise identicalsentences ending with than and a subject or object pronoun. A sentencelike Leo likes his neighbour more than I/me can be interpreted aseither of the following.
Leo likes his neighbour more than I [like his neighbour].
The subject pronoun I follows than: it is assumed that theelliptical subordinate clause is I like his neighbour.
Leo likes his neighbour more than [he likes] me.
The object pronoun me follows than: one interprets the ellipticalsubordinate clause as Leo likes me.
Up to here we have a clear and grammatically consistent analysis. Theview of than as a conjunction, with a difference in meaning betweensubject and object pronouns where both are possible, is also thetraditionally sanctioned view universally accepted by style guides anduncontroversial with the public.
But what of sentences where the object pronoun is clearly not intendedto be the object of an elliptical clause? Sentences such as thefollowing are completely unremarkable in informal and neutral English.
Kristal lives in the same building as me.
You’re better than them at this.
Are dogs really nicer than us?
These constructions are somewhat controversial in English because thanis clearly not a conjunction. But interpreting than as a conjunctionleads to nonsense: Are dogs nicer than us? would have to stand for“Are dogs nicer than [they are] us?” And yet, in informal English, oneis indeed much more likely to hear object than subject pronouns in thesepositions.
Such sentences are, however, grammatical if than and as are viewedas prepositions, which take object pronouns as their complements, likeunlike, above and beside below.
Kristal is organized, unlike them.
Caroline sat far above us.
Leo is tall beside me.
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language presents evidence thatthan and as can indeed function as prepositions. For example, theycan be stranded (moved to the end of the sentence) and fronted (placedbefore a relative clause).
Whom is he better than?
Than is “stranded” at the end of the sentence.
There is someone than whom he is better
Than is “fronted”—put ahead of the relative clause.
These positions are typical of prepositions but not of conjunctions.
However, style guides have traditionally rejected this usage. ManyEnglish speakers living today have been taught not to use the objectpronouns after than. However, in the later 20th century using objectpronouns after than was increasingly accepted, and is far lesscontroversial in the 21st century. Few style guides today mention it,although the Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition) and Strunk &White’s Elements of Style (4th edition) both advise the conjunctionuse only, the former recommending to “reword the sentence to avoid theelliptical construction” and the latter advising adding auxiliaries ormissing verbs to elliptical sentences to avoid any ambiguity.
Oxford Dictionaries, Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, as well as theLongman Dictionary of Contemporary English all have both conjunctionand preposition entries for than, as does Antidote’s dictionary. TheOxford English Dictionary has only the conjunction entry, but notesanother use “as if it were a preposition”. The American HeritageDictionary has a preposition entry for than, but notes a “UsageProblem” that since the 18th century grammarians have recommended theconjunction analysis only, but notes that the rule is “somewhatcontrived” and does not reflect contemporary use in many cases.
Problems With the Prepositional Analysis
Aside from the questions of standardness and acceptability, there areproblems of ambiguity in some of the prepositional uses. If than canalso be a preposition, then it will take an object pronoun as a functionof its grammar, regardless of semantics, even if the object pronounrefers to a person who is an agent (identified typically with thesubject of the embedded clause).
He works longer hours than me.
The object pronoun me clearly refers to what would be the subject ofan elliptical clause in its place (i.e. than I do).
In actual English usage, the existence and frequency of theprepositional analysis cause ambiguity in sentences where the pronouncould in theory refer to a subject or object, as in the case of thesentence Leo likes his neighbour more than me described above. Thereis no ambiguity if one sticks to the traditional (conjunction) analysis.
Problems With the Traditional Analysis
However, there also are limits to the acceptability of the conjunctionuse. First of all, English usage is not consistent depending on thespecific subject pronouns used.
Leo is taller than I.
Leo is taller than he/she.These sentences are acceptable, if slightly formal.
?Leo is taller than we.
?Leo is taller than they.While not strictly ungrammatical, the same elliptical sentences withwe and they strike many speakers as much stranger and more affected.
??He is younger than he.
??She is younger than she.These sound strange to the point of ungrammaticality.
The subject pronouns are entirely unacceptable when followed by adeterminer.
Caroline is more generous than us both/all.
Not *Caroline is more generous than we both or *Caroline is moregenerous than we all.
Formality and Recommendations
In informal or neutral English, it is perfectly acceptable to follow theprepositional analysis. For purposes of communication, this is not aproblem at all when there is no potential for ambiguity.
Kristal lives in the same building as me.
It is best to avoid the prepositional use of than (than me, thanher, etc.) in highly formal contexts, or for conservative audiences inwhich one does not want to risk being perceived as using non-standardspeech. However, as mentioned above, using the bare subject pronouns cansound overly formal or pretentious, or even (as in the case of we andthey) strange to the point of unacceptability. The best-sounding andleast controversial formulation would be to add the auxiliary do/doesor the verb to be to the elliptical subordinate clause.
Leo likes his neighbour more than I do.
This is more natural and clearer than ending the sentence with than I.
Leo is taller than we are.
Not ??Leo is taller than we.
Leo likes his neighbour more than he likes me.
It is clearer to simply repeat the verb of the matrix clause; in Leolikes his neighbour more than me, me could be interpreted asreferring to a semantic agent.
These sentences are quite stylistically neutral and also usable ininformal contexts, in addition to avoiding syntactic and semanticambiguity.
This article was concocted by
Antidote’s linguists
