Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Near to? 2
- Thread starter Dimandja
- Start date
MikeBarone
Programmer
If you think both uses are interchangeable at all times, than why not stick to "near" at all times?"
Nicely stated wuneyej, using fewer words is better, IMO.
Mike Barone
FREE CGI/Perl Scripts & JavaScript Generators
Nicely stated wuneyej, using fewer words is better, IMO.
Mike Barone
FREE CGI/Perl Scripts & JavaScript Generators
Wow - did I stir up a hornet's nest!
I obviously didn't make myself clear - a hanging offence in this forum. If one accepts that 'near to' and 'near' are exact equivalents then I, as a matter of personal preference, chose 'near to' because of 'close to' and 'next to'. I'm not suggesting that this is a logical reason, indeed I fully accept that it rests on personal aesthetics, not grammar.
What was troubling me yesterday was that I don't think that 'near' and 'near to' are exact equivalents but couldn't describe the difference. Having read this morning's posts I agree with MakeItSo when he argues that 'near to' suggests closer proximity than 'near'. However I've tried Googling (if you will allow the term) and cannot find any authorities one way or another.
Columb Healy
Living with a seeker after the truth is infinitely preferable to living with one who thinks they've found it.
I obviously didn't make myself clear - a hanging offence in this forum. If one accepts that 'near to' and 'near' are exact equivalents then I, as a matter of personal preference, chose 'near to' because of 'close to' and 'next to'. I'm not suggesting that this is a logical reason, indeed I fully accept that it rests on personal aesthetics, not grammar.
What was troubling me yesterday was that I don't think that 'near' and 'near to' are exact equivalents but couldn't describe the difference. Having read this morning's posts I agree with MakeItSo when he argues that 'near to' suggests closer proximity than 'near'. However I've tried Googling (if you will allow the term) and cannot find any authorities one way or another.
Columb Healy
Living with a seeker after the truth is infinitely preferable to living with one who thinks they've found it.
MikeBarone
Programmer
exact equivalents"
Is that like saying there was a big huge fire?
Mike Barone
"One forgets words as one forgets names. One's vocabulary needs constant fertilizing or it will die."
- Evelyn Waugh
Is that like saying there was a big huge fire?
Mike Barone
"One forgets words as one forgets names. One's vocabulary needs constant fertilizing or it will die."
- Evelyn Waugh
I'm with MakeItSo - the additional "to" in "near to the highway" lends additional stress to the proximity of the road. It implies (to me) that the house is slightly closer than one which is merely "near the highway". It's a subtle distinction though, and not one that I could justify by pointing at any codified rule.
-- Chris Hunt
Webmaster & Tragedian
Extra Connections Ltd
-- Chris Hunt
Webmaster & Tragedian
Extra Connections Ltd
RodKnowlton
MIS
- Apr 26, 2000
- 1,005
Is that like saying there was a big huge fire?"
What a totally unique way of pointing that out.
Proposed forum slogan:
Picky Posters Choose Making an Impression Forum
Rod Knowlton
IBM Certified Advanced Technical Expert pSeries and AIX 5L
CompTIA Linux+
CompTIA Security+
What a totally unique way of pointing that out.
Proposed forum slogan:
Picky Posters Choose Making an Impression Forum
Rod Knowlton
IBM Certified Advanced Technical Expert pSeries and AIX 5L
CompTIA Linux+
CompTIA Security+
CajunCenturion
Programmer
Suppose we consider the following two statements:
Her feelings are near to the heart.
Her feelings are near the heart.
Grammatically these two are identical, but is there a difference in meaning?
Which do you find preferable?
Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Her feelings are near to the heart.
Her feelings are near the heart.
Grammatically these two are identical, but is there a difference in meaning?
Which do you find preferable?
Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
CC
For my personal opinion
Her feelings are near to the heart. - Medical
Her feelings are near the heart. - Emotional
But this is purely a personal opinion. I can cite no authorities, nor do I claim to be one.
Columb Healy
Living with a seeker after the truth is infinitely preferable to living with one who thinks they've found it.
For my personal opinion
Her feelings are near to the heart. - Medical
Her feelings are near the heart. - Emotional
But this is purely a personal opinion. I can cite no authorities, nor do I claim to be one.
Columb Healy
Living with a seeker after the truth is infinitely preferable to living with one who thinks they've found it.
- Thread starter
- #29
MikeBarone
Programmer
Picky Posters Choose Making an Impression Forum"
No capitalization on the preposition, impressive!
You get a star for the day
Mike Barone
"One forgets words as one forgets names. One's vocabulary needs constant fertilizing or it will die."
- Evelyn Waugh
No capitalization on the preposition, impressive!
You get a star for the day
Mike Barone
"One forgets words as one forgets names. One's vocabulary needs constant fertilizing or it will die."
- Evelyn Waugh
MikeBarone
Programmer
CC,
I do not like that first phrase. Using the word "the" does not identify the heart as hers. Are her feelings close to Joe Shmoe's heart? I would say:
Her feelings are close to her heart.
Flows off the tongue better. It does violate one of my pet peeves, reusing words in a sentence.
"She has feelings close to her heart."
This does not work because the feelings need to be all-encompassing as your original sentence indicates. The above sentence leaves the door open for some of the feelings not being close to her heart.
Maybe the best way is to lose the pronoun and say, "Jane's feelings are close to her heart."
Yes, that get's my vote!
Mike Barone
"One forgets words as one forgets names. One's vocabulary needs constant fertilizing or it will die."
- Evelyn Waugh
I do not like that first phrase. Using the word "the" does not identify the heart as hers. Are her feelings close to Joe Shmoe's heart? I would say:
Her feelings are close to her heart.
Flows off the tongue better. It does violate one of my pet peeves, reusing words in a sentence.
"She has feelings close to her heart."
This does not work because the feelings need to be all-encompassing as your original sentence indicates. The above sentence leaves the door open for some of the feelings not being close to her heart.
Maybe the best way is to lose the pronoun and say, "Jane's feelings are close to her heart."
Yes, that get's my vote!
Mike Barone
"One forgets words as one forgets names. One's vocabulary needs constant fertilizing or it will die."
- Evelyn Waugh
Stella740pl
Programmer
OK, I have to ask now.
What do you actually mean by either
"Her feelings are near the heart."
or
"Her feelings are close to her heart.",
and all other variations.
They are her feelings, of course they would be close (near, whatever else) to her heart. By definition, I would say. You probably wouldn't say that her feelings are close to her liver or near her feet. Or would you?
I can understand, though, if you said
"Her feelings are close to my heart."
or
"Her feelings are close to Joe Shmoe's heart."
You would mean by that that either you or Joe Shmoe understand(s) and sympathize(s) with them.
Am I right?
What do you actually mean by either
"Her feelings are near the heart."
or
"Her feelings are close to her heart.",
and all other variations.
They are her feelings, of course they would be close (near, whatever else) to her heart. By definition, I would say. You probably wouldn't say that her feelings are close to her liver or near her feet. Or would you?
I can understand, though, if you said
"Her feelings are close to my heart."
or
"Her feelings are close to Joe Shmoe's heart."
You would mean by that that either you or Joe Shmoe understand(s) and sympathize(s) with them.
Am I right?
CajunCenturion
Programmer
We were discussing 'near' and 'near to' and whether or not they interchangeable in all cases. How does the group feel about 'near' and 'near to' being interchangeable in the following two sentences? And do they mean the same thing?
Her feelings are near to the heart.
Her feelings are near the heart.
Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Her feelings are near to the heart.
Her feelings are near the heart.
Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Stella740pl
Programmer
CC,
I understand. But I don't know if they mean the same or different things if I don't actually understand what each one means. If both of them don't really mean anything, then they mean the same thing to me. ;-)
And after MikeBarone's post I had to ask.
After all, that's the language forum. Shouldn't the examples be clear and correct whenever possible?
Although I find both sentences rather strange - sounds like: my thoughts are near to my brain - I'd assign the first sentence a sense of activity:
The to indicates the feelings being directed to(wards) the heart, whereas the second rather indicates where the feelings reside.
So the first leaves the question, whose heart is meant: hers or yours?
[blue]The last voice we will hear before the world explodes will be that of an expert saying:
"This is technically impossible!" - Sir Peter Ustinov[/blue]
The to indicates the feelings being directed to(wards) the heart, whereas the second rather indicates where the feelings reside.
So the first leaves the question, whose heart is meant: hers or yours?
[blue]The last voice we will hear before the world explodes will be that of an expert saying:
"This is technically impossible!" - Sir Peter Ustinov[/blue]
mscallisto
Technical User
Her feelings are near to the heart.
Maybe something warm and personal.
Her feelings are near the heart.
Maybe heartburn
Maybe something warm and personal.
Her feelings are near the heart.
Maybe heartburn
MikeBarone
Programmer
Maybe heartburn"
Clever!
Mike Barone
"One forgets words as one forgets names. One's vocabulary needs constant fertilizing or it will die."
- Evelyn Waugh
Clever!
Mike Barone
"One forgets words as one forgets names. One's vocabulary needs constant fertilizing or it will die."
- Evelyn Waugh
Near, close, and next are not synonyms. Why would we expect them to use the same construction to act as prepositions in the same way?
The movie theater is close.
The movie theater is near.
The movie theater is next. [distinctly different]
The movie theater is convenient. [subtly different]
The movie theater is close by. [two words, "by" unnecessary]
The movie theater is nearby. [one word, fine]
The movie theater is next by. [nonsensical]
The movie theater is convenient by. [nonsensical]
The movie theater is close to the freeway.
The movie theater is near the freeway.
The movie theater is next to the freeway.
The movie theater is convenient to the freeway. [subtly different]
These words cannot be used the same in all situations. That is enough in my mind, to adequately support the "avoid unnecessary words" concept, despite my normal preference for congruence in usage.
And what about adjacent, beside, alongside, against, proximate, a short distance [from]...
Some require "to" in the third usage, and some do not. Not all make sense in the first usage. There's no conformity here.
-------------------------------------
It is better to have honor than a good reputation.
(Reputation is what other people think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself.)
The movie theater is close.
The movie theater is near.
The movie theater is next. [distinctly different]
The movie theater is convenient. [subtly different]
The movie theater is close by. [two words, "by" unnecessary]
The movie theater is nearby. [one word, fine]
The movie theater is next by. [nonsensical]
The movie theater is convenient by. [nonsensical]
The movie theater is close to the freeway.
The movie theater is near the freeway.
The movie theater is next to the freeway.
The movie theater is convenient to the freeway. [subtly different]
These words cannot be used the same in all situations. That is enough in my mind, to adequately support the "avoid unnecessary words" concept, despite my normal preference for congruence in usage.
And what about adjacent, beside, alongside, against, proximate, a short distance [from]...
Some require "to" in the third usage, and some do not. Not all make sense in the first usage. There's no conformity here.
-------------------------------------
It is better to have honor than a good reputation.
(Reputation is what other people think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself.)
Convenient to" is interesting.
I would normally say, for example:
"The cinema is convenient for the motorway"
"The hotel is convenient for the airport."
Cambridge backs this up, so maybe it is a UK construct?
-------
I am not responsible for any "Sponsored Links" which may appear in my messages.
I would normally say, for example:
"The cinema is convenient for the motorway"
"The hotel is convenient for the airport."
Cambridge backs this up, so maybe it is a UK construct?
-------
I am not responsible for any "Sponsored Links" which may appear in my messages.
Regarding hearts, I think the conventional usage is "close to (whoever's) heart":
English grammar is a subject close to my heart
"near to my heart" is a variation on this, and both mean exactly the same thing. Dictionary.com defines it thus:
"Near my heart" can only (I think) mean physical proximity. There's a James Joyce poem entitled This heart that flutters near my heart, but he's talking (at least in part) about the two hearts being physically close.
"Near to" can still mean proximity, these statements are (more-or-less) equivalent:
The irate grammarian's bullet lodged near the student's heart.
The irate grammarian's bullet lodged near to the student's heart.
-- Chris Hunt
Webmaster & Tragedian
Extra Connections Ltd
English grammar is a subject close to my heart
"near to my heart" is a variation on this, and both mean exactly the same thing. Dictionary.com defines it thus:
(it also mentions "dear to my heart" in passing, which sounds rather old-fashioned but means the same thing).
"Near my heart" can only (I think) mean physical proximity. There's a James Joyce poem entitled This heart that flutters near my heart, but he's talking (at least in part) about the two hearts being physically close.
"Near to" can still mean proximity, these statements are (more-or-less) equivalent:
The irate grammarian's bullet lodged near the student's heart.
The irate grammarian's bullet lodged near to the student's heart.
-- Chris Hunt
Webmaster & Tragedian
Extra Connections Ltd
- Status
Similar threads
