Q: What is the correct word to use after different? Is it from or than, or doesn't it matter?

A: To be safe, use from in writing, because those who follow strict grammatical rules will criticize you if you use than. For example, Wilson Follett writes in his Modern American Usage, 1966, that the “educated American" feels strongly that different from is “idiomatic and hence inviolable." Thus, to be correct, he said, write, “My book is different from (not than) yours."

But Follett's rule is out‑of‑date and not sustainable. Even in formal usage, in newspapers and magazines and in speeches, different than is now common. And, as Webster's Third (2000 edition) notes, reputable American writers since the 18thtthh century have been ignoring the “rule” that requires from after different. Britons are held to the same different‑from edict, but they, like Americans, largely ignore it. However, Britons commonly choose different to instead of the American different than, although Follett says that different than is also becoming popular in England.

Perhaps the different‑from rule came about because idiom requires the preposition from after the verb differ. We say something differs from (not than) something else. However, one argument favoring different than is that different and differently are logically equivalent to other and otherwise, and than (not from) follows both of these words.

All of this seems to be much ado about nothing. But prescriptive grammarians, who take their grammar seriously, agree with Follett, who writes, “To condone different than because it is sometimes awkward to follow different with the accepted preposition is defeatism.”

Q: Something that always puzzles me has just come up as I was typing a letter. I typed, “I am sending you my son's John's application.” What is the rule for this punctuation?

A: Only one possessive punctuation mark – after John: “I am sending you my son John's application.” The rule is that when two or more nouns indicate possession, only the final noun in the group takes the possessive form, if possession is shared by all members of the group. For example:

However, when separate possession is indicated, every noun in the list takes the possessive form:

Probably it is helpful to mention the most common possessive error, the addition of an apostrophe where it is incorrect, in the personal pronoun its. “The dog is wagging its tail.” (No apostrophe.) Remember, too, that there is no apostrophe in the other personal pronouns: his, hers, theirs, ours, and yours.”

Q: What is the origin of the legal phrase, “reading of the Will”? As Fairfield attorney John Robison, Jr. wrote, “This question is more about legal history or legal mythology than about language.”

A: My answer may also be more myth than fact, but here's a possibility. When the word Will came into English during the Anglo‑Saxon (Old English) period, it carried the meaning of “wish,” and the first Wills were unwritten wishes about the distribution of a man's chattels after his death. When Wills began to be written documents, they often included the language presens scriptum (Latin for “present writing”), which is still included in abbreviated form in many deeds. So perhaps the “reading” of the Will confirmed to English heirs the fact that the deceased had put his “will” (his wish) into written form. If any readers have a more valid etymology, let Attorney Robinson and me hear from you.

The phrase presens scriptum recalls an amusing anecdote a New Jersey attorney sent me sometime ago. During a speech to a group of attorneys, he asked how many knew the origin of the phrase, “by these presents give and grant.” Almost none had any idea; the few who thought they knew, believed that presents meant “gifts.” They were wrong, of course, as you discovered in the pre-vious paragraph. The word presens is a truncated form of presens scriptum, mistakenly translated as “presents” by persons who did not know Latin.

Those of you who affectionately re-call CBS News reporter Harry Reasoner, who had strong opinions about lan-guage – and other matters – will enjoy his comments written in 1975 about the adverb hopefully's, “new use” which he considered “a threat to English” He wrote:

Reasoner wrote, “Let's bury hopefully”–but nobody listened.