Björn Vrooman Sep 8, 2014:

@Charles Thank you very much. I think so as well! We'll probably have the next "encounter" here soon (I saw the "emphasizing" question and feel obliged to point something out there).

Charles Davis Sep 8, 2014:

Best wishes to you too, Björn. Always a pleasure to discuss grammar with you.

Björn Vrooman Sep 7, 2014:

These million-searches claims...It also makes you wonder how much influence Google has already had on language development, doesn't it?

I entirely agree that it has to be treated with scepticism. At least in my experience, British English usage is a bit easier to pinpoint online than the American one by limiting it to UK endings, simply because they are more in demand by native speakers than the US versions. That doesnt mean they're hard evidence.

I also want to give you the results for "to":

"equally distributed to": 159 hits
"distributed equally to": 188 hits

Can't make a search for "distribute/d to" vs. among/between because that would really mess up things, I believe. There's also the matter of distribute + object + preposition, which I haven't touched on yet (and can't because of the myriad combinations).

As I said, just doesn't sound like the right verb - I may not be able to prove it, of course. I simply tried to somewhat explain why I don't like it. Actually, I'd expect the sentence structure the other way around: "Each member received an equal share of the profits." or something, not "The company distributed..." But that may just be me.

Best wishes from Germany!

Charles Davis Sep 7, 2014:

Good for Merriam-Webster! I think what they say there is right on the money and I wish people would take notice of it.

I entirely agree with you about Google searches. Firstly, as you said at the beginning, you have to go to the end to discover the real number. I get so frustrated when people claim "1,700,000 Google hits", and I've pointed out many times on this forum that the figure Google quotes at the top of the first results page bears no relation to reality. But you're also right that very strange things seem to happen when you introduce search constraints. I think it's dangerous to build an argument on this evidence; it's worth mentioning, but it must be treated with scepticism.

You may well be right that "distribute" is not the right verb to use here anyway, but since we have no context we can't really tell.

On your revised results: as I said, bear in mind that in order to assess the use of "between" vs "among" with more than two elements, we would have to eliminate the examples that involve just two.

Björn Vrooman Sep 7, 2014:

Google results I apologize, I used the past tense: distributed (to include the participle).

Second search criterion was only UK pages, as in site:uk

"distributed equally among": 232 hits
"distributed equally between": 316 hits

"equally distributed between": 238 hits
"equally distributed among": 166 hits

"distribute" gets you both 20 hits for between and among, and 11 hits for between and 8 for among if "equally" upfront.

Björn Vrooman Sep 7, 2014:

American usage Maybe you like the M-W entry here, Charles:

"There is a persistent but unfounded notion that between can be used only of two items and that among must be used for more than two. Between has been used of more than two since Old English; it is especially appropriate to denote a one-to-one relationship, regardless of the number of items. It can be used when the number is unspecified <economic cooperation between nations>, when more than two are enumerated <between you and me and the lamppost> <partitioned between Austria, Prussia, and Russia — Nathaniel Benchley>, and even when only one item is mentioned (but repetition is implied) <pausing between every sentence to rap the floor — George Eliot>.

Among is more appropriate where the emphasis is on distribution rather than individual relationships <discontent among the peasants>. When among is automatically chosen for more than two, English idiom may be strained <a worthy book that nevertheless falls among many stools — John Simon> <the author alternates among modern slang, clichés and quotes from literary giants — A. H. Johnston>.

My emphasis (referring to preferred usage among Americans, not to "distribute" as the verb) :)

Björn Vrooman Sep 7, 2014:

Other notes... "I have just tried your Google searches"

I will add this below, too. The search was for UK sites only (as in site:uk). One day, I'm going to understand why people always get different results here.

"Of course to is used, but that doesn’t mean the others aren’t."

I'm not saying they aren't. Just in my book, I'd have preferred another word aside from "distribute".

Distribute always gets me the sense of "split something up and hand it out to someone". The verb needs a focal point for me (I say "for me", only my opinion). So, a company distributing leaflets to hotels (which, of course, means that they divide them into stacks to be given to each hotel) is fine, because the company is there as the distributor.

When we're talking about prize money, the one doing the allocation is also outside of the groups of participants winning the prize money. He distributes the prize money equally to the participants, even though I don't like "distribute" here to begin with.

Now when we divide/share something among each other, I'd think of the people in the group, not of an external distributor.

Don't know whether I can make myself understandable here.

Björn Vrooman Sep 7, 2014:

@Charles First, thank you for the thorough and comprehensive explanation!

"Re. Fowler: you have slightly mixed up point (3). Fowler rejects the common idea that among is invariably used when more than two people or things are involved."

Yes, I believe I did and I will edit it below. I quote from Fowler:
"There are, however, cases where among is the better word to use, normally when the underlying notion is of collectivity rather than separation [...] Conversely, between and not among is used when there are only two people or things [...], and when the people or things (of whatever number) are specified."

Can you see how "conversely" threw me off here? I'd have preferred some word at the beginning here because it doesn't exactly reverse the statement beforehand (better word to use).

Charles Davis Sep 7, 2014:

(4) Let me now turn to the question of whether the preposition after distribute should be neither between nor among but to. Of course to is used, but that doesn’t mean the others aren’t. On the contrary, they clearly are, and just about as often: another Google search for “distribute equally to” gives me 268 results. There is a difference of emphasis; to focuses on the idea is giving something to a group of people, whereas between or among focus on the idea of dividing or sharing what is given.

In your second post you quoted the example “We distributed beans and maize to the refugees” from the Macmillan dictionary. Note that one of the definitions of distribute in this dictionary is “to share an available supply of something such as money among people or organizations” (emphasis mine). This is one small piece of evidence, I think, that among, for many people, is the default option after distribute.

Charles Davis Sep 7, 2014:

(3) I have just tried your Google searches and my results contradict what you said. I got 283 results for “distribute equally among” and 207 for “distribute equally between”. But even leaving aside the fact in order for these results to be reliable evidence of anything they need to be checked, since there is a great deal of inauthentic English on the Internet, there is also the obvious point that “distribute equally between” will always be used when there are only two recipients, merely because there are two, and therefore we would have to eliminate these cases from the results in order to determine the relative frequency of between and among after distribute with more than two recipients. I’m not going to do this, but it’s obvious that the result will be strongly in favour of among.

Charles Davis Sep 7, 2014:

(2) In this example, the people or things are not specified, so it is not automatically between. It is between if the people/things are being considered separately or individually and among if they are being considered collectively (assuming we agree with Fowler). I argue that distribute tends inherently to involve the idea of collectivity, which is why I favour among here. It is true, of course, that when things are distributed, each individual recipient gets some. But this doesn’t of itself make the idea of individuality or separation paramount, in my view. I would not now say, as I did at first, that “between” is actually wrong, and I recognise that some speakers would use it, but I think there is a clear preference, in general, for among rather than between after distribute when there are more than two unspecified recipients. I am not sure whether those who agreed with Jane did so because they would use “distribute between” with three or more unspecified recipients, or because they agreed with her that “two or more” functions grammatically like “two”.

Charles Davis Sep 7, 2014:

@ Björn (1) Re. Fowler: you have slightly mixed up point (3). Fowler rejects the common idea that among is invariably used when more than two people or things are involved. He tells us that between, not among, is used when there are only two people or things and when the people or things (of any number) are specified, and that among is used with more than two when the underlying notion is collectivity rather than separation.

I agree with this, and I said so (without going into detail) in my first discussion post. Maria then quoted the Cambridge Grammar, which says more or less the same as Fowler. Václav later agreed that “between can be used for more than two options”. So I think this view is widely accepted, though as I suggested, and Sheri seemed to confirm, it is not universally accepted, and seems to be widely rejected in the United States.

“Among two” is rejected by Fowler, and by me, and I think by virtually all speakers. If “two or more” counts grammatically as two, then among is wrong. But I maintain that it counts as more than two. So in principle it could be either “between two or more” or “among two or more” (if you agree with Fowler et al.)

Björn Vrooman Sep 7, 2014:

distribute Just two dictionary example sentences with "to":
"information leaflets are being distributed to hotels"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/distrib...

"We distributed beans and maize to the refugees."
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/distri...

As I know it: no "between", no "among".

Or without preposition:
"committed to distributing the school's limited scholarship money so that it benefits more students"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distribute

Björn Vrooman Sep 7, 2014:

@Charles and Maria Sadly, I didn't see this earlier. I'd like to add Fowler's definition:

1) false notion of "between" only for two things probably stems from the fact that people think of "between" in relation to physical distance; supported neither by OED nor by general usage
2) "among" is the better word to use when referring to things collectively
3) But [edit]: "between" is for only two things or for people/things which have been specified (between Marc, Ruth, and Allen)

Another UK grammar says about the same. No strong case for "among" with only two people/things, but for both among/between with more than two, depending on where the emphasis is.

Maria said "Such verbs as choose, divide, share" - yes, we're talking about "distribute", even though I'd normally use "to" for that one. If you google "distributed equally between/among" for UK pages, you'll get a slight preference for "between", even though both are not much in use (Warning: You need to go to the end of the search results to determine the precise number).

Best wishes

danya (asker) Sep 6, 2014:

and how am I supposed to grade this?))) thanks everyone for your input!

Václav Pinkava Sep 4, 2014:

between you and me and the gatepost (chuckle), I think between can be used for more than two options, unless it stands for "amid", (and even then, if describing a location between reference points). Distribution, apportionment, allocation, spreading can be between several. While one might consider and discuss other, more or less fringe options: "over", "across", "twixt", "betwixt", "amongst", or even "to" and choose from among them, or choose between them all ;) it is down to a personal choice: Between two or more options.

Sheri P Sep 4, 2014:

None taken! Just had myself a little chuckle over that.

Charles Davis Sep 4, 2014:

Whoops! No offence intended, Sheri. "Slavish" was perhaps a tad strong.

Sheri P Sep 4, 2014:

Yes, I take pride in being a slavish adherent :-)

Maria Fokin Sep 4, 2014:

You may be right. The authors of most of these texts, even when published on British websites, are indeed American.

Charles Davis Sep 4, 2014:

That seems to me clumsy and unnecessary. Moreover, I seem to detect in that quotation a slavish adherence to the "between 2/among 3 or more" rule, which I think is misguided.

I may be quite wrong here, but I've always had the impression that slavish adherence to that rule is more common among American speakers. When reading and editing I occasionally find myself thinking that "between" should have been used instead of "among", and when this happens it usually seems to be in American texts.

Maria Fokin Sep 4, 2014:

42000 literature hits for "between or among two or more" (Google books)

Maria Fokin Sep 4, 2014:

Here is an interesting way to get around the problem:

"Marine terminal discussion agreement means an agreement between or among two or more marine terminal operators ...."
Code of Federal Regulations, 2009

"Description of variable correlational study, the relationship examined is between or among two or more research variables within an identified situation."
The Practice of Nursing Research: Appraisal, Synthesis, and Generation of Evidence, 2013

Charles Davis Sep 4, 2014:

Yes, that's probably the reason, and if so it makes sense.

Maria Fokin Sep 4, 2014:

Your reasoning is very sound Charles.
In the source you quoted, I think they say "among three techniques" is correct because the objects are referred to collectively. In the last example, on the other hand, they are referred to individually, which makes the use of between more appropriate.

Charles Davis Sep 4, 2014:

And by the way, just to show that unanimity in this area will probably never be achieved, I find "a comparison among three techniques" suspect, although the source I cited says it's right and "between" is wrong. I don't really understand why they say this, given that they say the opposite with three elements in the other example you've just quoted.

Charles Davis Sep 4, 2014:

The Cambridge quotation ("the collective interpretation of among will normally [my emphasis] require a set of more than two") seems to leave the way open for "divide/share among two", which I think would be rejected by most speakers.

Charles Davis Sep 4, 2014:

I agree in general with your quotation from the Cambridge Grammar, and I made the same point in my first comment, although I would say that there is a clear preference for "among" with a verb like "distribute" when a set of more than two is involved, by the criterion stated: the recipients are normally considered collectively (the act of distribution is performed on the recipients as a group, as it were, rather than individually).

Charles Davis Sep 4, 2014:

@ Maria The answer, I think, is that distribution is one thing and comparison is another. A comparison between (rather than among) three things makes sense, because each is being compared with each of the others. By the criterion you've just quoted, they are considered individually. Another way you might see it is that it refers to a series of comparisons, each involving two elements (AB, AC and BC).

Maria Fokin Sep 4, 2014:

@ Charles what about the last example in your link? There are three objects:

Microscopy--A Comparison among Electron, Optical, and Scanning Probe Approaches WRONG

Microscopy--A Comparison between Electron, Optical, and Scanning Probe Approaches RIGHT

Maria Fokin Sep 4, 2014:

it is not so simple There is a well-known prescriptive rule saying that between is required when the complement denotes a set of two, and among when it denotes a larger set. This rule is based on the etymology of between, and is empirically quite unjustified, as is now recognized by most usage manuals.
...
The difference between the prepositions is thus not a matter of the size of the set denoted by their complement. It is, rather, that with between the members of the set are considered individually, whereas with among they are considered collectively.
...
Such verbs as choose, divide, share can accept both prepositions, though the collective interpretation of among will normally require a set of more than two:
...
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, 2002, page 636.

danya (asker) Sep 4, 2014:

@David Pray do not give in! Secretly, we shall remain among the among party)))

Charles Davis Sep 4, 2014:

@ danya Well, given that colleagues for whose grammatical judgement I have the highest respect have supported what I think is the wrong answer in this case, I have to agree!

danya (asker) Sep 4, 2014:

thanks to everyone who has opined! I do, however, oppose the reclassification to non-Pro; as the discussion shows, it is not as simple as that

Charles Davis Sep 4, 2014:

'With respect to a relationship among two or more objects, use "among". With respect to a relationship between two objects, use "between".'
http://users.wpi.edu/~nab/sci_eng/98_Jun_5.html

OK, this is just one opinion. But I think it's right.

Although the "among-for-more-than-two" rule is by no means always right (in a number of cases "between" should be used with more than two elements), distribution is a classic case for "among" when there are more than two elements.

I don't think Jane's argument that the closest number determines the preposition is right. To my mind, by the same argument that makes "one or more" plural (as it obviously is if you think about it), "two or more" as a phrase amounts to more than two. So I would say "among two or more". Not only does grammatical reasoning lead me to this; it instinctively sounds right to me.