# War among/between



## Fer-cat

¿Cúal sería la forma correcta de decirlo?

The war among European countries
The war between European Countries


----------



## albertovidal

Fer-cat said:


> ¿Cúal sería la forma correcta de decirlo?
> 
> The war among European countries
> The war between European Countries



¿De cuántos países hablamos?. ¿De dos, de tres , de diez?. ¿De dos contra uno?. ¿De tres contra dos?


----------



## Fer-cat

¿Entre varios among y entre dos, o entre uno y dos between?


----------



## albertovidal

Fer-cat said:


> ¿Entre varios among y entre dos, o entre uno y dos between?


----------



## ribran

Fer-cat said:


> ¿Entre varios among y entre dos, o entre uno y dos between?



No es tan sencilla la cosa. 

_This, of course, is between our three discreet selves._ - Jane Austen

_...under the shadowing trees_ (más de dos) _between whose tops looked down from afar the bold brow of some wooded bluff._ - Francis Parkman

_...the relation between grammar, Latin, and social power._ - Robert Pattison, _On Literacy_


----------



## albertovidal

ribran said:


> No es tan sencilla la cosa.
> 
> _This, of course, is between our three discreet selves._ - Jane Austen
> 
> _...under the shadowing trees_ (más de dos) _between whose tops looked down from afar the bold brow of some wooded bluff._ - Francis Parkman
> 
> _...the relation between grammar, Latin, and social power._ - Robert Pattison, _On Literacy_



Oops!
Then, how would you explain in plain English?


----------



## ribran

Sacado del muy útil _Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_:

_James A. H. Murray in the OED says it as clearly and succinctly as anyone: It_ [between] _is still the only word available to express the relation of a thing to many surrounding things severally and individually,_ among _expressing a relation to them collectively and vaguely._

_In the following example, note how_ between _emphasizes differences between one person and each of a number of others, or the whole of them collectively, while_ among _shows an indefinite relationship within the group:

...it is doubtful whether the differences between Burchfield and the Americans are greater than the differences among the Americans themselves. - Robert F. Ilson, in Greenbaum 1985_


----------



## blasita

ribran said:


> Sacado del muy útil _Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_:
> 
> _James A. H. Murray in the OED says it as clearly and succinctly as anyone: It_ [between] _is still the only word available to express the relation of a thing to many surrounding things severally and individually,_ among _expressing a relation to them collectively and vaguely._
> 
> _In the following example, note how_ between _emphasizes differences between one person and each of a number of others, or the whole of them collectively, while_ among _shows an indefinite relationship within the group:
> 
> ...it is doubtful whether the differences between Burchfield and the Americans are greater than the differences among the Americans themselves. - Robert F. Ilson, in Greenbaum 1985_



Yes, I agree. "Between" can sometimes be used to refer to more than two people/things, especially where they are seen as individually separated from one another.

But what would be the difference here? Wouldn´t "among" be preferred in the original sentence?

Un saludo.


----------



## ribran

_Between_ seems to me much more likely and natural.

On Google Books, there are 56 results for "war between European countries" and 19 results for "war among European countries."

EDIT: In order for us to be able to use _among_, there must be some sort of vagueness or ambiguity in the relationship of the objects. In most wars, it is well known which countries are involved and why they are fighting.


----------



## blasita

ribran said:


> _Between_ seems to me much more likely and natural.
> 
> On Google Books, there are 56 results for "war between European countries" and 19 results for "war among European countries."



Thank you, Ribran.  But personally, I don´t understand why; is it because countries are seen as separate entities?

Un saludo.

Edit: You´ve edited your post and so replied to my question. Thanks.


----------



## Istriano

WAR AMONG sounds like a civil war.


----------



## Masood

It depends on context, I think.

"The war between European Countries" - e.g. this could refer to 2 or more warring countries. These  countries can be considered as individual, discrete entities.

"The war among(st) European countries" - e.g. this could refer to battles involving two groups which take place at different geographical locations in different countries/borders.


----------



## elirlandes

Most people couldn't tell the difference, and don't differenciate.

"Between" describes a relationship where the elements are unrelated.
"Among" describes a relationship where the elements form part of a greater group.



> On Google Books, there are 56 results for "war between European countries" and 19 results for "war among European countries."


Both are correct, depending on how you look at things.

Countries are separate independent entities, so you have a war "between" them.
That said, the countries in question are part of a wider grouping known as Europe and as such you could use the word "among" - "a war among European countries".


To illustrate further, you could have a war "between Brazil and Japan", but you could not have a war "among Brazil and Japan" - there is no greater grouping inherent in the phrase which allows "among" to be used.


----------



## ribran

Masood said:


> "The war among(st) European countries" - e.g. this could refer to battles involving two groups which take place at different geographical locations in different countries/borders.



Ha! I didn't think of this. That's a very special, specific context, but I definitely agree with you.


----------



## Masood

elirlandes said:


> To illustrate further, you could have a war "between Brazil and Japan", but you could not have a war "among Brazil and Japan" - there is no greater grouping inherent in the phrase which allows "among" to be used.


Good point.


----------



## elirlandes

Note that the grouping needed for "among" to work in these examples is a [lingustic/grammatical ** *(?)] one, not a factual one.

While you could describe a war beween France and Germany as a "war among European countries", you could not say that there was a war "among France and Germany", it would have to be "between France and Germany".

_*** Not being a linguistics professional, I don't know what word to use here... _


----------



## ribran

elirlandes said:


> Most people couldn't tell the difference, and don't differentiate.


I think all native speakers differentiate between the two, though they may not always know how to explain their choices.



elirlandes said:


> Both are correct, depending on how you look at things.
> 
> Countries are separate independent entities, so you have a war "between" them.
> That said, the countries in question are part of a wider grouping known as Europe and as such you could use the word "among" - "a war among European countries".



Fair enough. I didn't meant to say it was incorrect, but rather that _between_ seemed more natural to me.


----------



## inib

Istriano said:


> WAR AMONG sounds like a civil war.


 Short, to the point, and in my opinion, very true and illustrative at the same time.


----------



## blasita

Istriano said:


> WAR AMONG sounds like a civil war.



I´m sure this is a nice point, but sorry, I don´t understand how "war among" can sound like a civil war if we´re talking about  "a war among countries."


----------



## inib

blasita said:


> I´m sure this is a nice point, but sorry, I don´t understand how "war among" can sound like a civil war if we´re talking about "a war among countries."


I think that IS the point, blasita. That it sounds odd to say a war _among_ countries, unless they are grouped together in some way (and I admit they are to a point in the original post by the adjective _European,_ so my attempt at an explanation is inviting criticism, but here goes anyway *Istriano* only gave two words, so obviously we are not contemplating all possible contexts, but if I saw those two words alone, I would also think of some type of internal conflict, a problem that all participants had *in common*, not something that *divides/separates* (that would be _between_) two or more entities. 
I'm finding this very hard to explain, but_ between_, to me, emphasises on this idea of going in opposite directions, whereas _among_ suggests a common issue that is in our midst...we don't have to all be involved on the same side, but we're all involved together somehow. 
I'm sorry, I think I'm repeating myself, and I'm not at all sure that I've managed to express that little nuance that I feel but can't explain properly.


----------



## blasita

inib said:


> I think that IS the point, blasita. That it sounds odd to say a war _among_ countries, unless they are grouped together in some way (and I admit they are to a point in the original post by the adjective _European,_ so my attempt at an explanation is inviting criticism, but here goes anyway. *Istriano* only gave two words, so obviously we are not contemplating all possible contexts, but if I saw those two words alone, I would also think of some type of internal conflict, a problem that all participants had *in common*, not something that *divides/separates* (between) two or more entities.
> I'm finding this very hard to explain, but_ between_, to me, emphasises on this idea of going in opposite directions, whereas _among_ suggests a common issue that is in our midst...we don't have to all be involved on the same side, but we're all involved together somehow.
> I'm sorry, I think I'm repeating myself, and I'm not at all sure that I've managed to express that little nuance that I feel but can't explain properly.



Thanks, Inib.  Yes, I actually said that I was sure it was a good point, but, as the other foreros were talking about countries, I couldn´t see how it was related. And I still don´t fully understand, but no worries, I must not be bright enough. I´ll give it more thought.

Saludos.


----------



## inib

blasita said:


> Thanks, Inib. Yes, I actually said that I was sure it was a good point, but, as the other foreros were talking about countries, I couldn´t see how it was related. And I still don´t fully understand, but no worries, I must not be bright enough. I´ll give it more thought.
> 
> Saludos.


 You're brighter than I am, blasita. I can't even say what I want to in my own language!


----------



## persona4

To me, "between" definitely sounds more natural. It was my first instinct, and I haven't put much thought into how or why, but as a native speaker that is the one I would go with.


----------



## Masood

inib said:


> I'm finding this very hard to explain, but_ between_, to me, emphasises on this idea of going in opposite directions, whereas _among_ suggests a common issue that is in our midst...


Compare:
_He walked between the trees.
He walked amongst the trees._

Pensándolo bien, dudo que este ejemplo sirva de ayuda...


----------



## inib

Masood said:


> Compare:
> _He walked between the trees._
> _He walked amongst the trees._
> 
> Pensándolo bien, dudo que este ejemplo sirva de ayuda...


 One last try, Masood, because I know I'm not explaining this well enough.
If I say "_he walked between the trees_", I imagine one tree (singular, individual) *OR* a row of trees (plural, a group) on the left and another on the right and "he" is in the middle, or follows a line down the middle if we are talking about a row.
If I say "_he walked among the trees_", I imagine "him" roaming haphazardly from one space to another, almost blending in with the trees, going from left to right, and marking no limit between one and another.


----------



## ribran

inib said:


> One last try, Masood, because I know I'm not explaining this well enough.
> If I say "_he walked between the trees_", I imagine one tree (singular, individual) *OR* a row of trees (plural, a group) on the left and another on the right and "he" is in the middle, or follows a line down the middle if we are talking about a row.
> If I say "_he walked among the trees_", I imagine "him" roaming haphazardly from one space to another, almost blending in with the trees, going from left to right, and marking no limit between one and another.



That's perfect (and I say "perfect" because I agree with it )!

But how does one walk between a single tree?


----------



## inib

ribran said:


> That's perfect (and I say "perfect" because I agree with it )!
> 
> But how does one walk between a single tree?


 Hey ribran, I said "_one tree (...) on the left and another on the right_".
*I think*, because I'm really losing track of what I've said and what I meant! Goodnight to all.


----------



## Masood

inib said:


> I'm really losing track of what I've said and what I meant


You can't see the woods for the trees!


----------



## inib

Masood said:


> You can't see the woods for the trees!


 Exactly, Masood. Well said.


----------



## ribran

inib said:


> One last try, Masood, because I know I'm not explaining this well enough.
> If I say "_he walked between the trees_", I imagine one tree (singular, individual) *OR* a row of trees (plural, a group) on the left and another on the right and "he" is in the middle, or follows a line down the middle if we are talking about a row.
> If I say "_he walked among the trees_", I imagine "him" roaming haphazardly from one space to another, almost blending in with the trees, going from left to right, and marking no limit between one and another.



I tried this last night in the woods behind my house, and it's true!


----------

