The two examples are seen quite often in literature (especially in technical/medical texts), with the former being more common. Are they strictly equivalent? What subtle nuances distinguish the two? Thanks for your comments.
1 2 3 4 5
Comments  (Page 4) 
Anonymousmore wrong
Interesting phrase to use in a rant about the general decay of the English language.
I would think rather the opposite: to = US, with English
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Am technical editor. This is a very good post/assessment. Thank you.
Another example I have encountered is "different to" instead of "different from." Most recently I saw this several times in a book published in 2016 by a faculty member at the University of Durham, UK.

"Different to" and "associated to" sound slightly grating, even if technically acceptable, as several other commenters have said. Interestingly, in this book, the usage came across to the reader Emotion: it wasnt me as somewhat affected, since the author also made excessive use of various "politically correct" expressions that also grated.

However, I also saw "associated to" used in a major US newspaper this morning, so I suppose we will have to accept its use and the possibility that it is becoming more widespread.

Same here. I've just edited it, changing "to" to "with", in a paper on rabbit production:

"Bacteroides spp. are involved in many important metabolic activities in the gut and have been associated with abdominal infections..."

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.

"editoring staff"? Yikes!

For one because it is not grammatically correct and one should try to correct those non-native speakers, so that they do not make the mistake in the future.

ain't "associated to" more like a small thing linked to a large thing, and "associated with" more like two equal things linked to each other? sorry, i am not english.

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?

Well the fact is that if you work in science, and you have to publish in English, but you cannot write as a linguist because it is not your competence. It is more than enough that we can communicate with fluency but we cannot expect to be able to do it as a language academic, as we are scientists. So sorry sir, but it is the handicap of being the vehicular language in science and in many other areas. I would like to see you writing in a foreign language

Show more