Talk:with

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Came here looking for abbreviations of "with". I seen w, /w, w with a bar on top, c with a bar on top, and others, but don't know which is the most accepted.--193.63.217.208 15:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S., the abbreviation is w/. —Stephen 16:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

RFD[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Redundant senses. Quotations should probably be moved to with/Citations (as there are more than 9) and the senses more reasonably regrouped. --Connel MacKenzie 20:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Apart from the accessory one, which seems to be making a distinction between "noun with" and "verb with", it's not clear which you think they are redundant of. DAVilla 14:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • A healthy rewrite would have only a few senses listed (ones that are genuinely distinct.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a rationale for cleanup, not deletion. Uncle G 12:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Just as WT:RFV is a mix of {{rfv}} and {{rfv-sense}}, WT:RFD has {{rfd}}s, {{rfd-sense}}s and {{rfd-redundant}}s. I don't understand your complaint. --Connel MacKenzie 16:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Excpet Vild smashed {{rfd-sense}} within three days. If we were to get pedantic about it, the template should really be r-f-merge-sense or something. But we don't even have rfv-etymology, which is probably the next highest request. DAVilla 22:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Then you aren't remembering what this page is for. Look at the title. It is "Requests for deletion". Discussions here are to determine whether an administrator should hit a delete button to remove an article entirely. Fixing poor articles, which can be done by any editor and doesn't involve administrators hitting delete buttons, is a matter of cleanup, not deletion. Vildricianus was quite right to point out the error of {{rfd-sense}}, and thinking that cleaning an article up to combine or fix redundant senses is in any way a deletion process is a similar error. Uncle G 17:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I see that an anonymous editor has deleted the senses you marked, but frankly I think they should stay. Until you begin trying to learn other languages, you never appreciate just how arbitrary and illogical the use of prepositions is. Anyone wanting to learn English would benefit from a separate definition that notes with may be used to express the manner of action "with glee"; may be used to express conjunctive operation "with my co-workers"; may be used to express inclusion "with cheese"; and other senses which (while second-nature to a native speaker) are really quite different in the meaning conveyed. Of all the parts of speech in European languages, prepositions are the most problematic when learning a new language because, no matter how much grammar and vocabulary you master, the use of prepositions will be largely arbitrary.

    Consider that in English we walk down the street, even if the street is level. Germans walk "an der Strasse" (on the street), while Spaniards walk "en la calle" (in the street). The surprising truth one discovers in working with foreign languages is that all the "obvious" meanings of prepositions we take for granted each day are actually quite idiomatic and arbitrary and so require careful explanation. --EncycloPetey 18:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Old High German as a source[edit]

[1] - added by Beobach972. It might as well be a hoax as IP claims, because AFAIK OHG borrowings into Old English are next to non-existing?! --Ivan Štambuk 06:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn’t call it a hoax, which is a deliberate deception, but I agree it’s not completely accurate. Rather that "from OHG," it probably should be "cf. OHG" or "cognate with OHG". —Stephen 07:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Adding comment on with =

WITH + NOUN/PRONOUN + COMPLEMENT[edit]

I don't see anything in the definitions of with that accounts for the case of with followed by a noun/pronoun and a complement, as in these examples:

We began the game with John serving.
With clouds in the west, we could not see the sunset.
With the police watching my house, I felt secure.

Someone commented that this with is adventitious, and that without it, we are left with a nominative absolute. In my opinion, the origin of the construction doesn't matter; it's still perfectly acceptable. But even if it is not perfectly acceptable, there should be an entry to define it in this context. `Electrum 09:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)electrum

Is it not included in the sense: Used to indicate simultaneous happening, or immediate succession or consequence.? I think that many kinds of nominals can follow "with". DCDuring TALK 12:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Tea room discussion[edit]

Teacup clipart.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Tea room.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


You'll often hear school kids in Australia say What's with you? to mean What's wrong with you? How can we include that sense in with? ---> Tooironic 23:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me like a two-parter.
  1. For with that seems like too narrow a usage example. I think the sense of with is something like "in relation to":
    • What's up with the new banner? / What's with the new banner?
    • What's happening with the health-care vote? / What's with the health-care vote?
    In this usage with is unstressed.
  2. But there is also a usage in which with (or its object) is heavily stressed (as I hear it in the US), which may be the same as what you are referring to. I think it is not exactly "wrong with", but perhaps someone else can find wording for this sense of with.
    • What is with him lately?
    • What's with him?
    It may be that what's with (why is (someone or something) like that) should be considered an idiom. It seems like a specialized interrogative pronoun, like {term|wherefor}}, possibly on the way to becoming a compound spelled solid. DCDuring TALK 11:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • What PoS would that fall under? ---> Tooironic 22:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
When a multi-word expression doesn't come close to fitting into a real PoS or a Proverb, I punt and call it a Phrase using {{infl}}. This one seems like it might also belong in Category:English idioms and Category:English non-constituents. DCDuring TALK 00:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, great, I just added entry at what's with. Cheers. ---> Tooironic 07:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


This is not a word you can end a sentence with.[edit]

... (unless you're speaking Midwestern American English) ... or so the entry is now claiming ... I don't see why. Jimp 14:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)