Talk:with

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)Reply

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

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, but 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)Reply

• 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)Reply
  • A healthy rewrite would have only a few senses listed (ones that are genuinely distinct.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• This sounds like a rationale for cleanup, not deletion. Uncle G 12:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
• 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)Reply

[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)Reply

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 =Reply

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)electrumReply

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)Reply

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, but 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)Reply

It seems to me like a two-parter.

1. For (deprecated template usage) 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 (deprecated template usage) what's with 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)Reply

• What PoS would that fall under? ---> Tooironic 22:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

OK, great, I just added entry at what's with. Cheers. ---> Tooironic 07:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

... (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)Reply

From Alex Shearer's radio play Play Chopsticks for Me, where a fraudulent piano teacher is unwilling to let his pupil progress to actually playing a tune on the piano keyboard. What sense of "with" is this? Equinox ◑ 03:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox #7: As an instrument; by means of. --WikiTiki89 02:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't think so: he's complaining that the pupil is insisting on learning the keyboard again (i.e. "why are you perpetually going on about the keyboard?"), not telling the pupil how to play. Equinox ◑ 05:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Without having listened to this play, I assumed that you meant the pupil kept trying to actually play the keyboard. But if he was just talking about it then, #7 doesn't fit. I think this is the same sense of "with" as in "enough with". --WikiTiki89 14:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

He wasn't reaching for it, but asking to be taught it (whereas the teacher, a fraud, kept putting him off with stool-sitting and lid-lifting lessons). Yes, "enough with" is the same thing. Equinox ◑ 10:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Stop with this nonsense!" etc. also occurs. It doesn't mean "use the nonsense as an instrument to do the stopping". We are missing a (mainly US, informal?) sense. Equinox ◑ 00:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

this is same "with" as away with you, i think. macmillan. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:B529:D6B9:E82A:9F1F 00:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, perhaps; there's also "out with it!" (say what you have to say). Equinox ◑ 16:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

What meaning of with applies in the fact that he won still rankles with me? --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

#1 "against" seems to be the closest in meaning (see citations) but it isn't a very good fit for your example, and isn't substitutable ("rankled against me" is not right). Equinox ◑ 13:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

What meaning of with applies to That description doesn't ring any bells with me? --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I could never part with this ring. Can we dispense with the formalities? --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Quoting this page [2]:

With a joint honours degree you'll study each subject equally. You'll be able to tell if a degree is a joint honours as it will say "and" in the course title. For example, Psychology and Criminology.

FYI: If a course has "with" in the title, it is a Major/Minor degree. For example, Criminology with Psychology. You'll study spend more time studying the major part of the degree (in this case, Criminology) than the minor part.

Equinox ◑ 16:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

John went to Houston and Sarah went to Minneapolis, with me going to Chicago --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

whit reads Pronunciation spelling of with. Backinstadiums (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

John Camden Hotten's Slang Dictionary (1873) has "with and without, words by themselves, supposed to denote the existence or non-existence of sugar in grog. Generally warm with and cold without." I suppose this is common-or-garden ellipsis, but perhaps worth a thought. (In particular, can it be a "preposition" if it isn't followed by anything?) Equinox ◑ 01:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply