The super macro guessing game (5)

If I had a cello or double bass, would I use one of these?

Bullseye!
More later, but it's yours

Chris.R wrote in post #18349855
Bullseye!
More later, but it's yours

OK ... but will only post when I get back from Zurich

ed

ECC233 wrote in post #18349881
OK ... but will only post when I get back from Zurich

ed

In 6 weeks?

ECC233 wrote in post #18349881
OK ... but will only post when I get back from Zurich

ed

Do a Toblerone and get it over with


The cello foot came with my first instrument, deeply back into last century. I replaced it with a flashier more effective design.

Chris.R wrote in post #18349775

OhLook wrote in post #18349645
As "meet" and "meet with" aren't synonymous, that "with" isn't a needless addition. It creates a meaning that "meet" alone lacks. I do hope that this explanation will meet your approval.

That's not an explanation so much as an unexplained assertion - which implies unjustified authority. Therefore it's utterly unsatisfactory.

In this context, of ordinary use, there is no change in meaning whatsoever. It's what Fowler called a "needless variant".

How is "I meet you" different from "I meet with you"?
"With" can add specificity but one person meeting one other is completely specific, already, is it not?

In American usage, to meet and to meet with are different. To meet you is simply to encounter you. To meet with you is to have what in business is called a meeting, which may involve as few as two persons. On your day off, you meet a colleague on the street and exchange greetings. At work, you meet with a colleague or colleagues to discuss the floor plan for the new office. You meet a famous actor for the first time and get his autograph, but you don't meet with the actor unless, for example, you two are neighbors and you need to have a talk about something. Later the actor meets with his attorney to prepare to deal with those nasty tabloid stories.

"Meet with" also occurs in phrases like "meet with disaster," "meet with success," "meet with a mishap." Did you not notice, in my post, "meet your approval," which makes no sense, at least in Standard American English?

Well, I almost got a toblerone at the station but I resisted.

Here you go. I hope it meets with your approval!

OhLook wrote in post #18349992
In American usage, to meet and to meet with are different. To meet you is simply to encounter you. To meet with you is to have what in business is called a meeting, which may involve as few as two persons. On your day off, you meet a colleague on the street and exchange greetings. At work, you meet with a colleague or colleagues to discuss the floor plan for the new office. You meet a famous actor for the first time and get his autograph, but you don't meet with the actor unless, for example, you two are neighbors and you need to have a talk about something. Later the actor meets with his attorney to prepare to deal with those nasty tabloid stories.

"Meet with" also occurs in phrases like "meet with disaster," "meet with success," "meet with a mishap." Did you not notice, in my post, "meet your approval," which makes no sense, at least in Standard American English?

OhLook wrote in post #18349992
In American usage, to meet and to meet with are different. To meet you is simply to encounter you. To meet with you is to have what in business is called a meeting, which may involve as few as two persons. On your day off, you meet a colleague on the street and exchange greetings. At work, you meet with a colleague or colleagues to discuss the floor plan for the new office. You meet a famous actor for the first time and get his autograph, but you don't meet with the actor unless, for example, you two are neighbors and you need to have a talk about something. Later the actor meets with his attorney to prepare to deal with those nasty tabloid stories.

You illustrate the problem(s).
First: that’s the popular misconception.
John explained it to me in Lindbergh MSP’s quiet room, up from the Conference Center, when I met him between flights. He was what in the US is called a Professor of Literature. (In the UK he’d be a mere teacher, lecturer perhaps, but of English Literature ). Now, you don’t know whether it was arranged or a chance encounter, do you? If I’d thrown a “with” in there, you still wouldn’t know. That’s the problem. “With”, or lack of it, doesn’t tell you. It’s a word which gets used because it seems to fit, but doesn’t actually mean anything. It tends to imply specificity, but it’s so loosely used, today also with chance encounters, that it’s not much use. His postman “met with the dog”, was something he quoted. Should we be concerned for either?
He’s from Burbank, speaking monotonously with imperceptible mandibular movement and solemn gravitas. Not someone to argue with if you’re inclined to errors/omissions of analysis. We went on to UMN together – now you know it was arranged.
--

Yes I immediately noticed; "OhLook she's done it yet again", was my reaction. I notice most times when someone fails to read what was written, inventing something else, so that an argument can be spirited out of nothing. (cf "Straw man".) Especially when it's a habit.
I have to wonder which part of "people" wasn't understood. Unless of course “approval”, “disaster”, “mishaps” and whatever, are regarded as animate, on that side of the bay.
And that was the second.

Nogo wrote in post #18349117
OK. Then you must be painfully aware of how different Boston English and the speech of the southerners that is a mixture of English, Scotch Irish English, Gullah, Cajun, and who knows what else, are from each other.

You deflected. My point is that a surface for teppanyaki style cooking is not a grill. You tried to assert that I'm from New England to prove that I don't know what a grill is... but I'm actually born and raised in the South. I just happen to know what a grill and a griddle each are.

OhLook wrote in post #18349571
I think Americans would more likely say "affix to" or "attach to."

For language disputes, I reference the Oxford Dictionary as standard for both British and American English. I prefer to use "affix" but the use of the word "fix" is not incorrect. Acceptable usage in both countries. (https://en.oxforddicti​onaries.com/definition​/fix)

Chris.R wrote in post #18349633
We show courtesy, not courteousness. What are the extra syllables doing there?

I agree with you that those extra syllables are gratuitous. However, we are all capable of bastardizing language. "Orient" versus "orientate" has always bothered me. According to Oxford, "orientate" is of British origin. (https://en.oxforddicti​onaries.com/definition​/orientate)

The worst of it is when I hear someone proclaim that they feel disorientated - which is sort of how some people must feel about reading all these responses here lately.

Chris.R wrote in post #18349633
We meet people, we don't meet WITH people.

On this entire discussion about "with" (people), I will argue that it does matter. When I say I met John, the meaning is encountered him physically. When I say I met with John, the meaning is that our minds met. Two different questions:

• Did John meet the President?
  
• Did John meet with the President?
  

Chris.R wrote in post #18350315
You illustrate the problem(s).
First: that’s the popular misconception.
John explained it to me in Lindbergh MSP’s quiet room, up from the Conference Center, when I met him between flights. . . . Now, you don’t know whether it was arranged or a chance encounter, do you? If I’d thrown a “with” in there, you still wouldn’t know. That’s the problem. “With”, or lack of it, doesn’t tell you.

I don't know what problem you say I illustrate. I was describing U.S. usage to you. That "meet" and "meet with" have different meanings in American usage isn't a misconception, it's a fact. Native speakers make the distinction without trying.

Nathan gave a further example: "meet [with] the president." In that example, as elsewhere, the distinction we make isn't whether an encounter is planned or accidental. It's whether the parties simply encounter each other (meet) or join in a session to talk something over (meet with). You can say "I'm meeting my friend in front of the theater at 7:00." Such a meeting is arranged, but we don't use "meeting with" for it.

I didn't fail to read what was written. I didn't invent anything else or construct a straw-man argument. I deliberately omitted "with" to illustrate that the word is sometimes needed and that "meet" and "meet with" aren't semantically interchangeable. Somehow your (mis)interpretation puts me at fault. That seems to happen a lot.

OhLook wrote in post #18350353
I didn't fail to read what was written.

You did, have a look.
I already explained where.
Nobody on this planet said "meet" and "meet with" were synonyms.
Why introduce that?
I said about meeting people, you went on about using "with" in the context of meeting with approval, etc.
I ignored it first time.
But you repeated.
Why you want to bring up the irrelevant, misquotes, or bleedin' obvious, rather that look at the words written, I don't know.


And you just did it again!
If it's not your intention, I can only think you aren't trying very hard, because you do it a lot.

What you have to do, is read the lines which followed. It says "misconception".......​........

I wasn't going to get involved in this, but as I am usually regarded as a pedant where the use of (British) English is concerned ...

I was taught that the difference between "meet" and "meet with" was in the degree of pre-organisation and formality. To "meet" would be used to describe a chance encounter, you would "meet with" your employer in a planned exchange.

I don't know if it helps, but for me moving to the future and past tenses makes the distinction much clearer.

I will meet with him tomorrow ...this can only be a planned meeting unless you are mystic Meg.
I will meet him tomorrow has a nuance of a less formal meeting )a meal or a drink rather than a business meeting)

I met him yesterday ... for me this covers both cases. I do not think I would ever say "I met with him yesterday" .... ut that is probably the difference between Uk and US usage,

Anyway ... I feel better for that. If nothing else it made me look up the origin of the quote about "two nations divided by a common language", which I had always mistakenly attributed to Churchill (well Shakespeare or Churchill are always a good guess).

Meanwhile, back to the game.

Ed

Ok, but that's quite a different meaning, which nobody has suggested.

I probably need to point out that UK residents are bombarded with US language. We tend to notice inconsistencies.
"With" is frequently inserted in relation to chance encounters, and frequently left out in relation to arranged ones. It's nearly always included, for all situations.
"I met with" is continuously being used for silent, chance meetings. All business glances were they? Nope, just people who always throw "with" in.
Definitions can be made about how it "should" be used, but when there's mass variation, it doesn't work.
Perhaps you don't notice.

"Native Americans" guess what they mean. Usually of course they get their meaning across. Was it "a meeting of minds" when the Brexit woman met the EU man recently? I doubt it very much, so "meet with", doesn't cover it.
They had a meeting, simple!

FDR met Churchill at Yalta. Fine, no need for a "with".

Since listening to Professor John from the Uni of Minnesota quite a few years ago now, I've been noticing. Perhaps you will now!


Ed's

is yet another variation. Oh dear, everybody means something different - of those who use "with".
Brits would hardly ever use it. Much more likely would be meet up with, have a meeting with, etc.
Similarly, we'd avoid "I saw the boss this morning". Meaning unclear.


disoriented - I use it, but few would in the UK. Disorientated is normal - another needless variant.
Intense attack vs Intensive attack, is another. If you need an adjective, don't use a gerund.
Alternative used to be considered an error, where the adjective alternate is meant, but it has become accepted.
Relevancy = needless, it's relevance.
"Different than" sounds horrible in the UK vs "different from", and there are simple grammar rules the former breaks, but at least we know what y'all mean

I recognise the object this time, so I'll have a rest..

Chris.R wrote in post #18350364
You did, have a look.

And you just did it again!

No. Just no. I've tried all along to be civil. I'm getting to the gritted-teeth stage. Is that what you hoped to accomplish?

ECC233 wrote in post #18350368
I was taught that the difference between "meet" and "meet with" was in the degree of pre-organisation and formality. To "meet" would be used to describe a chance encounter, you would "meet with" your employer in a planned exchange. . . .

I met him yesterday ... for me this covers both cases. I do not think I would ever say "I met with him yesterday" .... ut that is probably the difference between Uk and US usage

Evidently it is. U.S. journalists routinely write that a senator met with constituents or that a manufacturer met with a group of customers.

Chris.R wrote in post #18350381
Ok, but that's quite a different meaning, which nobody has suggested.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that "meet with" requires minds to meet in the sense of agreeing on everything, and I'm not sure that's what Nathan meant. When the senator meets with constituents, they may carry picket signs and end up throwing their water bottles at him.

Again, we don't use "with" to make that distinction. We aren't breaking a rule; our dialect has a different rule, that's all. And in what I read and hear, "with" is far from nearly always included. We commonly say "How did you meet your wife?"