With… With… and… With?

I once went to the park with a friend in order to eat badgers with spoons, but the people there got very angry with us because of it.

… Notice that I used the word “with” three times in the above sentence. But each time I did so, its meaning was distinctly different. This may not be very difficult for a fluent English speaker, but it does seem a bit much. Plus, it’s needless ambiguity! If you’re English, the last “with” will probably seem most likely to mean that the people were angry at my friend and I. But why doesn’t the “with” mean the same as it does in the first instance? In other words, why doesn’t it mean that the people got angry at the same time (or at the same thing) as my friend and I? Because they got angry with us!

Same with the second example, why aren’t we eating badgers that are together with spoons? Instead we are using the spoons to eat the badgers.

So what does Esperanto do about this? Three different words!

  • Kun = “with” in the sense of being together with something.
  • Per = “with” or “by means of”, eat badgers by means of spoons.
  • Kontraŭ = “with” or “against”. Think of it as being angry against someone, rather than together with them.
Nifty!
Advertisements

6 thoughts on “With… With… and… With?

  1. “If you’re English, the last ‘with’ will probably seem most likely to mean that the people were angry at my friend and I.”

    First, it’s not correct to say “angry at”. And second, it should be “my friend and me”. There is nothing wrong with using “me” in a list, IF it is an object. Would you ever say “they were angry with I”?

    • After years of being told to only ever say “X and I” (where X is the person I’m conjuncting myself with), it was only like 2 years ago that I found that what you’re saying is correct. It’s another one of those things I still slip up on when writing tired.

      However, ĉe “angry at”, I would have said it has a different nuance to “with”, but that it’s usage is so widespread that it couldn’t be incorrect. Can you point me to a modern grammatical resource which denies this?

  2. I remember trying to teach a bit of English to some Arab friends who absolutely refused to believe that “angry with” means what it means. As I recall (I’ve forgotten a lot), in Arabic you get angry “against” someone, like you explained here, so the expression “angry with” seemed just unbelievably backwards to them. They were convinced I had misunderstood the question.

    • Awesome! I love such differences in how we understand things. Although now that my brain has started working in this way (against instead of with), I find myself tempted to say it that way in English too! I start to think how ambiguous my “with”s are and have to try to stop myself from saying “against”!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s