Answers: Does adding "with" change this sentence: "He fought [with] someone"?

[bluewolf458.livejournal.com]

This is a perfect example of how a phrase or sentence can have two completely opposite meanings. Let's call on our Sentinel friends for a little help.

With is a preposition.

Prepositions typically express a relationship in time and/or space, and are put before a noun or pronoun to show how that noun (pronoun) is related to another word in the sentence. Usually there's no ambiguity - 'Blair walked from Hargrove Hall to his car.' The reader knows exactly what Blair is doing.

However, it's not always that simple.

'Jim fought the criminal and overpowered him.' This can also be worded as 'Jim fought with the criminal and overpowered him.'

But

'Jim fought beside the Chopec to defend the Pass' can also be worded as 'Jim fought with the Chopec to defend the Pass.'

Basically, if you use 'with' you have to depend on context to indicate which usage - against or beside - you intend. It's probably simpler to reword the sentence so that you don't use 'with'.


There's an excellent article on prepositions here
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/preposition

Comments

Does adding "with" change this sentence: "He fought [with] someone"?

[campylobacter.livejournal.com]

It's probably simpler to reword the sentence so that you don't use 'with'.

Agreed. "With" isn't the optimal preposition to use as a particle for "fight", as it introduces ambiguity.

AMBIGUOUS: "Buffy fought WITH Agent Carter to beat the Daleks."
CLEARER: "Buffy AND Agent Carter fought AGAINST the Daleks."
OR: "Buffy fought WITH Agent Carter about the best way to beat the Daleks."

[arcanetrivia]

My usage might also differ if I mean to describe a physical fight or a verbal one. I might say I fought with my mother if we had a shouting match, but I would not say I fought her unless I mean that blows were exchanged.