Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!hookup!nstn.ns.ca!dragon.acadiau.ca!dragon.acadiau.ca!alan
From: alan@dragon.acadiau.ca (Alan McKay)
Subject: Re: English: Is "...met..." or "...met with..." gramatically
Message-ID: <1995Aug1.125237.29907@relay.acadiau.ca>
Sender: news@relay.acadiau.ca
Nntp-Posting-Host: dragon.acadiau.ca
Organization: Acadia University
References: <75351-807062035@mindlink.bc.ca>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 12:52:37 GMT
Lines: 14

a18812@mindlink.bc.ca (William Thornton-Trump) writes:

>I still think "meet with" is redundant. There are so many redundancies
>around that we usually don't even notice them. Earlier I gave the example
>of "whether or not". How about "close proximity"? There is even a popular
>TV show called "Unsolved Mysteries"!

I'd say that both are perfectly correct, like in Russian.  Although,
using "with" implies that you set a date beforehand, whereas without
"with" does not.

-- 
            Enter any 11-digit prime number to continue...
http://www.acadiau.ca/cc/alan/
