I TOOK HER THROUGH ...

Because of my difficult personality at the time, she had to experience many hardships.

it was hard to put up with me

IMO, I was hard to put up with is incorrect grammatically.

He is a difficult guy to put up with

I was hard to put up with

IMO, the prep is dangling idly in the subject complement.

AnonymousHi friends, I would like someone explain to me the exact meaning of this "TOOK ...THROUGH" here: 'But I took her through a lot of things, because I know I was hard to put up with.' Thanks in advance, Jo.

In this context, to say "took her through" is completely wrong. To take someone through something means to give guidance or information. So you mig

I'm glad you said that Tidus. I thought it was yet another of the BrE/AmE things, but our usage is just like you said: I put her through a lot, or she went through a lot.

And with the "I'm hard to put up with" coming after, "I put her though a lot" sounds odd. To much much putting!

Yes:
-------
To take someone through something

to escort/accompany someone through something or some place

Spears, American Idioms
---------
but this book isn't anyway a model of writing in standard English

Grammar GeekAnd with the "I'm hard to put up with" coming after, "I put her though a lot" sounds odd. To much much putting!

It's the snobbery around English that doesn't like to see the same word used twice - even though it makes perfect sense. So, "she went through a lot because I was hard to put up with", would probably be the phrase of choice.

Hi Tidus,

Do you think that perhaps it may be a matter of style rather than of snobbery?

Best wishes, Clive

Yes, but the style adopted by many - myself included most of the time - is one that specifically avoids what we call "bad English" or "bad grammar", even though the sentence is perfectly ok. It's kinda snooty imo because those who don't are sometimes perceived as some kind of lesser mortal by those who do.