0
Angliholic Posted 19 years ago
Grammar

met with

0This excerpt is from dear Abby.02br
02br
00i have a son, 17, and a 14-year-old daughter. Both have 01u00met with02u00 military recruiters from almost all the 01u00branches02u00 at school. Ar first, I was furous. however, my husband and I decided to meet wiht each recruiter and discuss the options with our son. He thought we'd oppose his joining and wanted to 01u00shut us out.02u02br
02br
00First, could I use met instead of wet with here?02br
02br
00Second, what does branches refer to? departments?02br
02br
00Third, could I replace shut us out with exclude us or talk to us no more?02br
02br
00Thanks.0-
  

Top answer

0You can't really say "met" instead of "met with" - "met with" means they had a meeting, an organized discussion. 0-

— BarbaraPA

  • 0You can't really say "met" instead of "met with" - "met with" means they had a meeting, an organized discussion.
  • 0-
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

4 Answers
0
0You can't really say "met" instead of "met with" - "met with" means they had a meeting, an organized discussion. You can meet someone by chance, but when you meet with someone, it's on purpose.02br
02br
00The branches are of the armed forces are the army, navy, air force, and marines.02br
02br
00Shut us out - exclude us from the conversation, not listen t
0
0
0 Thanks again, GG, for the crytal clear anwser. 0-
0
0
AngliholicFirst, could I use met instead of wet with here?
What the other answer did not tell you was that "met with" is part of American English in particular. You do not need the with if you do not use American English. It is wordy.
0
0
Anonymous It is wordy.
There is no need to make this comment every time an AmE expression contains one word more than its BrE equivalent.
0

Related Questions