with as conjunction

Question

"This sense of urgency was clearly expressed in Stalin's speech to a Party Congress on 12 September 1941, with the war with Germany reaching its height and Moscow beginning negotiations with Britain and the United States over the terms of a triple alliance."

Is it permissive to set off the second clause with a [with] this way? Or perhaps I should just get rid of the [with] (i.e. ....on 12 September 1941, the war with Germany reaching......)?

And, generally, does the whole sentence work?

Thank you.

Avangi · Accepted Answer

If I understand your question, "with" is not a conjunction, but a preposition. "The war with Germany reaching etc. is not a clause, but a participial phrase.

The sentence is fine, and works well for me as it is.

His prospects for the future were very grim, with the bank foreclosing on his mortgage.
This is a similar example of "with" introducing a participial phrase.
It simply shows that two conditions were coexisting (at the same time).
The second condition is in some way responsible for the first, although that's not necessary for the structure to work.
If you remove the "with" from your example or mine, you lose this sense of causality.

Ha! I've been away awhile. I'd forgotten that it's now stylish to call phrases "non-finite clauses"! Sorry about that.

As an aside, check out the difference between "permissive" and "permissible." You want "permissible"
(A permissive parent allows his children to do things which should not be permissible.)

SuperESL · Answer

Thank you for your prompt response and for instructing me in grammatical terminology. I appreciate it.

Avangi · Answer

You're very welcome.

SuperESL · Answer

Hi,

Would you consider the second part of these two examples as participial phrases?

(1) "The plane fell from the sky, spiraling uncontrollably on the way down."
(2) "The nature of Communism is such that Stalin would have fallen back on the use of force sooner or later, his perverse policies ensuring resistance irrespective of how he went about implementing them."

In the first example the second condition is not so much responsible for the first as it elaborates on it. In the second example there is a logical connection between the two parts of the sentence but it seems that a 'with' is not necessary to set off the participial phrase and give the sense of causality.

In any case, am I comparing apples and oranges here? Thank you so much.

Avangi · Answer

You have it exactly right!

Well, there's nothing wrong with comparing apples and oranges. You simply discuss the similarities and the differences.

But your point about the causal relation between the phrase and the clause being absent in some cases is right on.

SuperESL · Answer

I am sorry, but can you please elaborate a bit on which part of my past do I have it right? I think I did pose a question or two. Thank you.

SuperESL · Answer

I guess what I am trying to get at is: do the two examples that I give in my most recent post have the identical structure to the example that you gave and also to the example that I raised in my first post? Or are they apples and oranges? Thank you.

Avangi · Answer

The participial phrase in #1 is clearly elaboration, as you say.

#2 is arguable as to logical connection, but it could certainly be taken that way.
My reading is that force would be inevitable either because of the nature of Communism or because of the nature of Stalin.

Avangi · Answer

SuperESLdo the two examples that I give in my most recent post have the identical structure to the example that you gave and also to the example that I raised in my first post? Or are they apples and oranges?

All four are clauses followed by participial phrases which elaborate on the clauses.

I can see now that it was an error on my part to say that the "with" is necessary to affect the logical relationship.
It essentially emphasizes the concurrence of the main idea and the elaboration. The meaning would probably survive in all four examples without a "with."

The example of the spiraling plane is unique in that the "subject" of the participle is the same as that of the main verb. You cannot possibly insert a "with."

If you insert a "with" in your last example, it serves to emphasize that you as author intend the elaboration to have a causal connection.
I'd say this is also true of the original example and of my example of the mortgage.

I apologize for taking so long. My brain is a bit frazzled.

SuperESL · Answer

Avange,

Not at all. I appreciate your detailed explanations. They are very helpful.

Just one further word on this topic. I think that your example would feel somewhat odd without the 'with':

"His prospects for the future were very grim, the bank foreclosing on his mortgage."

Wheres an example like the following seems better without the 'with':

"The plane fell from the sky, with the engines blazing on the way down."

Perhaps a rule of thumb to follow is that 'with' should/can be omitted if the participial phrase simply elaborates on the preceding clause, but that it should be used to emphasize a causal connection between the clause and the participial phrase where it exists but is less than unambiguously clear.

The thing with the bank foreclosing example without the 'with' is that the fact that the bank was foreclosing on the guy's mortgage does not ipso facto justify the claim that his prospects were grim, so a 'with' is necessary to underscore the connection - or at least to create an impression of a connection. On the other hand, if I pile on the guy's woes such that it becomes unambiguously clear from the sentence itself why the guy's prospects were grim, there would seem to be less need for a 'with' to draw attention to the causal connection as it is obvious:

"His prospects were very grim, the bank foreclosing on his mortgage, the IRS investigating his tax records, his wealthy wife leaving him for another man, and now his doctor diagnosing him with cancer."

But even in this example it seems to sound better with a 'with,' which imparts a stronger sense of connection, perhaps because there is no reason why the clause and the participial phrases should not simply be broken into two separate independent sentences.

Thank you for stimulating my thinking on this.

with as conjunction

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions