USe With

[pither]

I don't understand the usage of the preposition 'with' on some website:

----- hacsc.org/p_programs.php

"The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program provides rental subsidies for very low-income households who reside in privately owned rental units and pay 30% of their income towards rent. The balance of the rent is paid by the Housing Authority directly to the owner. The subsidy is tied to the family so if the family moves to another residence, the subsidy moves with them. Participants can also choose to exercise a portability feature that allows them to move to another county or state and continue to use their subsidy with another housing authority. "

I checked this dictionary:

--- learnersdictionary.com/search/with

but couldn't find a good definition. Would this:

"use their subsidy under the jurisdiction of another housing authority"

be better than:

"use their subsidy with another housing authority"

 

[Rover_KE]

No.

"...use their subsidy under the jurisdiction of another housing authority" is what it means, but it wouldn't be better than the more natural

"...use their subsidy with another housing authority".

You could also say

'...use their subsidy in a different locality'.

 

[pither]

So, "...use their subsidy with another housing authority" is awkward but natural, meaning it is colloquial?

 

[Rover_KE]

It is not awkward at all. It is a perfectly natural way to say more neatly "...use their subsidy in another authority's area'.

 

[pither]

Then, I should write:

"use a coupon with Mcdonald's"

instead of:


"use a coupon at Mcdonald's"
?

 

[Raymott]

Then, I should write:

"use a coupon with Mcdonald's"

instead of:


"use a coupon at Mcdonald's"
?

Why? How are you coming up with these inferences? There's nothing in either of Rover's posts to justify these conclusions.
"with another authority" and "at Macdonalds" are correct.*

*This is not to imply that other constructions are incorrect, nor does it invalidate anything Rover has said. No implications are intended beyond the literal meaning of the post.

 

[pither]

Could the original example mean:

"use their subsidy (from the previous housing authority) with another housing authority's subsidy"

since after moving, the tenant would get two subsidies from two different housing authorities?

 

[Raymott]

Could the original example mean:

"use their subsidy (from the previous housing authority) with another housing authority's subsidy"

since after moving, the tenant would get two subsidies from two different housing authorities?

No, it doesn't say that. And it would be very unlikely to mean that. The subsidy is transferred - unless it's stated somewhere else in Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program that you can keep moving and adding subsidies. It doesn't sound like good or fair policy if you could do that.

 

[pither]

But, "with" sounds like combining a subsidy with a housing authority, which makes no sense.

 

[Raymott]

But, "with" sounds like combining a subsidy with a housing authority, which makes no sense.

It sounds like that to you.
Consider this: "Doctors use antibiotics with bronchitis." It doesn't mean they combine antibiotics and bronchitis as a treatment. You could make the argument that it should be "for bronchitis" - and that might be better. But it doesn't invalidate the use of "with". There is often more than one preposition that can be used, and the context should make it obvious what is meant.

 

[pither]

So, I should read the original example as "....use their subsidy when dealing with another housing authority"? I cannot find a definition of "with" that has such sense?

 

[Rover_KE]

It would be better expressed as '...and continue to receive their subsidy from another authority'.

That's my last word on this thread.