A simple yes-no question

[Matthew Wai]

I commented on one badly written sentence.

Tdol previously told me that "The original sentence in the first post doesn't work, though the meaning's clear enough.", did this comment refer to the badly written sentence?

 

[Matthew Wai]

Why are you introducing against here?

It is because I think that "antagonize", "oppose" and "obstruct" are actions against people.

 

[5jj]

Tdol previously told me that "The original sentence in the first post doesn't work, though the meaning's clear enough.", did this comment refer to the badly written sentence?

It's difficult enough to follow all the referencing back and forward without having unnecessary references, questions and links. Tdol was clearly referring to the original sentence in the first post (in the other thread): "Cannibals kill, skin, cook, and eat humans as what butchers do to poultry."

 

[5jj]

It is because I think that "antagonize", "oppose" and "obstruct" are actions against people.

Maybe but, as Tdol said, "An example that does not require a preposition is not the best way to test whether a preposition can be introduced."

If you have further questions, please ask them, one a a time. Wait until you are fully satisfied with the answers to one question before asking another one.

Do bear in mind that issues like these are often about style as much as about grammar. You should not be surprised if even educated native speakers do not always agree. This does not mean that one is wrong, simply that there may be no clear answer.

 

[Rover_KE]

I thought from the start that the thread title was rather optimistic.

 

[Barb_D]

The sentences in question make sense to us (leaving aside grammar) but perhaps make no sense to Amy Baker again (as Barb_D knows her previous opinions about sentences using a similar construction), so what is the point of asking her?

Because, frankly, you seem to give a lot more weight to her opinion than to that of the ten or so people who have now commented on this in two forums.

I can't help but feel you are more interested in proving one person right or other people wrong than in learning how to write a natural sounding sentence, so forgive me, but I am through with this topic. Good luck.

 

[Matthew Wai]

"An example that does not require a preposition is not the best way to test whether a preposition can be introduced."

Do you mean the preposition "against" is unnecessary in the example "Peter antagonized, opposed and obstructed John as Mary did against Jane", i.e. I can just write "Mary did Jane"?

Do bear in mind that issues like these are often about style as much as about grammar. You should not be surprised if even educated native speakers do not always agree. This does not mean that one is wrong, simply that there may be no clear answer.

Yes, there may simply be no clear answer to the simple yes-no question in this thread and I may have to give up.

 

[5jj]

Do you mean the preposition "against" is unnecessary in the example "Peter antagonized, opposed and obstructed John as Mary did against Jane", i.e. I can just write "Mary did Jane"?

It's not just unnecessary in that sentence. it's wrong. So, you must omit it, ending up with " Peter antagonized, opposed and obstructed John as Mary did Jane".

 

[Matthew Wai]

...you must omit it, ending up with " Peter antagonized, opposed and obstructed John as Mary did Jane".

It serves as an example illustrating that "even educated native speakers do not always agree" as 5jj said in Post #24, because another respondent said that "as Mary did Jane" not only sounds strange, but has an unintended ambiguous meaning, so most people would say "as Mary did to Jane", click here to see his answer. And I should give up "proving one person right or other people wrong" as Barb_D said in Post #26.

 

[Tdol]

It is because I think that "antagonize", "oppose" and "obstruct" are actions against people.

They are,but they don't require the preposition.

 

[Matthew Wai]

They are, but they don't require the preposition.

Click here to see MikeNewYork's revised sentence in Post#5, where the three verbs don't require the preposition "for" either, but it is used in the second part of the sentence, so I guess "against" can also be used in another sentence where the verbs referring to actions against people don't require the preposition.

Barb_D has explained why "against" cannot be used in Post#17, does Tdol have anything to add?

 

[Rover_KE]

You were asked in post 13 not to direct your questions at an individual contributor.

This thread has run its course. I am closing it.