Accompanied with or by?

[Mehrgan]

Hi,

What's the difference between the meanings when "by" or "with" is used with accompanied? Thanks...

 

[ratóncolorao]

Neither a teacher nor a native speaker -
I would rather say accompanied by - always, I'm afraid.

:roll:

 

[Linguist__]

(Not a teacher)

I think 'accompanied with' sounds like a mutual relationship between the two (or more) people involved. 'Accompanied by' sounds more like someone is 'higher up' than the other person(s) involved. For example:

"I was accompanied with my fiancée to the dinner party."
vs.
"The children were accompanied by their teachers on the school trip."

This certainly isn't a definate rule. As a rule of thumb, just use 'by', it sounds more used than 'with'. I would say in my example of the fiancée, 'accompanied by' could be used just as effectively, without a sense of a heirarchy.

 

[mmasny]

To my ear, accompanied with my fiancee sounds as if she was a tool used to accompany me. Shouldn't it be so?

 

[Mehrgan]

(Not a teacher)

I think 'accompanied with' sounds like a mutual relationship between the two (or more) people involved. 'Accompanied by' sounds more like someone is 'higher up' than the other person(s) involved. For example:

"I was accompanied with my fiancée to the dinner party."
vs.
"The children were accompanied by their teachers on the school trip."

This certainly isn't a definate rule. As a rule of thumb, just use 'by', it sounds more used than 'with'. I would say in my example of the fiancée, 'accompanied by' could be used just as effectively, without a sense of a heirarchy.

Hi,

Many thanks to you. I've been interested in English for a couple of years. The only thing I always follow is, "language is what its speaker say!", though it might not be what I've studied in my grammar books! So, I'll take your nice explanation for granted. Cheers!

 

[Raymott]

(Not a teacher)

I think 'accompanied with' sounds like a mutual relationship between the two (or more) people involved. 'Accompanied by' sounds more like someone is 'higher up' than the other person(s) involved.

Interesting. "Accompanied with" doesn't work in AusE.

 

[Jaskin]

hi
Note not a teacher nor a native speaker.

"I was accompanied with my fiancée to the dinner party."

When I read that sentence I ask myself : who accompanied you and your fiancée to the diner, a bit ambiguous I think.

It seems that BNC favours "by" 2318 results vs "with" 21 results

CORPORA: 45-400 million words each: free online access

Cheers

 

[bhaisahab]

Interesting. "Accompanied with" doesn't work in AusE.

I've never come across it in BrE either, perhaps it's Scottish.

 

[Linguist__]

I should rethink my initial differentiation between 'with' and 'by'.

'Accompanied by' is used when one thing is in the company of another thing. Perhaps my fiancée example should be 'accompanied by' only, rather than what I said earlier - that it could be both. In general, use 'accompanied by' with people.

'Accompanied with' is used when one thing is in some way linked to another. Perhaps the others are correct that this is a local thing, but I've certainly seen it used. Menus in restaurants often describe the food as 'sirloin steak accompanied with tartar sauce' or whatever. Also, when reading medical notes I often come across symptoms using 'accompanied with' - 'a sore head accompanied with back pain'. So, I think use 'accompanied with' with things such as these.

Or just play it safe and use 'accompanied by' for all things.

 

[mmasny]

'Accompanied with' is used when one thing is in some way linked to another. Perhaps the others are correct that this is a local thing, but I've certainly seen it used. Menus in restaurants often describe the food as 'sirloin steak accompanied with tartar sauce' or whatever. Also, when reading medical notes I often come across symptoms using 'accompanied with' - 'a sore head accompanied with back pain'. So, I think use 'accompanied with' with things such as these.

Or just play it safe and use 'accompanied by' for all things.

Isn't it what I was talking about? My rule-of-thumb is to use by when I want to introduce an agent and with when I want to intoduce a tool (sensu lato). Someone can accompany me with something and I can be accompanied by someone. Isn't it right?

 

[Raymott]

Isn't it what I was talking about? My rule-of-thumb is to use by when I want to introduce an agent and with when I want to intoduce a tool (sensu lato). Someone can accompany me with something and I can be accompanied by someone. Isn't it right?

Yes, but you're using the preposition in a different sense from what the original poster was asking about.

You can certainly say: For my piano recital, Peter accompanied me with his violin.
For my piano recital, I was accompanied by Peter with his violin.
But you can't say: I was accompanied with Peter, or I was accompanied with a violin. (I believe).
If you didn't want to mention Peter, you could say: I was accompanied by a violin.

You can use almost any preposition after 'accompanied' if you make up a context.
I was accompanied for $100 by Peter with his violin.
I was accompanied through the evening.
I was accompanied on my holidays.
I was accompanied across the street.

But in each case, when you get to the person or thing that is accompanying you, you must use 'by' - and I think is what Mehrgan was asking about.

 

[mmasny]

But you can't say: I was accompanied with a violin.

I think this sentence is the clou of my point. In my opinion this sentence is correct and means almost or exacty the same as I was accompanied by the violin. I think the latter treats the violin like an agent as is a kind of metonymy. Why couldn't I omit "by Peter" in a sentence I was accompanied by Peter with a violin? I don't see any theoretical reason (not that I know the theory so well ) I understand that native speakers are more likely to use "by" here, but why should the "with" usage be cosidered incorrect?
I can say: I was beaten with a stick and I don't need to add by whom I was beaten.
I can understand if you tell me that it's just wrong, because people consider it wrong. To me, it's more or less the definition of "wrong". I have many examples in my own language. There are many situations, where I don't have any general rule in my mind that would make a phrase incorrect, and yet I have a strong conviction that the phrase is totally wrong. But, as I see it now (and I believe I will be either assured or made see it differently), this is not a case of strong conviction, but some kind of a slight jar (I don't know if I can say that, I'm lacking the proper word).

I know this is not what Mehrgan was asking. This is my own will of knowledge and discussion :-D

 

[Jaskin]

hi there
Please note I'm not a teacher nor a native speaker,

Why couldn't I omit "by Peter" in a sentence I was accompanied by Peter with a violin?

Even then I think it would be more correct "on violin"if he was playing it not just holding it
I was accompanied on violin by Peter,
I was accompanied by Peter on violin,
so If you want to omit "by Peter" it would be :

I was accompanied on violin,
It still sounds like something has been missed out ..

Cheers

 

[Mehrgan]

It sounds the preposition "by" is the most common form...thanks to all dear posters...:up:

 

[mmasny]

I have an example when I think I was accompanied with her would be correct. Say there's a ball and there's an authority who pairs people. Couldn't I say I was accompanied with my sister?

 

[bhaisahab]

I have an example when I think I was accompanied with her would be correct. Say there's a ball and there's an authority who pairs people. Couldn't I say I was accompanied with my sister?

No, you can say "I was paired with my sister". "Accompanied with" is, if it's not wrong, extremely unusual.

 

[Searching for language]

I have not heard of accompanied with fiancee, either.

The only way I could imagine the two words to make sense in a sentence is this......................

The piano player was accompanied with great flair by an excellent trumpet player.

But, I am not a teacher, so don't expect me to give you the reason.

 

[Raymott]

I think this sentence is the clou of my point. In my opinion this sentence is correct and means almost or exacty the same as I was accompanied by the violin. I think the latter treats the violin like an agent as is a kind of metonymy. Why couldn't I omit "by Peter" in a sentence I was accompanied by Peter with a violin? I don't see any theoretical reason (not that I know the theory so well ) I understand that native speakers are more likely to use "by" here, but why should the "with" usage be cosidered incorrect?
I can say: I was beaten with a stick and I don't need to add by whom I was beaten.
I can understand if you tell me that it's just wrong, because people consider it wrong. To me, it's more or less the definition of "wrong". I have many examples in my own language. There are many situations, where I don't have any general rule in my mind that would make a phrase incorrect, and yet I have a strong conviction that the phrase is totally wrong. But, as I see it now (and I believe I will be either assured or made see it differently), this is not a case of strong conviction, but some kind of a slight jar (I don't know if I can say that, I'm lacking the proper word).

I know this is not what Mehrgan was asking. This is my own will of knowledge and discussion :-D

Here is Merriam-Webster:
accompany

One entry found.

Main Entry: ac·com·pa·ny

Pronunciation: \ə-ˈkəmp-nē, -ˈkämp-; -ˈkəm-pə-, -ˈkäm-\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): ac·com·pa·nied; ac·com·pa·ny·ing
Etymology: Middle English accompanien to make an associate, from Anglo-French accompaigner, from a- (from Latin ad-) + cumpaing companion — more at companion
Date: 15th century
transitive verb 1 : to go with as an associate or companion
[In general, the 'with' function is already included in the meaning of the word.]
I accompanied my sister.
I went with my sister.
I was accompanied by my sister (I was gone with by my sister - not a good sentence, but that's the meaning, not "*I was gone with with my sister")

2 : to perform an accompaniment to or for
3 a : to cause to be in association <they accompanied their advice with a warning> This is probably the closest you will come to being able to use ‘with’.
It can possibly be transformed to "Their advice was accompanied with a warning."
But this is an American dictionary, and I’d question 3a.
Here's a problem: If I arrange for my child, Peter, to walk to school with another child, Mary, have I accompanied Peter with Mary to walk to school (assuming I didn't go?)
I'd say not.

I guess we can say that it's acceptable in AmE to say "She accompanied her red dress with a yellow belt and handbag."
But it sounds wrong to me.

b : to be in association with <the pictures that accompany the text>intransitive verb

R.
PS: What's a clou? A key?

 

[mmasny]

Here is Merriam-Webster:
accompany

One entry found.

Main Entry: ac·com·pa·ny

Pronunciation: \ə-ˈkəmp-nē, -ˈkämp-; -ˈkəm-pə-, -ˈkäm-\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): ac·com·pa·nied; ac·com·pa·ny·ing
Etymology: Middle English accompanien to make an associate, from Anglo-French accompaigner, from a- (from Latin ad-) + cumpaing companion — more at companion
Date: 15th century
transitive verb 1 : to go with as an associate or companion
[In general, the 'with' function is already included in the meaning of the word.]
I accompanied my sister.
I went with my sister.
I was accompanied by my sister (I was gone with by my sister - not a good sentence, but that's the meaning, not "*I was gone with with my sister")

2 : to perform an accompaniment to or for
3 a : to cause to be in association <they accompanied their advice with a warning> This is probably the closest you will come to being able to use ‘with’.
It can possibly be transformed to "Their advice was accompanied with a warning."
But this is an American dictionary, and I’d question 3a.
Here's a problem: If I arrange for my child, Peter, to walk to school with another child, Mary, have I accompanied Peter with Mary to walk to school (assuming I didn't go?)
I'd say not.

I guess we can say that it's acceptable in AmE to say "She accompanied her red dress with a yellow belt and handbag."
But it sounds wrong to me.

b : to be in association with <the pictures that accompany the text>intransitive verb

R.
PS: What's a clou? A key?

Thank you very much for your effort! Very kind of you. I would never think it can sound wrong, so it's not only a theoretical issue but also a useful piece of advice.
"Clou" is a French word that we use quite often in Polish. Don't you do that? I've just checked that it exists in English, but, as a matter of fact, it doesn't seem to be the favourite word of English speakers
Here's the definition: clou: meaning and definitions — Infoplease.com
It's a nail in French (literally).