Provide

[irland5]

Hello,

Do you say , could you provide me with the customer´s phone number or provide me the customer´s phone number? Do you always use provide someone "with"

Thanks

 

[MikeNewYork]

The "with" is not needed.

 

[Eckaslike]

The "with" is not needed.

This is probably a minor difference between American English and British English.

MikeNY has told you it is not needed in AmE, but it would always be used in BrE.

This may be what made you ask the question, especially if you've seen it in AmE and BrE books, because that very slight difference will always be there between the two forms of English.

So, whether or not you use "with" will depend on who you are writing to.

 

[Matthew Wai]

on who

Should it be 'on whom'?

 

[MikeNewYork]

Technically, yes. In practice it varies.

 

[Eckaslike]

Hi Matthew,

Some people use whom, others now don't. Traditionally "to whom" would have been used:

"So, whether or not you use "with" will depend on to whom you are writing".

If you are going to use the formal "whom" you would also need to reorganise the end of the sentence so as to not end with the word "to".

That sentence now sounds quite clumsy and unnatural to me, which is why many people don't like using it and prefer the more natural spoken form using "who" instead.

However, my grandmother would have used "whom" quite naturally on the phone by saying, "To whom am I speaking?". [That actually works better, but I can't remember when I last heard it used].

 

[irland5]

Hello,

The thing is that once I asked my question about " with" to an American friend and I think he said that I have always to use it so now I am confused haha. Regarding whom , would you not say whom am I talking to? I dont understand why you place to in front of whom.

Thanks

 

[Rover_KE]

There are scores of threads covering 'who/whom'. Click here and let's gets back on topic.

In BE, we say 'I'll provide you with the details'. But 'with' is not needed when we say 'You bring the canapés and I'll provide the champagne'.

 

[MikeNewYork]

"I'll provide you with the details" is just another way of stating an indirect object. I will provide the details to you. Another way of using the indirect object is "I will provide (to) you the details.

 

[Eckaslike]

Hello again,

The use of "whom" is very traditional, and is not as commonly used as it used to be. Traditional grammar also says that you must never end a sentence with a preposition. So, if you insist on using "whom", you would then be expected to not end your sentence with the preposition "to". This would be done to maintain the formality of the whole sentence, rather than to mix formal with less formal.

That is why, when my grandmother was speaking on the phone to someone she didn't know, she would have used the very formal and extremely polite "To whom am I speaking?", rather than "Who am I speaking to?" [informal], which in those days would have probably appeared rather abrupt, if not rude.

The argument about whether, or not, sentences should be ended with prepositions has rumbled on for years. There is a [probably untrue] story about Churchill that illustrates this quite well:

After an overzealous editor attempted to rearrange one of Winston Churchill's sentences to avoid ending it in a preposition, the Prime Minister scribbled a single sentence in reply: "This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put."
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001702.html


The point he [or the person attributing the words to him] was making was that, sometimes by applying grammar rules to the letter you may end up with sentences which both look, and sound, unnatural. That is why there have always been those in favour of writing in a more natural way, by ending sentences with prepositions, and those who prefer the more traditional method of writing.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I disagree with the first part. There are many people who still believe in using "whom" but who don't believe in the prohibition against terminal prepositions. I am one of them. The two issues are not connected.