Student or Learner
We should provide them ham and stuff.
That sentence is quoted from BRITISH NATIONAL CORPUS.
I'd like to know whether it is good or not. Is "We should provide them with ham and stuff."better?
Thanks a lot.
Unfortunately, Raymott, leaving the matter there fails to comment on the issue of the ubiquitous word, 'stuff', and placing it in perspective; and thereby implicitly condones it's universal use. And that, in a forum devoted to correct grammar and clear expression of ideas.
I need to point out to you, Norwolf, that use of this word is a sign that the person is rather inarticulate(=unable to express oneself clearly). As such, it should be used very sparingly, not as a lazy man's substitute for bothering to have some consideration for the listener by conveying clearly what you mean.
What is so difficult in saying:
"We should provide them with ham and salad." or, exactly what 'should' be provided? How else can the person respond as to whether they fully agree or not?
Yep, that stuff in thre is sloppy stuff.
Now, as for the original question, provide or provide with. The with is not necessary unless there are some intervening words that might confuse the reader. Sometimes, we need it just to bring our mind back to what we are talking about.
We will provide the house and all its neighbours in the community, whether they ask for it or not, and at absolutely no charge, with electricity and water.
We will provide electricity and water.
In the example, We should provide them ham and [whatever], there isn't sufficient cause to require the use of with for clarity's sake. There is, however, nothing whatever wrong with adding it. It is not considered redundant.
thank you all so much.