Rich with/in

[Rachel Adams]

Hello.

Is it possible to use "with" instead of "in" in my sentence?

"She must eat food which is rich with protein."

 

[Raymott]

It's not how we'd say it.

 

[Yankee]

Possible/understood? Yes. Wrong? No.

 

[jutfrank]

Possible/understood? Yes. Wrong? No.

Yankee, you seem to have an idea that anything that is intelligible is fine. Is that right? Do you really teach like that?

I would definitely say that with is 'wrong', since it is not the right way to say it, which is rich/high/low in protein/carbohydrate/fat, etc. What's the point of teaching learners to say it otherwise?

If an examiner were to see with used in an exam, it would be considered an inaccuracy of lexis, and if a trainee teacher were observed teaching this particular language with with in an assessed lesson, it would be seen as a serious mistake.

 

[Tdol]

Possible/understood? Yes. Wrong? No.

For me:

Possible/understood? Yes. Wrong? Yes.

 

[Yankee]

Yankee, you seem to have an idea that anything that is intelligible is fine. Is that right? Do you really teach like that?

I would definitely say that with is 'wrong', since it is not the right way to say it, which is rich/high/low in protein/carbohydrate/fat, etc. What's the point of teaching learners to say it otherwise?

If an examiner were to see with used in an exam, it would be considered an inaccuracy of lexis, and if a trainee teacher were observed teaching this particular language with with in an assessed lesson, it would be seen as a serious mistake.

OK. Thanks for your direct, if not, rather blunt response. It sent me scurrying for some reasoning for my "Possible/understood? Yes. Wrong? No." response. In brief, by definition "with" can be used as "possessing something as a feature or accompaniment", "having a particular characteristic or possession", "having or including something" as in, He spoke with/ in a soft Irish accent.or They're an international company with/in offices around the world.
Personally, would I choose "with protein" ? No, but I don't consider it "wrong".

 

[GoesStation]

The thing is that while rich with protein might appear in advertising copy, it's not a phrase a native speaker would use in almost any other context. Learners generally want to learn common speech similar to what native speakers use. It's not necessarily helpful for them to know that "rich with protein" is a potentially grammatical phrase.

I've told the story here before of my aged great-aunt, recently arrived with her family of Russian immigrants and the only one who spoke English. She was quite fluent but had evidently rarely used the language, so the best she could come up with when she forgot a certain word was to ask my brother, "What is the beast that draws the chariot?"

My brother, a Yale graduate and first-year law student at the time, was able to puzzle that out and supply the word Tamara was looking for: horse. But I don't think it would be helpful to tell a learner that her question was altogether correct.

 

[jutfrank]

OK. Thanks for your direct, if not, rather blunt response. It sent me scurrying for some reasoning for my "Possible/understood? Yes. Wrong? No." response. In brief, by definition "with" can be used as "possessing something as a feature or accompaniment", "having a particular characteristic or possession", "having or including something" as in, He spoke with/ in a soft Irish accent.or They're an international company with/in offices around the world.
Personally, would I choose "with protein" ? No, but I don't consider it "wrong".

Sorry to sound blunt, Yankee. I really don't mean to be rude.

This is not about definition. I didn't mean to say that it doesn't make sense with with, or that it's ungrammatical, just that with is the wrong preposition to use for this specific purpose.