[Grammar] Use of "agreed"

[inase]

I am wondering if the two sentences below are correct:

1. I expect our joint partnership with X to be formally agreed next month.
2. I expect our joint partnership with X to be formally agreed on next month.

I understand that "agree" is usually followed by "on/with/to," but the first sentence seems to be ok.

 

[jutfrank]

I understand that "agree" is usually followed by "on/with/to,"

Normally, the preposition to should be used, since we understand the verb phrase to be to agree to a joint partnership, but the preposition is not completely necessary with this phrasing.

Sentence 2. is not correct as it uses on instead of to.

 

[inase]

I feel these areas are difficult for learners of English including me. If you allow me to expand the discussion on permissible omissions, do you consider the following words in parentheses omissible?

1. I expect the regulation to be complied (with) to pass the Diet next month.
2. I don't know much about the topic to be talked (about) at the event.
3. She reminded me of the assignment to be paid attention (to) in the classroom.
4. Everyone is expected to be present at the meeting. Please attend (it). (attend vt.)

Two new questions arose in me.
a. If "to" and "with" are interchangeable in BE or AE.
b. If there is any context where "on" makes sense in Sentence b.

Your comments will be appreciated.

 

[GoesStation]

Sentence 1 is incorrect with or without the preposition. Only sentence 4 is correct with the word in parentheses ("brackets" in BrE) omitted.

In what context do you think to and with might be interchangeable?

I don't understand the final question.

 

[YAMATO2201]

b. If there is any context where "on" makes sense in Sentence b.

I'm guessing you mean "sentence #2 in post #1".

b. Whether there is a context in which "on" makes sense in sentence #2 in post #1.

 

[inase]

Sentence 1 is incorrect with or without the preposition. Only sentence 4 is correct with the word in parentheses ("brackets" in BrE) omitted.

Ok. What about these?
1. I expect the regulation to comply with to pass the Diet next month.
2. I don't know much about the topic to talk about at the event.
3. She reminded me of the assignment to pay attention to in the classroom.

I was just thinking about similar examples of "agreed" to make sure that that was not the only case where a preposition can be omitted like in:

She has a place to live (in).

In what context do you think to and with might be interchangeable?

What about these sentences?
1. I agree with the idea.
2. I agree with him.
3. I agree to the idea.
4. I agree to him.
5. We agree on the idea.
I think only sentence 4 is incorrect. If sentences 1 and 3 are correct, are "with" and "to" interchangeable in this context?

I don't understand the final question.

 

[jutfrank]

Ok. What about these?
1. I expect the regulation to comply with to pass the Diet next month.
2. I don't know much about the topic to talk about at the event.
3. She reminded me of the assignment to pay attention to in the classroom.

No, these don't work.

with and to are never interchangeable, regardless of whether they follow agree. They simply express different meanings. Let me try to put it very basically:

• to agree to a course of action (this means that two parties both say yes to a proposed idea)
• to agree on something (this means that two parties confirm the details of an arrangement)
• to agree to do something (this means you say you will do something)
• to agree with an opinion (this means that you have the same view on a subject)
• to agree with somebody (this means that you share a view with somebody)

The prepositions should be used. However, with the first two uses above only, (and as in the OP example) when expressed in the passive voice, the preposition may be omitted. You may see this usage as the verb being used transitively. Personally, I prefer to think at it as an omission of a preposition, but that's just me.

 

[inase]

No, these don't work.

with and to are never interchangeable, regardless of whether they follow agree. They simply express different meanings. Let me try to put it very basically:

• to agree to a course of action (this means that two parties both say yes to a proposed idea)
• to agree on something (this means that two parties confirm the details of an arrangement)
• to agree to do something (this means you say you will do something)
• to agree with an opinion (this means that you have the same view on a subject)
• to agree with somebody (this means that you share a view with somebody)

The prepositions should be used. However, with the first two uses above only, (and as in the OP example) when expressed in the passive voice, the preposition may be omitted. You may see this usage as the verb being used transitively. Personally, I prefer to think at it as an omission of a preposition, but that's just me.

Now, I think I understand why you said they were not interchangeable. When the speaker refers to an idea/opinion, "with" is used; when the speaker refers to action, "to" is used; when two or more parties confirm an arrangement, "on" is used. I am now more sensitive to the use of "agree."

When "agree" is used in a passive voice, "agreed" with no preposition following it is regarded as an example of either a transitive verb or a preposition omitted.

I looked up "agree" in the LDOCE, I came across the following sentence.

My sister won′t agree to our mother going into a nursing home.

If I change it to the following with "with," does it have a different meaning or is it incorrect?

My sister won′t agree with our mother going into a nursing home.

 

[jutfrank]

I looked up "agree" in the LDOCE, I came across the following sentence.

My sister won′t agree to our mother going into a nursing home.

If I change it to the following with "with," does it have a different meaning or is it incorrect?

My sister won′t agree with our mother going into a nursing home.

The intended meaning of the sentence is best served by the pattern to agree to [a course of action], so you should use to, not with. In this case, the proposed course of action is: sending our mother to a nursing home. I need my sister to say yes to this course of action, but she won't.

 

[inase]

The intended meaning of the sentence is best served by the pattern to agree to [a course of action], so you should use to, not with. In this case, the proposed course of action is: sending our mother to a nursing home. I need my sister to say yes to this course of action, but she won't.

What do you think about the following sentence? Though grammar is not always logical, it looks good to me.

My sister won't agree with our mother appreciating/valuing/agreeing to going into a nursing home.

 

[GoesStation]

None of the possible sentences work.

 

[inase]

My sister won't agree with our mother appreciating/valuing/agreeing to going into a nursing home.

None of the possible sentences work.

It still puzzles me.

My sister won't agree with our mother. (This works.)
My sister won't agree with our mother, who appreciates going into a nursing home. (This may work.)
My sister won't agree with our mother appreciating going into a nursing home. (This does not work, but looks grammatically correct. Why?)

 

[jutfrank]

My sister won't agree with our mother. (This works.)
My sister won't agree with our mother, who appreciates going into a nursing home. (This may work.)
My sister won't agree with our mother appreciating going into a nursing home. (This does not work, but looks grammatically correct. Why?)

They don't work. The first one could work in the right context, but it's unlikely. What does it mean? Why do you use won't? Why do you use with? Do you mean My sister doesn't agree with my mother.?

Please read post #7 again.

 

[inase]

"Won't" in this context means my sister's resistance. May be my sister is intentionally resisting our mother's thinking. Do you mean "agree" followed by "with" means the state (not the action) which is incompatible with "won't" with stress on one's intention?

I read post #7 but does not understand your point.

 

[jutfrank]

"Won't" in this context means my sister's resistance. May be my sister is intentionally resisting our mother's thinking.

Right, okay, then the first could work in that context. The other two sentences are incorrect, though.

Do you mean "agree" followed by "with" means the state (not the action) which is incompatible with "won't" with stress on one's intention?

No, I just wondered what thought you were trying to express as you didn't mention the context.

 

[inase]

Post #7
to agree to a course of action (this means that two parties both say yes to a proposed idea)
to agree on something (this means that two parties confirm the details of an arrangement)
to agree to do something (this means you say you will do something)
to agree with an opinion (this means that you have the same view on a subject)
to agree with somebody (this means that you share a view with somebody)

My sister won't agree with our mother. (This works.)
My sister won't agree with our mother, who appreciates going into a nursing home. (This may work.)
My sister won't agree with our mother appreciating going into a nursing home. (This does not work, but looks grammatically correct. Why?)

Right, okay, then the first could work in that context. The other two sentences are incorrect, though.
No, I just wondered what thought you were trying to express as you didn't mention the context.

The context of the other two sentences is:

Our mother thinks that it is appreciative that she goes into a nursing home and this is her opinion or view. My sister shares the same view with our mother regarding going into a nursing home.

Does this make sense? If not, please let me know why not.

 

[GoesStation]

Our mother thinks that it is appreciative that she goes into a nursing home and this is her opinion or view. My sister shares the same view with our mother regarding going into a nursing home.

Does this make sense? If not, please let me know why not.

The underlined words don't make sense. A person can be appreciative but the impersonal pronoun can't.

 

[YAMATO2201]

The underlined words don't make sense. A person can be appreciative but the impersonal pronoun can't.

The italicized words ...
;-)

 

[inase]

You are right. It was an error. Please read "appreciative" as "fortunate" or "Our mother is appreciative of going into a nursing home and ..."