[Grammar] with which to

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Hi,

Is the following use of "with which to" correct?


1. Algae will deplete the supply of oxygen with which to sustain fish in the river.

2. The company sells equipment with which to shred used paper.


I'd appreciate your help.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

The first doesn't quite make sense, because "with which to" needs to refer yo whatever is needed to do it. It needs to answer the question: With what will it sustain the fish? It can't be oxygen, because that's being depleted, or algae, because that's doing the depleting.

Grammatical: Algae will deplete the supply of oxygen with which fish are sustained.

But then you lose "to," and you're looking for a way to use it. That is, you're looking for a way with which to use it!

The second is wordy. (Compare the two sentences in the last paragraph.) But as an exercise in using "with which to," it's correct.

(Note , though, that I'm not a grammarian. I just speak English. So someone else might be able to give a better answer.)

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Could the implied sustainer in the OP be "nature"?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Could the implied sustainer in the OP be "nature"?

According to the sentence, oxygen sustains the fish and the algae. I don't see nature implied anywhere in the sentence.

Again, I'm not a grammarian. I can just tell you what does or doesn't make sense to me and why.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

No. 'With which to' needs a stated antecedent.

Does that mean you think "The company sells equipment with which to shred used paper" is incorrect?

 

[GoesStation]

'With which to' needs a stated antecedent.

Does that mean you think "The company sells equipment with which to shred used paper" is incorrect?

No. The antecedent is "equipment".

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

No. The antecedent is "equipment".

I suspect he meant to say "stated doer" of an action. In the OP, "which" has "oxygen" as the referent, but the doer of "sustain" is not stated.

 

[Phaedrus]

1. Algae will deplete the supply of oxygen with which to sustain fish in the river.

2. The company sells equipment with which to shred used paper.

1a. Algae will deplete the supply of oxygen sustaining fish in the river.

2a. The company sells equipment for shredding used paper.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Does that mean you think "The company sells equipment with which to shred used paper" is incorrect?

It's fine.

 

[jutfrank]

Neither sentence is correct, because of the use of with which in combination with the use of a subjectless to-infinitive.

Could the implied sustainer in the OP be "nature"?

I suppose that could be a likely implication, yes, but this doesn't make the sentence well-formed. The problem is that such a poorly-formed sentence requires the hearer to work unnecessarily hard to interpret the likely meaning.

If you were to replace the final word river with the word lake, I think there could be just as reasonable an interpretation that the implied sustainer is a fish farmer rather than nature itself. I think this fact shows a lack of clarity of expression.

 

[jutfrank]

Does that mean you think "The company sells equipment with which to shred used paper" is incorrect?

For me, although I do think that this second sentence is significantly easier to interpret, it's still poorly-formed in the same way as the first—enough so that I would call it incorrect.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

For me, although I do think that this second sentence is significantly easier to interpret, it's still poorly-formed in the same way as the first—enough so that I would call it incorrect.

You're making a good point, J. To me, the sentence is clear enough. The problem is that it's too wordy. The phrase "with which to" is almost always unnecessary clutter.

But if Raymond is just trying to get a handle on the proper use of the phrase, it's a reasonable example.

So Raymond, be warned: People don't usually talk or write that way.

 

[tedmc]

Alternatively, you can use the present tense to describe the use of the subject:

1b. Algae will deplete the supply of oxygen which sustains fish in the river.

2b. The company sells equipment which shreds used paper.

I find "with which" a bit awkward to use.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

How about "There was no earth or plaque filter and no equipment with which to bottle the wine"?

 

[tedmc]

How about "There was no earth or plaque filter and no equipment with which to bottle the wine"?

"With which" could be omitted in that sentence.

 

[Phaedrus]

The phrase "with which to" is almost always unnecessary clutter.

I think that, in the rare cases where "with which/whom to" is somewhat natural, "with" is typically part of a phrasal (or prepositional) verb rather than an adjunct/adverbial, as it is in ramondaliaspollyon's examples. I think the following sentences (using "contend with someone/something") work well.

He had no adversaries with whom to contend.
He had no problems with which to contend.

 

[Phaedrus]

They are fine but, except in formal writing, I'd stick to:

He had no adversaries to contend with.
He had no problems to contend with.

I agree, and preposition stranding would also work fine in ramondaliaspollyon's most recent example, if not in his others:

There was no earth or plaque filter and no equipment to bottle the wine with.

It is the construction with Pied Piping (pre-posing of the preposition before the relative pronoun in the nonfinite relative clause) that seems limited, at least with regard to naturalness. And I think having the preposition inside a phrasal/prepositional verb helps.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

I think that, in the rare cases where "with which/whom to" is somewhat natural, "with" is typically part of a phrasal (or prepositional) verb rather than an adjunct/adverbial, as it is in ramondaliaspollyon's examples. I think the following sentences (using "contend with someone/something") work well.

He had no adversaries with whom to contend.
He had no problems with which to contend.

How about "Chopsticks are a type of utensil with which to eat rice"?

 

[tedmc]

How about "Chopsticks are a type of utensil with which to eat rice"?

Chopsticks are a type of utensil for eating rice.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Chopsticks are a type of utensil for eating rice.

I'm checking whether "n the rare cases where 'with which/whom to' is somewhat natural, 'with' is typically part of a phrasal (or prepositional) verb rather than an adjunct/adverbial."

If the chopstick example is fine, then the claim would need to be revised.