1

"That bullet point is simply in place to ensure that projects are followed through with."

I got blasted for ending the above sentence with with, and I feel it's a phrasal verb so is okay. Am I correct? The disclaimer here is that I'm terrible with the English language (probably seen in my question itself).

Thanks ahead of time for the assistance

Jimmy
  • 11
  • 2
    You're right, and nothing you (or we) can say will persuade your blaster otherwise. That's theology, not grammar. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 17 '13 at 16:52
  • 6
    The reasoning "it's a phrasal verb so is okay" is complete nonsense, though. The sentence is fine as stated no matter whether you label with a part of a phrasal verb (which it clearly isn't) or a preposition (which it clearly is). You can label it Susan if it makes you happy, and you can still end the sentence exactly as stated. – RegDwigнt Oct 17 '13 at 17:05
  • 3
    You can just say "projects are followed through"; there's no need for the "with". – Peter Shor Oct 17 '13 at 17:11
  • 1
    Right. Follow through is a phrasal verb, but it's normally intransitive, and the with is a transitivizing preposition. Since that makes projects the affectd direct object (even though it's the object of a preposition), Passive can apply to it, producing the sentence in question, which has the same structure as This bed was slept in by George Washington, or This sentence has been done things to. – John Lawler Oct 17 '13 at 17:12
  • @John: Isn't follow through normally used transitively? From ODO follow something through: continue an action or task to its conclusion. – Peter Shor Oct 17 '13 at 17:17
  • @PeterShor: Sorry, our responses collided. I was referring to RegDwigнt's comment, just above yours. Follow through can be used transitively, but the construction with with seems to be equally common (and more familiar to me). In any event, if it's a phrasal verb, it's frozen enough for Passive to affect it. – John Lawler Oct 17 '13 at 17:24
  • Of course, the classic response to your blaster would be Up with this I will not put. – terdon Oct 17 '13 at 17:48
  • @John Lawler I am not sure that we are of the same mind on what is an 'intransitive verb'. I may be wrong but I had always thought an intransitive was one which never took a direct object, such as 'sleep'. You cannot sleep anything - not directly at any rate. But there is nothing to say it can't take an indirect object. 'I sleep until noon', for example. But it can also take the preposition 'with'. 'I sleep with my wife' (just to keep matters decorous). But in this instance 'my wife' is an indirect object. So why do you say 'the "with" is a transitivizing preposition'?. – WS2 Oct 17 '13 at 18:22
  • Transitive means it does have a direct object, as well as a subject -- two arguments. Intransitive means it doesn't have a direct object, just a subject -- one argument. Bitransitive (some prefer ditransitive; I don't) means it has two objects, one direct and one indirect, as well as the obligatory subject. See the Logic Study Guide for details. – John Lawler Oct 17 '13 at 18:28

2 Answers2

-1

The verb is follow through. It doesn't need with.

Barrie England
  • 140,205
  • ..., the answer to OP's underlying question of course being, he can still end the sentence just like he did. He is wrong, but so is his blaster. Ending a sentence in a preposition is perfectly grammatical, but we already have a question on that. – RegDwigнt Oct 17 '13 at 17:09
  • 3
    Why is he wrong? Follow through with is perfect conversational English. – John Lawler Oct 17 '13 at 17:22
  • 1
    @JohnLawler Follow through with [something] is conventional, but the [something] is necessary. In the OP quote, it's not supplied so with is not needed. I have a feeling this may be an AmE/BrE difference, though. – Andrew Leach Oct 17 '13 at 17:28
  • 2
    I agree the something has to be in the sentence, but it is; it's the subject of the passive clause. It's been moved, that's all. Like the To in To which do you refer? (though by Passive, not by Pied-Piping). – John Lawler Oct 17 '13 at 17:32
  • 1
    @JohnLawler, the asker is right too believe that the sentence is perfectly fine, but wrong in his reason to do so. More specifically, he is wrong that ‘with’ is part of the phrasal verb. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Oct 17 '13 at 17:34
  • @JanusBahsJacquet: Not a transitive phrasal verb, certainly; with doesn't appear on phrasal verbs, and this one doesn't commute: Follow through with it ~ *Follow through it with ~ *Follow it through with. But follow through is arguably a phrasal verb, and the whole construction is frozen enough to license the use of Passive. You're correct; just saying Phrasal Verb solves nothing. There are too many varieties of construction, and far too many spurious understandings and definitions of the term. – John Lawler Oct 17 '13 at 17:38
  • 1
    I'd say ‘follow through’ is certainly a phrasal verb, and ‘with’ initiates a prepositional phrase tacked on to it (just like in ‘keep it up’ vs. ‘keep up with it’)—the thing the asker did wrong was to assume that if this is the case, then the sentence shouldn't be able to end with ‘with’, which is the same old north-Italian City we've all seen and heard so many times before all over again. :-) – Janus Bahs Jacquet Oct 17 '13 at 17:46
  • As an active, if unlikely, construction it would be That bullet point is simply in place to ensure that [staff] follow through projects. No with. – Barrie England Oct 17 '13 at 17:54
  • @Andrew Leach I believe in Britain we tend to use follow-up (hyphenated) where Americans 'follow through' (non-hyphenated). The principal British meaning of 'follow-through' (hyphenated) is in golf, cricket and possibly tennis, to describe what happens after the ball is hit. The OED do refer, briefly, to the figurative use but none of the synonyms seem apt enough to use. I think the QE way of expressing this would be: 'The bullet point is in place...to ensure that projects are followed-up.' Most certainly 'with' is not required. – WS2 Oct 17 '13 at 18:47
-2

The sentence is correct without the "with" at the end. The complaint was probably about ending with a preposition. But here, it's unnecessary.

ZZMike
  • 1,313
  • 1
    It's unnecessary if your personal lexicon contains transitive follow through. If it contains only intransitive follow through then _with is required. – Colin Fine Oct 17 '13 at 22:49