Meeting / Meeting with

Boulevardier

A lot of people on this side of the pond do not like the phrase "meeting with" on the grounds that it is an Americanism, and that there is no need for the "with".

However, I am wondering if a real divergence of meaning is now opening up between the 2 terms.

Examples:

"I met Joe Bloggs on Grafton St yesterday. He tells me he is doing grand."

"I met with Joe Bloggs at his office to sort out an important issue."

What does anyone else think?

Eeden

The way I would understand it is that "meet" seems to imply more of a chance meeting, where as there is a little more formality to "meet with", as it it more of an arranged encounter. That's just my feeling (no research done).

Boulevardier

EEden, thats more or less what I would say as well.

My brother, an EFL teacher, surprised me yesterday when he told me that that is how it has been taught in his school for some years now.

nuac

inho the "with" is superflous

Boulevardier

Do you not think there is a case for keeping it in the sort of cases I mentioned?

New Home

nuac wrote: »

inho the "with" is superflous

I would agree - in the case of a pre-arranged appointment, I'd much rather say "I had a meeting with Joe Bloggs" than "I met with Joe Bloggs", which to me sounds as bad as saying "together with" and "join with" (you're obviously with/in the company of someone if you two are together, or if you've joined him/her).

"I met Joe Bloggs" could mean, on its own, both a chance encounter or a prearranged meeting, but the difference should be obvious from the rest of the sentence/conversation.

Boulevardier

Yes, you can use "I met Joe Bloggs" to cover both types of meeting, and that is probably still the prevalent habit in Ireland and Britain.

However, I think that the "met with" usage is appearing, like it or not, in order to underline the idea that the meeting in question is (relatively) formal and pre-arranged.

nuac

Boulevardier wrote: »

Yes, you can use "I met Joe Bloggs" to cover both types of meeting, and that is probably still the prevalent habit in Ireland and Britain.

However, I think that the "met with" usage is appearing, like it or not, in order to underline the idea that the meeting in question is (relatively) formal and pre-arranged.

With respect I disagree.

I think adding "with" to "meet" is just a sloppy americanism

Eeden

nuac wrote: »

With respect I disagree.

I think adding "with" to "meet" is just a sloppy americanism

Just because something is an "Americanism" doesn't make it wrong. You may get annoyed by it because it's not the way you would say it, but it's not wrong.

Added to that, a lot of things people think are Americanisms (like the -ize word endings), aren't actually Americanisms - they're just perceived that way.