by or with

This is the place to post questions and discussions on usage and style. The members of the Wordwizard Clubhouse will also often be able to help you to formulate that difficult letter.
Post Reply

by or with

Post by Quoc » Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:55 pm

Hi,

Please tell me the difference in meaning between:

1. Pension fund members and endowment holders do not have the right to vote at annual meetings but they can raise concerns about companies held on their behalf with trustees and fund managers.

2. Pension fund members and endowment holders do not have the right to vote at annual meetings but they can raise concerns about companies held on their behalf by trustees and fund managers.

If you say only (2) is correct . So, why did the author write (1)?


Thanks
Quoc

Ps: Here is the link:
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1934076,00.html
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

by or with

Post by dalehileman » Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:24 pm

I really struggled with this one until Laverne, who is more perspicacious than I and who understands fiscal matters, explained that it is the trustees and trust managers who hold companies. In idiomatic English, either (1) or (2) is correct. The author wrote "with" because he preferred it to "by"

However, Quoc, for what it's worth, if you are like me and don't understand the world of finance, the two can have different meanings: (1) members have concerns they wish to reveal to trustees; or (2) members who themselves may not be worried can bring up concerns previously voiced by trustees

Thus (1) I raise concerns about my dead turtle with the manager of the pet store where I had boarded it during my vacation; but (2) When I brought my turtle in, I had been advised by the manager of his concerns that the creature appeared to be in poor health
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

by or with

Post by russcable » Sun Nov 19, 2006 5:34 pm

This is one of those cases where we are discussing whether the grammar is correct without knowing the meaning because we are not financial wizards. Dale finds ambiguity because of his possible interpretations of the meaning.

As I tried to point out yesterday, there are multiple grammatical ways to put the phrases together, but which is what is meant.
My interpretation of the sentence is that:
(They can raise concerns) (about the companies held on their behalf)
and
(They can raise concerns) (with trustees and fund managers)
that is
The members and holders tell their worries about the companies to the trustees and managers.

To put "by" into the sentence means, you're separating off the phrase
(They can raise concerns) ((about companies)(held on their behalf (by trustees and fund managers))

The problem with this sentence is that the previous sentence (which was given in the other post) already made the point that the trustees and fund managers hold the stocks, so it doesn't seem likely to me that he would state this again even though it does make a "correct" and meaningful sentence.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

by or with

Post by dalehileman » Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:21 pm

Russ: Well put

Quoc, if I were you, right about now I'd consider giving up on the English Language. I am struck by your persistence and determination
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

ACCESS_END_OF_TOPIC
Post Reply