Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

proximity to or proximity with -- anybody know?

4,166 views
Skip to first unread message

jeff...@earthlink.net

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
He lives in proximity to the store.
He lives in proximity with the store.
Which is correct? And why?

__Jeff


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Michael West

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to

<jeff...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8jenm3$k6h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> He lives in proximity to the store.
> He lives in proximity with the store.
> Which is correct? And why?


"Proximity to" is the usual choice of educated
English speakers. "Proximity with" is seldom
used. That makes "proximity to" more correct.
Why? Because that's what "correct" means (to
me) in matters of usage.

--
Michael West
Melbourne, Australia

The Walkers

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
In article <TWB65.1126$Tb7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Michael West" <mbwest@(remove)bigpond.com> wrote:

Ooooo . . . trolling?

But seriously folks: Michael is, in this context (in others my second
will send in my card, or however that's done) 100% correct. The choice
of preposition in English and--I am told--many, most, or all other
European languages is nearly pure idiosyncracy: little or no logic,
euphony, parallelism, or other guidance. Yet few things make speech or
writing sound more unauthentic (in English and, I would thus suppose,
those other languages) than an infelicitous pronoun. I don't say an
ill selection is "wrong," because it is not truly grammar--alternatives
are logically defensible--but such avoiding such ill selections must be
a high priority for anyone who wants to seem fluent in a language.

The remedy, sad to say, is sheer memorization.

Have you really sen or heard "proximity with"? That would be a new one
on me. Still, as long as it isn't "close proximity with"!

--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Owlcroft House

GrapeApe

unread,
Jul 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/1/00
to
>
>Have you really sen or heard "proximity with"? That would be a new one
>on me. Still, as long as it isn't "close proximity with"!

'With' would imply that the other nearby object is a co-conspirator, which
generally isnt the case. Usually the proximate object is rather uninvolved, it
has no choice in the matter. It cant really be proximate along with you, you
can be proximate to it however.

You and a friend could be proximate with each other proximate to the water
cooler. "I was proximate with Bob to the water cooler as it shattered"

0 new messages