: Re: "And" vs "with" in description lists When should I use the former or the later? Examples: It was a bird. It had a black head and wings and a golden underbelly. It was a bird.

@Michele605

Vote Up Vote Down

The first answer by Matt Ellen is good, but excessively rigid imho.
It is just a direct consequence of the grammatical fact that and is
a conjunction while with is a preposition. So this implies indeed
that whatever follows with is related to what precedes it. However,
being related to does not necessarily mean being part of, as in : he saw his aunt with his mother (using one of the various meanings of
with).

While the use of with is quite appropriate to describe an attribute
of an attribute, and can often suggest that, it can be used
for other purposes, especially when there is no semantic ambiguity.

In addition, the conjuction and is somewhat bland, and creates no
relation between conjuncts. It just enumerates. Using with when it
can be appropriate may reinforce the conjunctive aspect by insisting
that the conjunction may have more meaning than just coincidence.

For example, in the sentence: She wore a blue hat with a green coat., using and instead of with would be a sort of objective,
factual description as in a police report, while the use of with
puts the green hat and the blue coat in stronger relation, hence tries
to suggest something, possibly that the character has no color taste.

In the case of the bird example above, it could be that the story was
about finding an animal having a golden underbelly. Then the use of
with emphasizes an attribute that has an important role, as opposed
to other attributes, though it is emphasized softly which gives a
smoother style than writing ... but a golden underbelly.

Of course, there are cases when the intention is to provide a structureless
enumeration. Then and should be used.

(0)

Login to post a comment!