Discussion Groups / ESL Teaching / July 2005

See also this comment in a piece written by Jack Straw
(by invitation) that appeared in The Economist in
October 2002:

   Both of these constitutions meet the standards set
   by this newspaper's most famous editor, Walter
   Bagehot, that they should “excite and preserve the
   reverence of the population” and contain “the
   efficient parts—those by which it in fact works and
   rules”.
   http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1378559

And the editorial writers of The Economist itself:

   Our disagreements with George Bush

   As regular readers will know, The Economist endorsed
   Mr Bush in the 2000 election once he had beaten our
   preferred candidate, John McCain. That still looks
   the right choice for that election. Indeed, Al Gore
   served a handy reminder of his unsuitability and
   poor judgment by endorsing Howard Dean. This
   newspaper also supported Mr Bush's most
   controversial action, the Iraq war—and despite the
   continuing instability in that country we do not
   regret that, either.

   http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2553296

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.usage.english.]

That's true, but I think that's more of an idiosyncrasy of that
publication.  In any case, The Economist hasn't really been written in
British English since about 1993 or so.

The reason for that is quite simple. It is published weekly, and, for
legal purposes, any periodical published weekly or more frequently is
a newspaper. The distinction has consequences for things like postal
rates. Format is irrelevant.

This may be the case, but everybody else in britain wopuld call it a
magazine. newspapers don't have glossy covers, for a start. They are
also rarewly if ever in A4 format - at least I know of no British
newspaper in this format.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

That's just the legal name of the company. The company might as easily
be called The Economist Cheese and Pickle Sandwich Limited, but that
wouldn't make the publication a delicious source of protein and fibre.

If it wants to call itself a newspaper, it can, but most BrEng people
would think of it as a magazine.

Owain

In alt.english.usage on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:03:59 -0400 "ray o'hara"
<roh@comcast.net> posted:

Doesn't the USPS consider both newspapers and magazines to be
"periodicals"?  I don't think there is any newspaper rate.

A bigger question would be, even if the USPS applied a "newspaper
rate" to a magazine, would that make it a magazine?  How many legs
does a horse have if the USPS considers its tail a leg?  

And would the USPS say they consider it a newspaper, or that they
apply the newspaper rate to it? I think the latter, but if perchance
someone got carried away with himself and said they considered it a
newspaper, if in American English it was a magazine, wouldn't he look
silly?

s/ meirman  
Posting from alt.english.usage

agree:

In British use, the transitive verb "agree" often replaces the "agree
on" or "agree to" of American English. Longman 1984, Chambers 1985, and
Burchfield 1981 find these uses acceptable; Gowers (in Fowler 1965)
accepts "agree on" but not "agree to." Frederick T. Wood, _English
Verbal Idioms_ (1964), thinks the use exists only in the passive; it
is, however, also active.

This is is rare by not unknown in the U.S.

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, 1994

agree:

Alongside the commonest uses of this verb with a prepositional
complement (Agree on, about, to, upon, with), the OED records a
transitive use ('to arrange, concert, or settle (a thing in which
various interests are concerned)') which has played a part in the
language since the 16c. (first recorded in 1523). Older examples, which
seem to have caused no concern, can be consulted in the OED. In the
20c. a not dissimilar transitive use has become common but somewhat
controversial in Britain but remains rare or non-existent in America.

Source: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, Revised third edition,
1998

agree (v.)

combines with several prepositions in Standard English: about, as in We
agreed about the site; as to, as in They agreed as to the next step;
in, as in We agreed in all details; on, as in I trust we can agree on a
suitable date; to, as in I think he'll agree to the compromise; upon,
as in The president and I must agree upon an agenda; and with, as in I
agree with you. "Agree" also can take that plus a clause, as in We
agreed that we'd call on them next week, and to plus an infinitive,
as in She agreed to marry him.

Source: The Columbia Guide to Standard American English.  1993.

http://www.bartleby.com/68/38/238.html

---

No comments on this usage of "agree" in American Heritage Dictionary of
English Usage (online free reference) or Chicago Manual of Style, 15th
ed.

---

There is no such thing as an unabridged American dictionary built on
the same historical principles as the OED.

---

VERDICT:

The usage didn't "drop out" of American usage while holding firm in
British usage. It dropped out of English usage in general and has been
making a comeback since the last century in the UK. Americans, in
general, do not use it.

Does anyone have, or have access to, a big and authoritative US English
dictionary? I suppose that the citations might show when the transitive
"agree" tended to fall out of NAm usage, if indeed it has done so to the
extent you describe.

Alan Jones

According to the Merriam Webster On-Line Dictionary this transitive
usage is "mainly British" - I would take this as meaning that it's not
completely unknown in American English, just fairly rare.

I think it's probably just another example of the slight variation in
the use of prepositions between British and American English. Usually
the American English reflects earlier usage in British English - a
common feature of "colonial" forms of a language. So it may be that this
transitive usage is a relatively new structure and not an older one that
has now been lost in North America.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

But what you really asked was

   Does anyone have information on the origins of
   the different usage?

I doubt that it's possible in most cases -- and in this case
in particular -- to explain why a given usage has become
unpopular or has completely vanished from a language.  If
people for some unknown reason are disinclined to employ a
usage, it dies out.

Why did the use of "use" in the sense "be accustomed"
disappear from English except in certain tenses.  We can
still say "I used to do it", but we can no longer say "When
I get up in the morning, I use to read the newspaper first"
(present tense of "use").  Or, "When summer comes I will use
to go to the beach every Saturday" (future tense of "use").
Who knows why we can't?

I think the NSOED sense 4, which I quoted, is shown as even older than that.

Could there be some difference in meaning between "They agreed terms" and
"They agreed on terms"? The first distinctly implies, to me, that a
difference has been settled by discussion and give-and-take; the second,
perhaps only that the parties have met and found that they agree.

Alan Jones

I agree

As well they ought:  implied objects are perfectly standard with
transitive verbs in English.  I don't know if you are churched, but if
so, would you ask the priest "take and eat what?" while at Communion?

Richard R. Hershberger