Skip to main content

grammar - Correspond to vs. Correspond with


Is there any significant difference between Correspond to and Correspond with?


I only mean in the sense of "matching", here, rather than "communication".


I've looked at a few sources, but I can't seem to find a good explanation that makes it clear in which context each form would be used. Some sources suggest that only Correspond to is used in the sense of "matching", whereas others suggest Correspond with can also be used in that sense (and sometimes also with slightly different meaning).



Answer



Your question sent me on a pleasant search. A bit more here.


Correspond to is used when two things are analogous or similar



...all of which correspond to real numbers...



or agree in amount, position, etc.



figures and letters on the left in the list below correspond to similar figures and letters in the statement of differences...
...events A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train...
During the night Lee moved his left up to make his line correspond to ours...*



Correspond with is used when it means to be in harmony or agreement



...a committee was appointed of some from each Quarterly Meeting, to correspond with the meeting for sufferers in London...**
The empires grew in size and range, and men's ideas grew likewise to correspond with these things...



*Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant (1885)


**from Considerations on the Payment of a Tax laid for Carrying on the War against the Indians (1757)


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more