The Penguin Dictionary of American English Usage and Style : A ...

with 479
designers finding that their machines
are encrusted with powerful computational
routines that are rarely
used. . . .
The competitive pressures have led
to a “benchmark war” between makers
of different microprocessors with
each manufacturer issuing impressive
reports on performance. . . .
The competition to gain “design
wins,” the semiconductor industry’s
phrase for having their product accepted
by computer makers, has created
some bitter feelings, with
companies rancorously challenging
the performance claims made by others.
Each paragraph could easily be made
simpler and clearer by separating the
thoughts. Omit “with” and start a new
sentence, putting the verb in the present
tense.
Complexity has become a significant
bottleneck in computing. Designers
find that. . . .
The competitive pressures have led
to a “benchmark war” between makers
of different microprocessors. Each
manufacturer issues impressive reports.
. . .
The competition to gain “design
wins” . . . has created some bitter feelings.
Companies rancorously challenge
the performance claims. . . .
An alternative to two separate sentences
is two independent clauses, separated by
a semicolon:
Complexity has become a significant
bottleneck in computing; designers
find that. . . .
(In the third paragraph of the excerpt,
“having their product” is questionable.
Better: “having its product” or “having
products.”)
Another typical example, from the
front page of a mainly financial newspaper,
concerns a South African election:
But the trend was unmistakable, with
the ANC capturing more than 60% of
the vote.
The sentence is shorter and plainer than
the previous samples, but “with” is just
as inane. Take it out and see if the sentence
needs it. Or follow “unmistakable”
with a colon, semicolon, or dash
and “the ANC captured more than 60%
of the vote.” Or follow the comma with
“and the ANC captured” etc.
In the following sentence, “with” is
not just wishy-washy; it can send readers
down the wrong track.
Luaus are still popular on Oahu
with everyone eventually succumbing
to their lure.
“Luaus are still popular on Oahu with
everyone” forms a complete thought,
but not the writer’s thought. Any of
these could replace “with”: a comma; a
semicolon and the clause “everyone
eventually succumbs to their lure”; a
comma and where or and followed by
that clause; a period and a new sentence
worded like that clause.
Journalists often treat repetition like
the plague, but the writer of the following
sentence did not seem to mind the
“with . . . with.”
At the same time, Syria rejected the
P.L.O.’s discussion with the United
States, with official newspapers
declaring that peace in the Middle
East “should be taken by force.”
When repeating a word helps to make a
sentence clear, one need not shun repetition,
particularly when the meaning of
the word is the same. In the excerpt,
however, the first with indicates interac-