This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
be wrapped way too tight for
cut-through

Glossary entry

English term or phrase:

"to" or "with"

English answer:

with

Added to glossary by liz askew
Dec 9, 2008 16:19
15 yrs ago
English term

"to" or "with"

English Art/Literary Linguistics Occupational Safety
Interference [of noise] "with" verbal communication or "to" verbal communication.

My take is "with", and this is what most dictionaries recommend.

Native speakers only, please.

Thank you in advance.
Responses
5 +4 with
4 +4 interference with (the dictionaries are right)
5 two different meanings
4 "to" or "with" depending upon what you want to convey
Change log

Dec 16, 2008 08:48: liz askew Created KOG entry

Discussion

Ken Cox Dec 9, 2008:
comment IMO 'interference to' is vernacular US usage
Darius Saczuk (asker) Dec 9, 2008:
Thank you Thank you very much, Ken, for all the suggestions. The thing is that another Kudoz translator claims that interference should be followed by "to". To me, the natural choice would be "with". Anyway, I'd better use one of the suggestions that you've provided.
Ken Cox Dec 9, 2008:
or for less ambiguity: noise impairment of verbal communication, noise degradation of verbal communication, etc.
Ken Cox Dec 9, 2008:
possible rewording The phrase as given requires 'with', but it sounds awkward. You might consider wording such as disruption of verbal communication by noise, adverse effect(s) of noise on verbal communication, degradation of verbal communication by noise, or impairment of verbal communication by noise.

Responses

+4
10 mins
Selected

with

noise interferes with verbal communication

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 23 hrs (2008-12-10 15:49:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Ken's suggestion is a good one!
Peer comment(s):
agree Tina Vonhof (X)
3 mins
agree Polangmar : As the target answerers were specified.
5 hrs
agree zax
15 hrs
agree d_vachliot (X)
18 hrs
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "Thank you so much, Liz :-). As the question was targeted at native English speakers, you receive the points. Thanks also to Ken for his invaluable input, Ellen, and the other answerers. "
+4
9 mins

interference with (the dictionaries are right)

but I am not a native speaker
Peer comment(s):
agree Tina Vonhof (X)
3 mins
thank you !
agree Vicky Nash : I am a native BrEng speaker and this is how I would put it. Obviously USEng differs here!
3 hrs
thank you !
agree zax
15 hrs
thank you!
agree d_vachliot (X)
18 hrs
thank you !
Something went wrong...
1 hr

"to" or "with" depending upon what you want to convey

Both "to" or "with" can be used. Using "to" conveys one sense and using "with" another.
For example:
Interference [of noise] was a [or caused] distraction to our conversation; or
Noise was a [or caused] distraction to our conversation.
As far the use of "with", my peers have already jotted it down.
"From" and other relevant words can also be used in place of "with"
Peer comment(s):
disagree liz askew : This example bears no relation to the actual context given. "To" would not work at all.
13 hrs
agree zax : "with" in this case.
15 hrs
Something went wrong...
7 hrs

two different meanings

Interference [of noise] with verbal communication.

This one suggests you are using Verbal communication to create an interference in something (Noise). (There was a study of whether people talking, caused a compounding of noise over another noise)


Interference [of noise] to verbal communication.

This one suggests you are checking the effect of something(A Noise) and it's interference with verbal communication. (Like in a disco)

Hope this is clear.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 19 hrs (2008-12-10 11:27:05 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

The text states ... interference Of noise.
........................not noise interferes with,

If you change the wording around You are making a completely different statement, which may differ from the study results.
Dariusz needs to choose the correct word based on what the study result is reflecting on and it is not about choosing "to" or "with" it is about choosing the right sentence for the application, get it wrong and you have changed the test results.

Dariusz You need to check in the before sentence, if they were checking the effect of noise on verbal communication or the effect of verbal communication on noise. The latter is critical in optic fiber wiring, as there could be a cross over effects of noises between data and verbal communication.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day3 hrs (2008-12-10 20:00:57 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Thank you
Note from asker:
Hi, Gary, They were checking the effect of noise on verbal communication. My coworkers (USEng speakers) suggest "interference IN or WITH verbal communication"... Thank you for your input!
Peer comment(s):
disagree liz askew : No, quite the contrary. My point is, as per context, you cannot say "interference TO verbal communication" We cannot assume any other context.
6 hrs
maybe you are reading a different text to us? Yes and both have two different meanings. as per answer. thanks anyhow
agree zax : "with" in this case.
8 hrs
Thanks Zax
Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search