The two examples are seen quite often in literature (especially in technical/medical texts), with the former being more common. Are they strictly equivalent? What subtle nuances distinguish the two? Thanks for your comments.
Ms Google gives me:
267,000,000 English pages for "associated with"
10,600,000 English pages for "associated to".
Still, to sounds odd to me; I would call to a poor cousin to with. I see no nuances of difference myself.
267,000,000 English pages for "associated with"
10,600,000 English pages for "associated to".
Still, to sounds odd to me; I would call to a poor cousin to with. I see no nuances of difference myself.
I agree with Anonymous #296250: I work as a writer and editor in an environment populated with native French speakers who write first drafts of technical documents in English. I see "this thing ASSOCIATES TO that thing" with great regularity, but it remains an error in translating "à". It has become so common in technical documents that it is generally accepted, but "ASSOCIATE WITH" is the correct formulation, gramatically-speaking.
Try out our live chat room.
Comments
Cheers
CB
Bitcoin Social Trading Network
Join millions who have already discovered smarter strategies for investing in Bitcoin. Learn from experienced eToro traders or copy their positions automatically!
1) compared with vs. compared to
2) connected with vs. connected to
3) associated with vs. associated to
4) married with* vs. married to
5) living with vs. living to*
6) contrasted with vs. contrasted to
7) likened with vs. likened to
8) incorporated with vs incorporated into
9) we talked with one another vs. we talked to each other
The difference between 'compared to' and 'compared with' is perhaps better known, with 'compared to' meaning 'likened to', different to 'compared with', which means 'contrasted with'. Most people can see this distinction when it's pointed out.
Some of the other instances mentioned seem to show 'with' and 'to' being totally synonymous, but 'married with...' and 'living to...' show that there are limits to this equivelance. I would suggest that this similarily in basic semantics (they relate to connections - both the participle and the preposition) means that the conventions of one participle can easily 'hop' across to other similar participles.
If you were really looking for a distinction between 'with' and 'to', you can explore the strength of connection. The word 'with' suggests 'alongside', two things that are in proximity but only loosely affecting each other: 'We talk with one another'. Compare this to 'we are talking to each other', which suggests a more abiding state of affairs. And also: 'Your hip bone is connected to your leg bone'.
But more wrong, in my opinion, is to check the frequency of pages in Google when deciding about correctness of English language, or any other language.
Today, when most articles in science and learning are required in English, and when every one can use his/her personal computer to type-in (and so many illiterate editoring staff around...), mistakes of every sort galore!
So many authors shamelessly use the Google listing as some educational reference... even arguing with renown dictionaries or language specialists... We are entering a new era, when illiterate and educated go hand in hand...