1) Their plan will probably meet with little success.
2) Their plan will be probably met with little success.
I’ve sometimes seen the usage of two patterns of the verb - ‘meet’ in either a active or passive form as above with almost same meaning. However, I guess there must be a subtle difference between two patterns, and I’m curious especially at which case the natives use the passive form. Would appreciate on your explanation.
Wrong. The natural word order would be "probably be met with", but that would be equally wrong. The passive use involving "meet" is "to be met by", used when something counters something else. "His rudeness was met by her gentility."
That's from the fraze.it website:So says the first independent analysis of how Europe's 2020 targets will be met. (open, save, copy) newscientist.com
Yet no one thinks the original deadline of 2014 for moving the base will be met. (open, save, copy) economist.com
You're drawn to the well-trod path where you know your expectations will be met. (open, save, copy) dispatch.com
Therefore, any bounce that occurs in AMD will soon be met with heavy resistance. (open, save, copy) online.wsj.com
There is also a growing possibility that the 6 October deadline will not be met. (open, save, copy) guardian.co.uk
Hello, Anon, appreciate your reply and noted the wrong words order.
3) Her proposal met with unanimous rejection.
4) I'm afraid my proposal was met with a volley of criticisms.
Meantime, my point of this inquiry is at which situation natives use this passive pattern of 'meet' rather than active one.
The construction in question is "meet with", not "meet" alone. The WSJ citation is a mistake on their part and should say "will soon meet heavy resistance."
This is the correct form.
This shows us that even Cambridge nods.
My first answer stands, and you were asking about "meet with", not just "meet".
People mess up idiom all the time, even
over-educatedwell-educated native speakers. I don't expect you to take my word for this, but I can't think of a good way to prove it to you. All I can do is point to your own confusion about the matter and offer that as evidence that the matter is confusing. It should therefore come as no surprise that others are confused, too.
I guess you will have to do further research, bearing in mind what you've seen here.
"to meet with" is a mutual action. If John meets with Bill, Bill meets with John, and John and Bill meet with each other. That's why it seldom makes much difference whether you use the active or passive in the kinds of examples you are interested in here.
In all cases I've looked at, the active is the more frequently used form, being used at least twice as often regardless of tense. (However, this may be because the active form is also seen in sentences like John met with [Bill / the delegation / the committee], which are virtually never seen in the passive. This skews the count in search engines.) In any case, it should be noted that whether the active or the passive is used in the types of sentences we are talking about, the first component is the "judged" element, and the second component is the "reaction" part.
Shakespoore's new play met with disbelief and denial at the Globb Theatre last Friday night.
Shakespoore's new play was met with disbelief and denial at the Globb Theatre last Friday night.
(Never Great success (was) met with Shakespoore's new play ....)
Without further investigation there is no way to predict whether the active or the passive form will be used in any given sentence. As I see it (for now), the choice seems governed not so much by anything in the sentence but by the whims of the author.
Nevertheless, my intuition tells me that maybe the active form more often pairs with a positive reaction, and the passive form with a negative reaction.
His lectures met with considerable success.
Such double standards are met with righteous anger.
There is some data in the corpora that tends to confirm this, but some that refutes it as well. Maybe some high-powered linguist will write a paper on this for us.
Hi, CJ, you really provided me a new, wonderful explanation never heard so far as an unexpected gift for me on weekend.
OK, but note that it's very speculative, so it may eventually turn out to be wrong.