"This sense of urgency was clearly expressed in Stalin's speech to a Party Congress on 12 September 1941, with the war with Germany reaching its height and Moscow beginning negotiations with Britain and the United States over the terms of a triple alliance."

Is it permissive to set off the second clause with a [with] this way? Or perhaps I should just get rid of the [with] (i.e. ....on 12 September 1941, the war with Germany reaching......)?

And, generally, does the whole sentence work?

Thank you.
1 2
If I understand your question, "with" is not a conjunction, but a preposition. "The war with Germany reaching etc. is not a clause, but a participial phrase.

The sentence is fine, and works well for me as it is.

His prospects for the future were very grim, with the bank foreclosing on his mortgage.
This is a similar example of "with" introducing a participial phrase.
It simply shows that two conditions were coexisting (at the same time).
The second condition is in some way responsible for the first, although that's not necessary for the structure to work.
If you remove the "with" from your example or mine, you lose this sense of causality.

Ha! I've been away awhile. I'd forgotten that it's now stylish to call phrases "non-finite clauses"! Sorry about that.

As an aside, check out the difference between "permissive" and "permissible." You want "permissible"
(A permissive parent allows his children to do things which should not be permissible.)
Thank you for your prompt response and for instructing me in grammatical terminology. I appreciate it.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
You're very welcome.

Would you consider the second part of these two examples as participial phrases?

(1) "The plane fell from the sky, spiraling uncontrollably on the way down."
(2) "The nature of Communism is such that Stalin would have fallen back on the use of force sooner or later, his perverse policies ensuring resistance irrespective of how he went about implementing them."

In the first example the second condition is not so much responsible for the first as it elaborates on it. In the second example there is a logical connection between the two parts of the sentence but it seems that a 'with' is not necessary to set off the participial phrase and give the sense of causality.

In any case, am I comparing apples and oranges here? Thank you so much.
You have it exactly right!

Well, there's nothing wrong with comparing apples and oranges. You simply discuss the similarities and the differences.

But your point about the causal relation between the phrase and the clause being absent in some cases is right on.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
I am sorry, but can you please elaborate a bit on which part of my past do I have it right? I think I did pose a question or two. Thank you.
I guess what I am trying to get at is: do the two examples that I give in my most recent post have the identical structure to the example that you gave and also to the example that I raised in my first post? Or are they apples and oranges? Thank you.
The participial phrase in #1 is clearly elaboration, as you say.

#2 is arguable as to logical connection, but it could certainly be taken that way.
My reading is that force would be inevitable either because of the nature of Communism or because of the nature of Stalin.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Show more