Johnson Floats Voting on Senate Ukraine Bill, With Conservative Policies as Sweeteners

[GoldfishLord]

Johnson Floats Voting on Senate Ukraine Bill, With Conservative Policies as Sweeteners

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/us/politics/johnson-senate-ukraine-aid.html

---

1. Would the sentence be grammatically correct if "Conservative Policies" were to be replaced by "them"?
2. Is it acceptable to move "as Sweeteners" before "Conservative"?
3. Could "With" be replaced with "together with"?

 

[5jj]

1. It would be grammatical, but meaningless.
1. Not to me.
3. No.

 

[GoldfishLord]

1. It would be grammatical, but meaningless.
1. Not to me.
3. No.

Johnson Floats Voting on Senate Ukraine Bill, With them as Sweeteners
("Them" refers to "Conservative Policies".)

---

Is it okay?

 

[SoothingDave]

No, it's not OK. There is nothing that tells us what "them" means. The "conservative policies" are something different from the Ukraine funding.

 

[probus]

It is not okay because a reader has no way of knowing what the antecedent of "them" is.

 

[GoldfishLord]

There are Conservative Policies.
Johnson Floats Voting on Senate Ukraine Bill, With them as Sweeteners

---

Now a reader can know what the antecedent of "them" is. Is it acceptable?

 

[SoothingDave]

Yes, but you haven't improved it over the original.

 

[GoldfishLord]

Johnson Floats Voting on Senate Ukraine Bill, With Conservative Policies as Sweeteners

---

I think that "With" means "along with, together with".
What is the reason "With" could not be replaced with them?

 

[SoothingDave]

"With" and "them" aren't even the same type of word. "With" is a preposition. "Them" is a pronoun. How could one replace the other?

 

[GoldfishLord]

I think that "With" means "along with, together with".
What is the reason "With" could not be replaced with "along with, together with"?

 

[SoothingDave]

You could. But you're adding unnecessary words to a headline.

 

[Tarheel]

There are Conservative Policies.
Johnson Floats Voting on Senate Ukraine Bill, With them as Sweeteners

---

Now a reader can know what the antecedent of "them" is. Is it acceptable?

You only reason you phrased it that way is so "them" could have an antecedent. It would not, I think, look natural as a real headline.

 

[GoldfishLord]

You only way you phrased it that way is so "them" could have an antecedent. It would not, I think, look natural as a real headline.

What is the construction of the bold part? I'm not sure about the meaning of it. Should "you only way" be "your only reason"?

 

[GoldfishLord]

3. No.

What makes you think that it could not be replaced with "along with, together with"?

 

[emsr2d2]

What is the construction of the bold part? I'm not sure about the meaning of it. Should "you only way" be "your only reason"?

I'm sure Tarheel meant to write "The only reason ...".

 

[Tarheel]

What is the construction of the bold part? I'm not sure about the meaning of it. Should "you only way" be "your only reason"?

That is an obvious error. That post has been edited.