Does one remonstrate another or does one remonstrate with another?
If I am protesting forcefully the actions of another, let’s call him Joe, would it be better to say:
I remonstrated Joe over his choice of words in that argument.
or would I say:
I remonstrated with Joe over his choice of words in that argument.
Because he is the target of my remonstration, no?
Because close votes are collecting, let me explain why a simple internet search thus far has not led to me to a definitive answer:
The link supplied which suggests that suggests that adding “with” is usual was quite quickly found by me, and I didn’t think it necessary to state that I had come across that link, as the whole purpose of me asking would be negated if I had never heard someone say “aren’t you to use with with that verb?” I’m asking because I don’t know what the difference is when the target of the remonstration is present, versus when you’re discussing someone with whom you were remonstrating, for instance, if two editors were remonstrating the closing of a publisher. That would be an obvious use of with to connote multiple involved parties.
I don’t say I beat with you, whereas I might say I debated you or you might say I debated with you. Is remonstrated used in the same way as debated in this case, where you may choose or not choose to use with or is with required when using remonstrated?
More specifically, I said it as a direct statement to him “I remonstrated you” (a smaller clause from a larger sentence, with context)
There are basically two uses:
The use as an intransitive verb: when you are opposing a person, you are remonstrating with them, e.g. "I remonstrated with Joe".
-
The use as a transitive verb: when you wish to oppose an action / claim / object / person / person's behaviour, you can remonstrate some words of opposition. This will occur in two contexts:
- Direct speech, e.g. "'I find your behaviour appalling,' I remonstrated".
- Indirect speech: usually a clause beginning with that (though, as always, the that can be omitted), e.g. "I remonstrated that I found Joe's behaviour appalling".
All of these uses are comparable to the verb "argue":
"I argued with Joe"
- "'I find your behaviour appalling,' I argued"
- "I argued that I found Joe's behaviour appalling"
This ngrams page shows that there have been occasional instances in literature of "remonstrated him" rather than "remonstrated with him", but they are rare enough to be treated as essentially mistakes in my opinion (you have to set smoothing to 0 to even see them, and even then they are three isolated blips).
The Collins, Merriam-Webster, and Cambridge online dictionaries all call for with before the person to whom a remonstrance is directed.
Traditional grammar, which these dictionaries follow, treats this construction as an intransitive verb followed by a prepositional phrase; I prefer to regard it as a transitive phrasal verb, remonstrate with.
At any rate, in my experience what you call the “target” (an apt word, by the way) is always designated by the preposition with. OED offers uses with to, but marks these as obsolete.
Merriam-Webster also gives a transitive sense, with no examples; but the object of that verb would be the substance of the remonstrance, not the person to whom it is directed:
I remonstrated [with Joe] that his choice of words was entirely inappropriate.
All our examples are past tense, which makes the word a mouthful. And it is already a mouthful!
"Remonstrate him," the cardinal said to the priest, looking down at the pauper.
"A man thinks he is his ideas---so he must constantly be ready to remonstrate himself should he find himself mad with no response."
I think its cleaner to use present tense when possible. That said, the ngram viewer shows that the past tense is much more common.