Can “tamper” be used transitively?
Consider the following two statements:
- The file has been tampered with.
- The file has been tampered.
Does the second version make sense, or should it always be "tampered with"?
verbs transitivity
edited Nov 25 '14 at 20:41
RegDwigнt♦
82.8k31281378
asked Nov 25 '14 at 20:37
Karl NicollKarl Nicoll
233127
add a comment |
Consider the following two statements:
- The file has been tampered with.
- The file has been tampered.
Does the second version make sense, or should it always be "tampered with"?
verbs transitivity
edited Nov 25 '14 at 20:41
RegDwigнt♦
82.8k31281378
asked Nov 25 '14 at 20:37
Karl NicollKarl Nicoll
233127
There are only two definitions of the verb tamper marked as trans in the OED; one is marked obs, and the other rare. Neither one is applicable in your examples.
– Dan Bron
Nov 25 '14 at 20:55
Here's a scenario: Would it be wrong to say, "This soundboard is extremely sensitive. No tampering!"?
– IchabodE
Nov 25 '14 at 23:17
add a comment |
Consider the following two statements:
- The file has been tampered with.
- The file has been tampered.
Does the second version make sense, or should it always be "tampered with"?
verbs transitivity
edited Nov 25 '14 at 20:41
RegDwigнt♦
82.8k31281378
asked Nov 25 '14 at 20:37
Karl NicollKarl Nicoll
233127
Consider the following two statements:
- The file has been tampered with.
- The file has been tampered.
Does the second version make sense, or should it always be "tampered with"?
verbs transitivity
verbs transitivity
edited Nov 25 '14 at 20:41
RegDwigнt♦
82.8k31281378
asked Nov 25 '14 at 20:37
Karl NicollKarl Nicoll
233127
edited Nov 25 '14 at 20:41
RegDwigнt♦
82.8k31281378
asked Nov 25 '14 at 20:37
Karl NicollKarl Nicoll
233127
edited Nov 25 '14 at 20:41
RegDwigнt♦
82.8k31281378
edited Nov 25 '14 at 20:41
RegDwigнt♦
82.8k31281378
edited Nov 25 '14 at 20:41
RegDwigнt♦
82.8k31281378
82.8k31281378
asked Nov 25 '14 at 20:37
Karl NicollKarl Nicoll
233127
asked Nov 25 '14 at 20:37
Karl NicollKarl Nicoll
233127
asked Nov 25 '14 at 20:37
Karl NicollKarl Nicoll
233127
233127
There are only two definitions of the verb tamper marked as trans in the OED; one is marked obs, and the other rare. Neither one is applicable in your examples.
– Dan Bron
Nov 25 '14 at 20:55
Here's a scenario: Would it be wrong to say, "This soundboard is extremely sensitive. No tampering!"?
– IchabodE
Nov 25 '14 at 23:17
add a comment |
There are only two definitions of the verb tamper marked as trans in the OED; one is marked obs, and the other rare. Neither one is applicable in your examples.
– Dan Bron
Nov 25 '14 at 20:55
Here's a scenario: Would it be wrong to say, "This soundboard is extremely sensitive. No tampering!"?
– IchabodE
Nov 25 '14 at 23:17
There are only two definitions of the verb tamper marked as trans in the OED; one is marked obs, and the other rare. Neither one is applicable in your examples.
– Dan Bron
Nov 25 '14 at 20:55
There are only two definitions of the verb tamper marked as trans in the OED; one is marked obs, and the other rare. Neither one is applicable in your examples.
– Dan Bron
Nov 25 '14 at 20:55
Here's a scenario: Would it be wrong to say, "This soundboard is extremely sensitive. No tampering!"?
– IchabodE
Nov 25 '14 at 23:17
Here's a scenario: Would it be wrong to say, "This soundboard is extremely sensitive. No tampering!"?
– IchabodE
Nov 25 '14 at 23:17
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
There are three transitive senses of tamper recorded by the OED, but the sense you use in the first sentence ("To meddle or interfere with (a thing) so as to misuse, alter, corrupt, or pervert it.") has only one closely-related transitive sense ("To put off or do away with by tampering or clandestine dealing."). The OED lists this as "rare" and giving only one quotation:
1817 M. Keating Trav. II. 217 No putting off trials..until prosecutions are wearied off, or tampered off.
As such, I'd be inclined to say no, you can't really use it in such a way and claim to be using the word in a way it's well-attested as being used; such a use is definitely a stretch.
Also, it just looks wrong; which is subjective, but then you can get away with anything as long as enough subjective opinions agree that it's masterfully original phrasing rather than just awkwardness. I'd be a vote for the latter.
answered Nov 25 '14 at 21:00
Jon HannaJon Hanna
47.8k193176
I agree. The closest I can come to transitivity is tamperproof, but that doesn't really require an object. Tamper with means 'to do something that affects', and is effectively a transitive verb, in that it can even be passivized: This package has been tampered with.
– John Lawler
Nov 25 '14 at 21:04
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f210325%2fcan-tamper-be-used-transitively%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There are three transitive senses of tamper recorded by the OED, but the sense you use in the first sentence ("To meddle or interfere with (a thing) so as to misuse, alter, corrupt, or pervert it.") has only one closely-related transitive sense ("To put off or do away with by tampering or clandestine dealing."). The OED lists this as "rare" and giving only one quotation:
1817 M. Keating Trav. II. 217 No putting off trials..until prosecutions are wearied off, or tampered off.
As such, I'd be inclined to say no, you can't really use it in such a way and claim to be using the word in a way it's well-attested as being used; such a use is definitely a stretch.
Also, it just looks wrong; which is subjective, but then you can get away with anything as long as enough subjective opinions agree that it's masterfully original phrasing rather than just awkwardness. I'd be a vote for the latter.
answered Nov 25 '14 at 21:00
Jon HannaJon Hanna
47.8k193176
I agree. The closest I can come to transitivity is tamperproof, but that doesn't really require an object. Tamper with means 'to do something that affects', and is effectively a transitive verb, in that it can even be passivized: This package has been tampered with.
– John Lawler
Nov 25 '14 at 21:04
add a comment |
There are three transitive senses of tamper recorded by the OED, but the sense you use in the first sentence ("To meddle or interfere with (a thing) so as to misuse, alter, corrupt, or pervert it.") has only one closely-related transitive sense ("To put off or do away with by tampering or clandestine dealing."). The OED lists this as "rare" and giving only one quotation:
1817 M. Keating Trav. II. 217 No putting off trials..until prosecutions are wearied off, or tampered off.
As such, I'd be inclined to say no, you can't really use it in such a way and claim to be using the word in a way it's well-attested as being used; such a use is definitely a stretch.
Also, it just looks wrong; which is subjective, but then you can get away with anything as long as enough subjective opinions agree that it's masterfully original phrasing rather than just awkwardness. I'd be a vote for the latter.
answered Nov 25 '14 at 21:00
Jon HannaJon Hanna
47.8k193176
I agree. The closest I can come to transitivity is tamperproof, but that doesn't really require an object. Tamper with means 'to do something that affects', and is effectively a transitive verb, in that it can even be passivized: This package has been tampered with.
– John Lawler
Nov 25 '14 at 21:04
add a comment |
There are three transitive senses of tamper recorded by the OED, but the sense you use in the first sentence ("To meddle or interfere with (a thing) so as to misuse, alter, corrupt, or pervert it.") has only one closely-related transitive sense ("To put off or do away with by tampering or clandestine dealing."). The OED lists this as "rare" and giving only one quotation:
1817 M. Keating Trav. II. 217 No putting off trials..until prosecutions are wearied off, or tampered off.
As such, I'd be inclined to say no, you can't really use it in such a way and claim to be using the word in a way it's well-attested as being used; such a use is definitely a stretch.
Also, it just looks wrong; which is subjective, but then you can get away with anything as long as enough subjective opinions agree that it's masterfully original phrasing rather than just awkwardness. I'd be a vote for the latter.
answered Nov 25 '14 at 21:00
Jon HannaJon Hanna
47.8k193176
There are three transitive senses of tamper recorded by the OED, but the sense you use in the first sentence ("To meddle or interfere with (a thing) so as to misuse, alter, corrupt, or pervert it.") has only one closely-related transitive sense ("To put off or do away with by tampering or clandestine dealing."). The OED lists this as "rare" and giving only one quotation:
1817 M. Keating Trav. II. 217 No putting off trials..until prosecutions are wearied off, or tampered off.
As such, I'd be inclined to say no, you can't really use it in such a way and claim to be using the word in a way it's well-attested as being used; such a use is definitely a stretch.
Also, it just looks wrong; which is subjective, but then you can get away with anything as long as enough subjective opinions agree that it's masterfully original phrasing rather than just awkwardness. I'd be a vote for the latter.
answered Nov 25 '14 at 21:00
Jon HannaJon Hanna
47.8k193176
answered Nov 25 '14 at 21:00
Jon HannaJon Hanna
47.8k193176
answered Nov 25 '14 at 21:00
Jon HannaJon Hanna
47.8k193176
answered Nov 25 '14 at 21:00
Jon HannaJon Hanna
47.8k193176
47.8k193176
I agree. The closest I can come to transitivity is tamperproof, but that doesn't really require an object. Tamper with means 'to do something that affects', and is effectively a transitive verb, in that it can even be passivized: This package has been tampered with.
– John Lawler
Nov 25 '14 at 21:04
add a comment |
I agree. The closest I can come to transitivity is tamperproof, but that doesn't really require an object. Tamper with means 'to do something that affects', and is effectively a transitive verb, in that it can even be passivized: This package has been tampered with.
– John Lawler
Nov 25 '14 at 21:04
I agree. The closest I can come to transitivity is tamperproof, but that doesn't really require an object. Tamper with means 'to do something that affects', and is effectively a transitive verb, in that it can even be passivized: This package has been tampered with.
– John Lawler
Nov 25 '14 at 21:04
I agree. The closest I can come to transitivity is tamperproof, but that doesn't really require an object. Tamper with means 'to do something that affects', and is effectively a transitive verb, in that it can even be passivized: This package has been tampered with.
– John Lawler
Nov 25 '14 at 21:04
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f210325%2fcan-tamper-be-used-transitively%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
There are only two definitions of the verb tamper marked as trans in the OED; one is marked obs, and the other rare. Neither one is applicable in your examples.
– Dan Bron
Nov 25 '14 at 20:55
Here's a scenario: Would it be wrong to say, "This soundboard is extremely sensitive. No tampering!"?
– IchabodE
Nov 25 '14 at 23:17