withholding vital information "from"

Hello! If I am understanding your question correctly, you are asking how this sentence is properly interpreted?

“She was accused of withholding vital information from the police.”

It means "she" has information that she did not give to the police that was vital to the police investigation.

@deepcosmos posted:

I think no.1 will be correct and the function of “from“ in ‘withholding something from someone’ is different from the ”from“ of following patterns – ‘stop, keep, prohibit ~ from ~ing’.

Hi, Deepcosmos—Yes, your interpretation is correct. Those two patterns have nothing to do with each other, syntactically or semantically.

@BE posted:

Hello! If I am understanding your question correctly, you are asking how this sentence is properly interpreted?

“She was accused of withholding vital information from the police.”

It means "she" has information that she did not give to the police that was vital to the police investigation.

Hello, thanks for your comment. Then, is yours similar to above no.2?

@David, Moderator posted:

Hi, Deepcosmos—Yes, your interpretation is correct. Those two patterns have nothing to do with each other, syntactically or semantically.

Hi, David,

Today I fortunately found an interesting reference which reads, "The prepositions suggest a distinction: 'beyond' means 'not within';'from' means 'not to'; 'in' 'not out'. The emphasis thus serves to dismiss an alternative understanding ... https://www.jstor.org/stable/3299887?seq=1

1. Considering this reference, am I ok to rephrase the original sentence into “She was accused of withholding vital information 'not to the police.”, which means, "she has information that she did not give to the police that was vital to the police investigation." as in above BE's post?

2. Could I rephrase "They are prohibited from revealing details about the candidates." into "They are prohibited not to revealing details about the candidates.", which means, "They are not allowed to reveal details about the candidates not to them(=the candidates)." However, I'm afraid this rephrasing may be against your comment this morning. Thus, I will really appreciate that I could have another chance to hear your kind explanation on this problem once again.

Best RGDS,

@deepcosmos posted:

Today I fortunately found an interesting reference which reads, "The prepositions suggest a distinction: 'beyond' means 'not within';'from' means 'not to'; 'in' 'not out'. The emphasis thus serves to dismiss an alternative understanding ... https://www.jstor.org/stable/3299887?seq=1

Hi, deepcosmos—Your reference leads me to an article having to do with songs. Would you like me to try to find something pertaining to grammar in it?

@deepcosmos posted:

1. Considering this reference, am I ok to rephrase the original sentence into “She was accused of withholding vital information 'not to the police.”, which means, "she has information that she did not give to the police that was vital to the police investigation." as in above BE's post?

"She withheld something from them" means that she didn't give it to them. She kept it from them. It doesn't mean she kept them from doing something. Don't confuse yourself by trying to relate it to the "from V-ing construction," which, as I have already explained, has nothing to do with "withhold NP from NP."

@deepcosmos posted:

2. Could I rephrase "They are prohibited from revealing details about the candidates." into "They are prohibited not to revealing details about the candidates.",

No, that rephrasing is incorrect, ungrammatical, and nonsensical.

@deepcosmos posted:

However, I'm afraid this rephrasing may be against your comment this morning. Thus, I will really appreciate that I could have another chance to hear your kind explanation on this problem once again.

You seem to have failed to grasp the meaning of the construction.

@David, Moderator posted:

Your reference leads me to an article having to do with songs. Would you like me to try to find something pertaining to grammar in it?

Hi, David, I'm afraid but that wasn't what I meant. I was just trying to find the suitable usage of the curious 'from' through googling, which could be very close to your explanation (I feel this 'from' may be one of the most difficult cases to EFL learners, since this usage of 'from' is entirely different from other ordinary ones).

@David, Moderator posted:

"She withheld something from them" means that she didn't give it to them. She kept it from them. It doesn't mean she kept them from doing something. Don't confuse yourself by trying to relate it to the "from V-ing construction," which, as I have already explained, has nothing to do with "withhold NP from NP."

I've known the difference between two and the point of my last question was if the two 'from's themselves belong to the same category (meaning) or not.

I would summarize what I've learned so far as follows;

1. The 'from' in "she withheld something from them" means 'not to' (to as preposition)'.

2. The 'from' in "she prohibited them from doing something" means 'what is prevented, or the object  prevented'.

Please don't hesitate any comment.

RGDS,

Let's try this again, deepcosmos. I'll keep in mind that your interest is purely theoretical, since you say you already understand the constructions. Having carefully reread your opening post, however, I question whether you really do understand what you say you understand. Interpretation (1) is actually wrong:

@deepcosmos posted:

While I have a single sentence quoted from Longman dictionary - “She was accused of withholding vital information from the police.”, which interpretation is correct in following two?;

1. She was accused of holding back vital information which was received from the police.
(= She was accused of refusing to give someone vital information which was received from the police.)

2. She was accused of holding back vital information against the police.
(= she tried to keep vital information against the police.)
(= she tried not to deliver vital information to the police.)

I think no.1 will be correct and the function of “from“ in ‘withholding something from someone’ is different from the ”from“ of following patterns – ‘stop, keep, prohibit ~ from ~ing’.

When I quickly endorsed your interpretation (1), I dismissed from my mind your awkward phrasing. Now that I have more time to ponder your perplexity, I see that you have missed the meaning entirely with (1). Although your interpretation is theoretically possible, the context makes it ludicrous.

The problem with your interpretation (1) is that it parses the "from"-PP as an NP adjunct, that is, as a modifier of "information." You are saying that you think "She withheld information from the police" means that she withheld certain information, namely, information (that came) from the police!

That is not what the construction means at all, though of course it is possible to imagine that meaning. If you want the real meaning, though, the "from"-PP in the "withhold NP1 from NP2" is a complement within the VP, just as it is in the "keep NP from VP-ing" and "stop NP from VP-ing" constructions.

What difference does the syntax make to the proper interpretation of meaning? It makes a world of difference. She didn't hold back information that came from the police. What she did was to hold herself back from giving certain information to the police! She prevented the information from reaching them.

@deepcosmos posted:

I've known the difference between two and the point of my last question was if the two 'from's themselves belong to the same category (meaning) or not.

I would summarize what I've learned so far as follows;

1. The 'from' in "she withheld something from them" means 'not to' (to as preposition)'.

2. The 'from' in "she prohibited them from doing something" means 'what is prevented, or the object  prevented'.

OK, your interpretation (2) is fine; indeed, you can actually replace "She prohibited them from doing X" with "She prohibited their doing X." As to (1), your "not to" hypothesis is OK purely from a semantic standpoint. BUT PLEASE NOTE: YOU CANNOT REPLACE "FROM" WITH "NOT TO." If you do, you will produce unintelligible garbage, just as you did in your third post above.

When you do your "not to" business, therefore, it is important to realize that you are just thinking about semantics, not about a substitution that can actually be used in these "from"-constructions. The "to" is equivalent to an arrow, semantically speaking, just as in the grammar book excerpt below.

Lindstromberg, Seth. English Prepositions Explained. Amsterdam: John                               Benjamins Publishing Company, 2010.

@David, Moderator posted:

The problem with your interpretation (1) is that it parses the "from"-PP as an NP adjunct, that is, as a modifier of "information." You are saying that you think "She withheld information from the police" means that she withheld certain information, namely, information (that came) from the police!

That is not what the construction means at all, though of course it is possible to imagine that meaning. If you want the real meaning, though, the "from"-PP in the "withhold NP1 from NP2" is a complement within the VP, just as it is in the "keep NP from VP-ing" and "stop NP from VP-ing" constructions.

OK, your interpretation (2) is fine; indeed, you can actually replace "She prohibited them from doing X" with "She prohibited their doing X." As to (1), your "not to" hypothesis is OK purely from a semantic standpoint. BUT PLEASE NOTE: YOU CANNOT REPLACE "FROM" WITH "NOT TO." If you do, you will produce unintelligible garbage, just as you did in your third post above.

Hello, David--you have really been enlightening me on the sea of English like a huge lighthouse.

Thank you million times.