Preposition: The evaluation must be coherent <to, with> the objectives

  • Matching Mole

    Senior Member
    England, English
    It's an adjective, it doesn't take such prepositions. "A coherent argument" or "she was coherent".

    The verb is to cohere meaning stick together, physically or figuratively.

    Ex. from Onelook: "The sushi rice grains cohere", "The principles by which societies cohere"

    You can replace it with "stick together" and as such doesn't take prepositions, although I think something can cohere to something, but I'm not sure.
     

    maraba

    Senior Member
    Spain
    I beg your pardon.


    The evaluation must be coherent to / with the objectives and contents projected, being observation its main tool / implement.

    Thanks very much.

    and sorry again.
     

    Matching Mole

    Senior Member
    England, English
    I don't think this is correct usage, it means stick together so two or more things are coherent, it is a state governing the things that stick together as the subject. OK, having read dn88's reply that makes sense, it must be "with" as the subjects act as a group.
     

    HunkiDori

    Member
    Indonesia/English
    I agree with Dn88. Had it been "to," it would suggest that the evaluation seems coherent to the objectives and projected content.
     

    dn88

    Senior Member
    Polish
    "coherent with the objectives" is perfectly correct

    "coherent to the objectives" is definitely wrong
     

    Matching Mole

    Senior Member
    England, English
    I agree dn88, it cannot be "to", it must be "with". The relationship between objects that cohere is mutual.
     

    maraba

    Senior Member
    Spain
    Maraba, don't take much notice of me :) It's acceptable usage, but the prep. must be "with".
    Thank you. :)

    AWordLover said:
    Maybe you wanted congruent with in place of coherent with.
    That's right, this could be my meaning. But in Spanish we have the same lexical roots for either word as in English you have, that is, coher- and congruent- (in the end both languages are not so different from each other :) ) and perhaps the most common ussage is the expression to be coherent with something rather than to be congruent with something, in this kind of sentences (and I emphasize perhaps).
     

    panjandrum

    Occasional Moderator
    English-Ireland (top end)
    Almost all of the OED definitions for coherent suggest that it cannot be used in any sense relating to two objects. Something is coherent, or it is not. The exception is the specialised use in botany - in which A may be coherent with B (A is stuck to B).

    However, if you look in the British National Corpus you will find four examples of "coherent with" that are similar to maraba's sentence.
    The sense seems to be, more or less, consistent with.
     

    cuchuflete

    Senior Member
    EEUU-inglés
    I beg your pardon.


    The evaluation must be coherent to / with the objectives and contents projected, being observation its main tool / implement.

    Thanks very much.

    and sorry again.
    You have been asked for background, which you have withheld.
    You have been asked for context, and have provided us with this minimal snippet.

    It certainly doesn't look like modern English. If it is, the author has done a fine job of emulating a 19th century style.

    Why the reluctance to give more than fragments?
    --------------

    Edit: I've just read this- "...and perhaps the most common ussage is the expression to be coherent with something rather than to be congruent with something, in this kind of sentences (and I emphasize perhaps)."

    The truth is that 'congruent with' is used. 'Coherent with' sounds very odd, which is not true of phrases in common usage.
     

    dn88

    Senior Member
    Polish
    I googled some expressions. My results:

    "coherent with" - 888,000
    "coherent to" - 183,000

    "coherent with the objectives" - 875
    "coherent to the objectives" - 1
     

    Matching Mole

    Senior Member
    England, English
    Panjandrum, as you probably noticed, I agree with your statement "Almost all of the OED definitions for coherent suggest that it cannot be used in any sense relating to two objects. Something is coherent, or it is not." However, I think I have to concede that usage is tending to break with this interpretation, and I think we might have to get used to it being used with the prep. "with".

    dn88, although not arguing with your conclusions, of course, I found that most of the instances of "coherent to" were in this form: "ranging from coherent to chaotic dynamics" (i.e. "to" as in defining a range) and other grammatical constructions that do not relate to the usage we are discussing. I think the "withs" have it.


     

    cuchuflete

    Senior Member
    EEUU-inglés
    I scanned the first 80 Google results for 'coherent with'. Without exception, they were scientific, technical or academic writing. The phrase obviously does exist, but is not used in normal speech. It seems reserved to formal, technical writing. It seems to be a slightly pompous way of saying 'consistent with'.
     

    liulia

    Senior Member
    English/French
    "coherent with :tick:the objectives" is perfectly correct

    "coherent to:cross: the objectives" is definitely wrong
    I agree! BUT I also feel that 'consistent with' is more appropriate, even though "coherent with" is used very frequently in the kind of text you quoted (evaluations, etc.).
     

    maraba

    Senior Member
    Spain
    It certainly doesn't look like modern English. If it is, the author has done a fine job of emulating a 19th century style.
    Why, thank you. :)

    Edit: I've just read this- "...and perhaps the most common ussage is the expression to be coherent with something rather than to be congruent with something, in this kind of sentences (and I emphasize perhaps)."

    The truth is that 'congruent with' is used. 'Coherent with' sounds very odd, which is not true of phrases in common usage
    Obviously I was just referring to the Spanish language. It would never occur to the to speak so decidedly on a language I don't command well.

    Why the reluctance to give more than fragments?
    --------------
    I can't but recognize that I'm a little lazy person in providing contexts. But believe me if I tell you that I thought it was sufficient just with the sentence.
     

    maraba

    Senior Member
    Spain
    I scanned the first 80 Google results for 'coherent with'. Without exception, they were scientific, technical or academic writing. The phrase obviously does exist, but is not used in normal speech. It seems reserved to formal, technical writing. It seems to be a slightly pompous way of saying 'consistent with'.
    Although I am going to use "consistent with", the sentence actually tries to be a formal, technical and academic writing.


    By the way, which would you say:

    1. The sentence actually tries to be a formal, technical and academic writing.

    2. I'm actually trying the sentence to be a formal, technical and academic writing.

    (Thank you.)
     

    Moon Palace

    Senior Member
    French
    Hello,
    Would it help if I said that the OED give the Latin origin of 'coherent' as meaning 'sticking together'? I would say this idea of a plurality explains why we would use 'with' rather than 'to'. As I see it, 'to' would mean the relation from one to another (as in 'range from... to..).
    Although I don't remember exactly the sentence after reading this long thread, two phrases came to my mind while reading it: 'in accordance with' or 'in keeping with'. Would they possibly fit?
     

    liliput

    Senior Member
    U.K. English
    I've always understood "coherent" to mean "intelligible" or "understandable".
    ""How's Mike after the accident?" "Well, he's conscious but he's not coherent yet."
    "Some people can't string together a coherent sentence."
    However, giving it some thought, I believe I may have seen it in this other context in scientific journals and the like. If you must use it then I'm certain you should use "coherent with" not "coherent to".
     

    cuchuflete

    Senior Member
    EEUU-inglés
    Although I am going to use "consistent with", the sentence actually tries to be a formal, technical and academic writing.


    By the way, which would you say:

    1. The sentence actually tries to be a formal, technical and academic writing.

    2. I'm actually trying the sentence to be a formal, technical and academic writing.
    Hi Maraba,

    I would say, "I intend the sentence to be formal, technical and academic in style."


    Let's finally return to the original:

    The evaluation must be coherent to / with the objectives and contents projected, being observation its main tool / implement.

    My suggestion: The evaluation must be consistent with the objectives and contents projected ( although I confess that without context, I have no idea what 'contents projected' is intended to convery...), with observation as its main tool/implement/method. (again, without context, I don't know which word fits best.)


     

    AWordLover

    Senior Member
    USA English
    Hi All,

    There is a use of the word coherent that combines the idea of sticking together with the idea of things being in alignment, or having a very high degree of consistency. A laser's light is said to be coherent. It doesn't spread out, like the light from a flashlight (British torch?) would instead it sticks together. Also the light waves are all in alignment with the peaks lined up with peaks, and troughs lined up with troughs.
     

    jonmaz

    Senior Member
    English-Australia
    I've always understood "coherent" to mean "intelligible" or "understandable".
    ""How's Mike after the accident?" "Well, he's conscious but he's not coherent yet."
    "Some people can't string together a coherent sentence."".



    I suspect incoherent is more widely used in respect of difficulty to understand than things not sticking together.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top