# Preposition: ... agree <on, to, (none)> ...



## quietdandelion

1. Is he going to agree to our suggestion?
2. Can we agree a price?
3. After a long discussion, the salesperson and I agreed on the price of the car.


Are there rules that tell me when to use "agree to," when "agree" and "agree on?' Thanks.


----------



## panjandrum

I don't know if there are rules, but all your examples sound right to me.


----------



## quietdandelion

Thanks, panj.
They are all right, but when should I use "agree to," "agree on," and "agree?"


----------



## Thomas1

This thread may be of use.  And perhaps, this one too.

Tom


----------



## quietdandelion

Thanks, Thomas.
They help, but when to use "agree" without being followed by a preposition?


----------



## Dimcl

quietdandelion said:


> 1. Is he going to agree to our suggestion?
> 2. Can we agree a price? *This has to be "agree on a price"*
> 3. After a long discussion, the salesperson and I agreed on the price of the car.
> 
> 
> Are there rules that tell me when to use "agree to," when "agree" and "agree on?' Thanks.


 
I don't know whether there are any rules, QD, but here are more examples:

"Let's agree *on* when we should meet for lunch"
"Let's agree *to* meet for lunch at 12:00"
"We *agreed to* meet for lunch at 12:00"
"I agree *that* we should meet for lunch at 12:00"

I would suggest replacing "on" with "upon" in your mind - if the sentence works with "upon", then you would use "agree *on*".


----------



## Thomas1

I think that
_1. Is he going to agree to our suggestion?_
Is he going to consent to it?
_2. Can we agree a price?_
I settled it on with someone (we may have talked it over for some time until we both agreed that the price was good), it suggests that the parties were involved in the process of negotiations;
_3. After a long discussion, the salesperson and I agreed on the price of the car._
they reached mutual understanding and finaly both parties accepted the price, it more emphasises the act of agreement of two parties (I think that here there doesn't have to be negotiations).

These are just my thoughts and I'm not sure if what I've written works in all cases, others may disagree, please wait for them giving their opinions.

Tom


----------



## mally pense

"Can we agree a price?" is certainly in popular use, here in the UK at least. I don't know if it has any grammatical basis of 'correctness' or otherwise, but it sounds OK to me. I'm still thinking about the rationale/rules which might surround its use....


----------



## Thomas1

Dimcl said:


> quietdandelion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [...]2. Can we agree a price? *This has to be "agree on a price"*
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
Click to expand...

Could you please elaborate?

Tom


----------



## Dimcl

Thomas1 said:


> Could you please elaborate?
> 
> Tom


 
Is this a strictly BE use?  I've never heard the phrase "agree a XYZ".  One agrees "with" or "on" something.  An agreement is reached between two or more parties and the object of the agreement is whatever the negotiation is over.  In this case, the negotiable object is a price and an agreement is reached on the price.  I think I'm safe in saying that in North America, the use of "We agree a price" would be looked at very strangely indeed.


----------



## cycloneviv

"Agree a price" looks fine in AusE as well.


----------



## mally pense

I've no idea about the geographical distribution of this usage. As always, I can only speak for my own immediate part of the world, though it seems it is known in Australia as well.

I've been trying to think of examples other than "agree a price" and the only one I've come up with so far is "agree a way forward". I'm wondering therefore if this is perhaps business-speak or sales-speak shorthand that's found its way into wider use?


----------



## cycloneviv

I was toying with "agree a limit", mally pense, but wasn't completely sure whether that was used or not.

Here are some example from a quick Google search:

Mary ordered Argyll to halt his military campaign against Moray and *agree a truce. 

*Hamas and Fatah *agree a ceasefire*. (From RTÉ news, in Ireland)

Both partners (the pharmaceutical company and patient organisation) need to *agree* *a timetable*. (A UK site)

Hertha general manager Dieter Hoeness added: "We accept the offer and now the club and the player must *agree a deal*." (BBC)

Looks like you can use it with just about anything in BE/AusE!


----------



## mally pense

You've done some good research there and come up with enough examples to convince me it's not just a business/sales thing.

I was just beginning to think they were all singular nouns, preceded with "a", when it occurred to me (just now) that "*agree terms*" is another usage. I'm not sure where that leaves us in terms of explaining the rules/grammar!


----------



## Harry Batt

My Harper's Collins handbook for writers confirms what my ears require; a preposition with agree. The handbook's rule is arbitrary:

*agree*    Takes the preposition_with [a person], to [a proposal or suggestion] or on [a course of action]_


----------



## Dimcl

Harry Batt said:


> My Harper's Collins handbook for writers confirms what my ears require; a preposition with agree. The handbook's rule is arbitrary:
> 
> *agree* Takes the preposition_with [a person], to [a proposal or suggestion] or on [a course of action]_


 
Thanks, Harry.  I was beginning to think that I was swinging out here alone on my "agree/preposition" branch.

From the previous comments, I have to assume that this is strictly a BE usage.  I would love to have a BE-speaker explain the grammatical logic behind this usage as I'd sure be interested to know what it is.


----------



## kenny4528

Hi all

Interestingly, although most examples of agree in my dictionary go with preposition, it especially lists a usage of *agree a price/plan/strategy etc*. I thought it might also be a regional difference. (My dictionary *Longman *seems an AE dictionary)


----------



## Dimcl

kenny4528 said:


> Hi all
> 
> Interestingly, although most examples of agree in my dictionary go with preposition, it especially lists a usage of *agree a price/plan/strategy etc*. I thought it might also be a regional difference. (My dictionary *Longman *seems an AE dictionary)


 
Does it stipulate whether it's non-standard or a chiefly British usage, Kenny?


----------



## kenny4528

Dimcl said:


> Does it stipulate whether it's non-standard or a chiefly British usage, Kenny?


 
Hi, Dimcl

No, it doesn't say anything about it. By the way, I have to mention that I like *agree on a price* more.


----------



## Dimcl

kenny4528 said:


> Hi, Dimcl
> 
> No, it doesn't say anything about it. By the way, I have to mentioned that I like *agree on a price* more.


 
Thanks for the info, Kenny.  I guess if I ever hear this term outside of this forum, I'll know I'm talking to a BE-speaker.


----------



## mjscott

Agree a price has never passed my ears until this thread. It sounds incorrect to my AmE.

Agree *on* a price, however, is common.


----------



## mally pense

> Thanks for the info, Kenny. I guess if I ever hear this term outside of this forum, I'll know I'm talking to a BE-speaker.


 
That might be a dangerous assumption. It might be safer to assume, in the absence of any other information, that it is someone who does not speak one of the same varieties* of English as you and some or all of your fellow Canadian and American English speakers do. It seems clear from the contributions above that you could be talking to an Australian English speaker as well as a British English speaker _(even if that's just me)_, but that still leaves the rest English speaking world indeterminate for the time being.

_* If varieties is the right word - apologies if it is not._


----------



## mally pense

> I would love to have a BE-speaker explain the grammatical logic behind this usage as I'd sure be interested to know what it is.


 
Is grammar always logical? Certainly there are rules, but there doesn't always have to be logic to them surely? Do they not sometimes merely document actual usage? Even if logic _is_ required, would it not be acceptable to state that in the case of specific examples (as per Kenny's Longman dictionary), no preposition is needed?

I agree it would be good to have a rule which removed the need to have such a list of exceptions though, if such a rule could be identified or formulated.


----------



## panjandrum

Agree a XXX, or agree the XXX is entirely normal BE usage.
Just check Google for many reputable examples.


----------



## nichec

Dimcl said:


> Thanks for the info, Kenny. I guess if I ever hear this term outside of this forum, I'll know I'm talking to a BE-speaker.


 
Not really, I use "agree a price" myself.


----------



## Thomas1

Dimcl said:


> Thanks, Harry. I was beginning to think that I was swinging out here alone on my "agree/preposition" branch.
> 
> From the previous comments, I have to assume that this is strictly a BE usage. I would love to have a BE-speaker explain the grammatical logic behind this usage as I'd sure be interested to know what it is.


It's another transitive usage of this verb.


Tom


----------



## river

quietdandelion said:


> Are there rules that tell me when to use "agree to," when "agree" and "agree on?' Thanks.


 
_*Agree to*_ do something/a plan/an idea/promise to follow something: 
We will agree to your proposal if you will postpone action.  
We agree to pay the damages.

_*Agree on *_or _*about*_ something/to decide on/refers to the subject of the agreement:
We agreed on a date for the meeting.
The committee members could not agree on a course of action.

_*Agree with*_ someone: 
I agree with you on your decision to withold funds.
He agrees with us about the settlement.

_Agree_ as a transitive verb (i.e. they agreed the change) would be considered a typo in AE.


----------



## mally pense

> Agree as a transitive verb (i.e. they agreed the change) would be considered a typo in AE.


 
I can't help wondering if it would still be considered a _typo_ if someone had deliberately typed it, i.e. not by accident? Or if they had spoken it....


----------



## panjandrum

As it seems we have come across a genuine AE/BE difference in use of agree, I consulted the corpora.

The Time Magazine Corpus of American English (about the same size as the BNC) has two examples of "agree a", neither of which are relevant to this discussion (the first has a missing comma, the second an ellipsed _that_).
It has 11 examples of "agree the", all of which are really "agree that the".

The British National Corpus lists 101 examples of "agree a", 107 of "agree the".
The first five examples of "agree a":
... were asked to agree a city-wide scheme ...
... seek to agree a modest and gradual increase ...
... agreed that ... <not relevant>
... cannot agree a new buyout, ...
... have to do initially is agree a climate convention.

The first five examples of "agree the":
...there was little that they could agree the UN should do. <not relevant>
They will have to agree the plan and ...
... to plan the introductory sessions and to agree the questions to form the basis of discussions;
Summarize and agree the main points of what they are saying.
... all board members should attend the initial meeting to agree the deal.

I hope I have included enough of the various text examples to make the next question sensible.
Would AE-speakers think that the eight examples above of "agree <noun>" are not acceptable in AE?


----------



## KHS

I think that in US English, [agree] followed by a noun requires [on] (at least in the varieties that I am familiar with).

I'd like to add that [agree] can also be followed by a clause:

When followed by [that], [on] is not used:

They agreed that he would be the one to do it.

In the following clausal examples, I believe even in American English that [on] is optional (though probably preferred):

They agreed (on) which of the two would do it first.
We agreed (on) where we would go next Saturday.

Karen


----------



## MasterMax

Interestingly if you make it a question. Would you ever say "What did you agree?"


----------



## Dimcl

panjandrum said:


> I hope I have included enough of the various text examples to make the next question sensible.
> Would AE-speakers think that the eight examples above of "agree <noun>" are not acceptable in AE?


 
Before this thread, I have never heard (or seen written), the phrase "agree the XYZ". That's why, in my first post (#6), I suggested that QuietDandelion's sentence was incorrect and I said that it needed to be "agree *on*". Frankly, I found the phrase so jarring that I thought, perhaps, that QD had simply made a typo.

So, in answer to your question, Panj, yes, I would find all of your examples unacceptable were I to hear or read them.


----------



## mally pense

> Interestingly if you make it a question. Would you ever say "What did you agree?"


 
Speaking on behalf whatever subset of the English speaking world I represent, *yes*.


----------



## KHS

As a US speaker of English, I would not use [agree + noun].  Glad I now know it's acceptable in other varieties of English.

Karen


----------



## mally pense

Two nations divided by a common language? Perhaps we can agree *on* that.


----------



## Thomas1

Does any of those speakers who don't find anything odd with "agreeing something" see any difference between "to agree something" and "to agree on something"?

I think there's one, I'd wouldn't use, for example "agree something" in the sentence mally pense wrote in the post above. Is it really the case or just my non-native misconception?


Tom


----------



## Harry Batt

It is not a misconception. The AE speakers will have to compromise on this one. The solution is simple. Just like the international time zones, the world could be divided into "agree something" and "non-agree something areas of English speech. I will go so far as to say that we can all agree something needs to be done to terminate the chatter about this thread.


----------



## mally pense

> I think there's one, I'd wouldn't use, for example "agree something" in the sentence mally pense wrote in the post above. Is it really the case or just my non-native misconception?


 
No, that sentence, "Perhaps we can agree *on* that", would not really work in whatever brand of English I speak either. Presumably this is because it does not fit the pattern, discussed in previous posts, where dropping the participle is used by some speakers.



> I will go so far as to say that we can all agree something needs to be done to terminate the chatter about this thread.


 
I note that your example is a case of "that" being dropped as illustrated by a previous poster, but yes, there's probably little to be added other than perhaps establishing more clearly where in the world the practice of dropping the preposition is sometimes used and those where it is deemed unacceptable.

I sense a certain amount of friction over this, which is unfortunate but understandable where a form of speech which sounds completely unacceptable to one group of people obviously is acceptable to others. This is something we have to live with, and works both ways of course.


----------



## Thomas1

Harry Batt said:


> It is not a misconception. The AE speakers will have to compromise on this one. The solution is simple. Just like the international time zones, the world could be divided into "agree something" and "non-agree something areas of English speech. I will go so far as to say that we can all agree something needs to be done to terminate the chatter about this thread.


I don't find it odd myslelf as you can see from the posts I submitted in this thread, but some memebers seem(ed) to do so. This is a serious question not about whether the fact of using it, which is very normal to me by the way, is a misconception; but about whether there is a real difference between "to agree something" and "to agree on something" or I have smiply imagined that. Now I see that there's one. 

Tom


----------



## kiwibattler

I am a native speaker of New Zealand English but I have lived in the United States for many years. To me, agree without a preposition sounds incorrect, both as a speaker of New Zealand and of American English. However, like others here I have noted its increasing usage and thus acceptability in the British press. I have a guess as to the origin of this usage. In fact, in French the verb "agréer" is used without a preposition: "agréer la convention," "agréer la proposition." I'm guessing that the British usage reflects the influence of French. "Agréer" in French is a term often used in legal and political contexts and documents, and the usage of agree without a preposition may have originated in translations of French-language documents into English within Europe/the E.U. A hypothesis, of course, but one that would explain why it is not felt to be correct in other parts of the English-speaking world that do not have such close ties to France.


----------



## bleo

Excellent hypothesis. I live in Dubai where there is a good mix of _Englishes_ spoken--my own being American English. But I have to say it really grates my ears when I hear "...agree (noun phrase)". And I am hearing it increasingly frequently on the news networks--BBC and Al Jazeera--using mostly British announcers. I agree with the comment above that it just can't be used as a transitive verb. You just can't AGREE things--like casting a magic spell to make the agreement happen. It has to be AGREED ON! I can appreciate that it's just a dialectical thing but it still grates the ears!



kiwibattler said:


> I am a native speaker of New Zealand English but I have lived in the United States for many years. To me, agree without a preposition sounds incorrect, both as a speaker of New Zealand and of American English. However, like others here I have noted its increasing usage and thus acceptability in the British press. I have a guess as to the origin of this usage. In fact, in French the verb "agréer" is used without a preposition: "agréer la convention," "agréer la proposition." I'm guessing that the British usage reflects the influence of French. "Agréer" in French is a term often used in legal and political contexts and documents, and the usage of agree without a preposition may have originated in translations of French-language documents into English within Europe/the E.U. A hypothesis, of course, but one that would explain why it is not felt to be correct in other parts of the English-speaking world that do not have such close ties to France.


----------



## wandle

Chambers English Dictionary (1990) recognises a current transitive use of the verb 'to agree'. It gives the meaning as: 'to arrange with the consent of all': that is, 'to arrange something with the consent of all'.

Plenty of examples can be found by an internet search on the exact phrase "agreed terms", "agreed ways", "agreed price" and similar expressions. Most but not all seem to be British. 

Basketballwise
_Basketballwise is proud to announce that its client Malachi Leonard has agreed terms with CESARANO SCAFATI BASKET for 2014-2015 season._


----------

