:headdesk:
Yeah, it’s the “with” that really needs to move its ass, IMHO.
“Your promotion comes with new challenges and responsibilities,” is perfectly fine, if a bit redundant just by being said. Isn’t it inherent in a promotion that there will be new responsibilities? Isn’t that what a promotion is? They’re not giving you new fame and riches for the same old responsibilities…
I’m not sure what you mean. In the OP’s sentence “challenges and responsibilities” is the subject. In your sentence, “promotion” is the subject, so the verb is different.
Actually, this suggestion serves to demonstrate why there might be confusion (besides the “proximity error” mentioned above). This shows confusion as to just what, exactly, the OP sentence is trying to say.
To decide what the subject is, first decide what the verb is. Clearly, it is “come” (or “comes”), that being the only verb in the sentence.
Next, ask: Who or what is coming? Is the promotion coming? Or are challenges and responsibilities coming?
In the original sentences, the challenges and responsibilities are coming. That is the subject of the sentence. The correct verb is “come”. The suggestions to re-write as “New challenges and responsibilities come with your responsibilities” doesn’t change the meaning or form of the sentence.
The re-write proposed by Thin Ice may be even clearer, but it does change the sentence to something different. Here, the promotion is doing the coming, so the verb would be “comes”. Note this completely changes the subject of the sentence, and puts “challenges and responsibilities” into the prepositional phrase. This totally switches which is coming along with which.
Not sure exactly what way I’m causing you consternation. Could you expand on that? Or should I guess and you can bang your head once for yes, twice for no.
I’m talking about the semantics not the syntax. The ‘challenges and responsibilities’ have a direct relationship with the ‘new promotion’. It’s one to one, and bidirectional. So which order it’s expressed in, assuming proper syntax, doesn’t matter. Each comes with the other.
Well, in this example, if A comes with B, B clearly comes with A, so the order doesn’t really matter.
Edit: or exactly what Tripolar said.
Fair points, and I’ll back down from my “bullshit” remark, which was rude, but I still feel that s0meguy’s post illustrates the lazy way out.
Of course language evolves. Grammar rules are not carved in stone and carried from a mountaintop. And I’ve always maintained that it’s OK to break a rule --* if *you know what the rule is and why you’re breaking it.
That’s not the same thing as what I consider the willful ignorance of the “nothing is correct, therefore everything is correct” approach.
Don’t you mean, "The other comes with each?
Well the order matters in that A is singular and B is plural. If A comes with B, then B come with A.
No. This is a common statement by those who love to believe they were taught incorrectly in school. A descriptivist, by definition, has NO OPINION on what is and isn’t correct. The second you ask “Is this correct?” you are inherently dealing with prescriptivism.
Both concepts are used in linguistics. The only people that seem to argue that either form is wrong are not the linguists. They only seem to debate at what point what the descriptivist’s discovery changes what the prescriptivist teaches.
Also, this statement is not awkward. It’s a specific style often used in proverbs. It should not be rewritten unless it is not a proverb.
Exactly. Subject - predicate - object - prepositions - phrases; this was all covered in grade 5 and 6.
Or…
"With a steak come salad and potatoes. "
Maybe it’s because I know English grammar, but that does NOT sound right to me.
Exactly.
I’m reminded of the Mark Twain anecdote -
Mark T: How many legs does a dog have, if we call the tail a leg too?
Second banana: Is it 5?
Mark T: No, 4. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one.
The problem is that using the preposition “with” makes a phrase of “with your promotion”. It is not the subject. The verb must agree with the subject, not the nearest noun. This is a common grade 6 grammar error.
the twist is that the sentence structure has been reversed from normal for emphasis. Or, rather, for emphasis from normal has that sentence been reversed. This is a common device in literature to draw attention to one phrase; the “With your promotion” has been moved to the front to emphasize that it is the important part, the emphasized part of the complete thought.
There are no strict rules on sentence order. (“split infinitives” like “to boldly go…” and admonishments “never use a preposition to end a sentence with!” are common debates).
Fred, Bill and Bob are one team.
One team is Fred, Bill and Bob.
What’s wrong with that? 
It’s somewhat poetic phrasing, but it’s grammatical.
Bob goes with the kids. The kids go with Bob. Different subjects, different verbs.
Did you just imply that questioning what you were taught in school is wrong?
Linguists that argue something you don’t like aren’t linguists huh?
What Inner Stickler is talking about by “prose ear” would be called discursive cohesion in the instruction of academic writing. And yes, this is an example of subject-verb inversion, as pulykamell notes. (And that’s why comes is grammatically correct.)
Propositionally the meaning is the same, but the key to effective writing goes beyond that. (And I suspect that the OP’s question involves some kind of more or less formal writing.) One of the more common means of creating discursive cohesion in English writing is to put new information toward the end of a sentence. The reason to invert the subject and verb in this case could very well be in order to achieve that. We don’t really know, because we have only this sentence alone, out of context. Before anyone can say the sentence is “awkward” or somehow inappropriate, they’d have to see the whole span of the discourse in which it occurs.
Subject-verb inversion is not very common in English. In speech it tends to occur in certain stock phrases, such as
Here come the children. Let’s move out of the way.
(Would a native speaker of standard NAE say, “Here comes the children”? Probably not. The verb agrees with the subject, the children.)
Why do we invert the subject and verb in a sentence like this? We want to put children at the end of the sentence, because their impending presence is what the speaker wants to emphasize. (It’s also why the phrase is put in the simple aspect, rather than progressive.) The point of reference (“here”) is self-evident, so in this situation native speakers won’t be likely to say, The children come here, or The children are coming here.
This is an example of what we do in speech that is analogous to what Inner Stickler refers to as “prose ear" for effective writing.
That’s because with subject-verb inversions there’s a tendency toward proximal parsing, even with compound subjects. (Technically, though, come is correct.) This is also why there is often disagreement regarding similar things like this:
*Neither Bill nor his kids watch TV at night.
Neither the kids nor Bill watches TV at night.
*
More succinctly, different syntax. But the result is the same if ‘goes’ just means traveling together. Differing syntaxes can have the same meaning.
guizot, very well put. Good communication involves much more than static syntax.
I’m not sure what we’re disagreeing about, if anything. Yes, the two sentences have effectively the same meaning, but there is a subtle shift in emphasis depending on the subject and also depending on where in the sentence it is.
Sister Mary Claver taught me to reverse the sentence like this for grammar checking. She said that the improper grammar sounds incorrect when you do this.