1

"I am struck with flu" or "I am struck by flu" Which is the correct sentence?

  • Struck by flu symptoms, flu-struck, flu has struck me!! – user66974 Apr 1 '15 at 6:31
  • @Josh61 : could you provide any reference to the 'struck 'by' usage. It's incorrect . – Veronica Diamond Apr 1 '15 at 8:17
  • As a more general usage, struck by appears to be a more common expression than struck with :books.google.com/ngrams/… – user66974 Apr 1 '15 at 8:27
  • 1
    As for flu I think both expressions are acceptable. – user66974 Apr 1 '15 at 8:27
2

You can say

  • I was struck by [the] flu. (simple past tense—you might have recovered already)

But

  • I am stricken with [the] flu. (past participle as predicate modifier—you currently have the flu, and are feeling horrible)

Of course, if you didn't want to sound so melodramatic, you could say:

  • I am down with the flu (confined—mostly—to bed)

  • I am fighting the flu (struggling, but probably not confined to bed—maybe even working, but suffering some symptoms)

  • I have the flu (no indication of severity)

  • I caught the flu (no indication of severity, nor of whether you have recovered)

|improve this answer|||||
  • This is a good answer, why has someone downvoted it? I upvoted so that it could come back to normal. – Mamta D Apr 1 '15 at 9:24
  • Thank you. An upvote actually counts 5x as much as a downvote (+10 vs -2). – Brian Hitchcock Apr 1 '15 at 9:32
  • All the answers have been downvoted. Beats me why. – Peter Shor Apr 1 '15 at 11:03
0

'I am struck with flu' is the correct sentence.

'I am struck by flu' is wrong.

For reference : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/struck has a similar example for it.

|improve this answer|||||
  • I followed your link, but found no examples of "struck with" or "struck by". – Brian Hitchcock Apr 1 '15 at 9:34
  • @BrianHitchcock : do you know Ctrl + F .. find 'struck with' in it in the page – Veronica Diamond Apr 1 '15 at 9:48
  • Well, that was a pain to find. For the record, you have to scroll down to British dictionary definitions for struck, then expand the verb section, and then you’ll find it as definition 16. Simply searching on the page will not find it, since the element that contains the quote is hidden. You should always include the quotes you refer to when linking to a different site. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Apr 1 '15 at 10:52
  • 1
    In addition, struck by flu is not wrong. A simple Google search of “struck by flu” and “struck with flu” yields (for me) about 4,000 hits for by and only 85 hits for with, which is a good indicator of which version is more common. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Apr 1 '15 at 10:53
  • @JanusBahsJacquet : I suggest you look at the question first! He is asking the usage with 'I am' not in general. When did you ever use the sentence : I am struck down by flu? – Veronica Diamond Apr 1 '15 at 10:58
-2

"I am struck with flu" is correct answer because one can not be struck by some no-physical thing. Or we can also say "I am struck due to flu"

|improve this answer|||||
  • Of course you can be struck by a non-physical thing. You can be struck by grief, you can be struck by someone’s smile, etc. You cannot, however, be “struck due to flu”. That is not English. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Apr 1 '15 at 10:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.