I'm struggling to understand how to use "with" to combine two clauses in a sentence. Is this sentence below grammatically correct and why?
Yemen's population is estimated to age even further by 2050, with 57.3% of the population over the age of 60.
Yemen's population is estimated to age even further by 2050, with 57.3% of the population over the age of 60.
This is correct and stylistically appropriate. The first clause states a bald fact, with the second providing additional or clarifying information.
A less stylish approach might be to break the sentence and use "In fact" or "Actually" or "Indeed" in place of the "with". In fact, you can do this both with my paragraph and the original quote. Note that when using "with" in these examples there is clear anaphora (backward referencing) - the example picks up on 'the' population (definite article because already mentioned) while my paragraph picks up on 'first' clause and elides the word "clause" when referring to the 'second' [clause]. The word "with" introduces the anaphorical noun phrase.
-
Doesn't the with-string usually get classified as a verbless clause here? R H K Webster's gives this sense of 'with': << 17. (used as a function word to specify an additional circumstance or condition): We climbed the hill, with Jeff following behind. >>. In OP's case, 'being' is probably deleted. – Edwin Ashworth Apr 24 '17 at 8:59
