If I am protesting forcefully the actions of another, let’s call him Joe, would it be better to say:
I remonstrated Joe over his choice of words in that argument.
or would I say:
I remonstrated with Joe over his choice of words in that argument.
Because he is the target of my remonstration, no?
Because close votes are collecting, let me explain why a simple internet search thus far has not led to me to a definitive answer:
The link supplied which suggests that suggests that adding “with” is usual was quite quickly found by me, and I didn’t think it necessary to state that I had come across that link, as the whole purpose of me asking would be negated if I had never heard someone say “aren’t you to use with with that verb?” I’m asking because I don’t know what the difference is when the target of the remonstration is present, versus when you’re discussing someone with whom you were remonstrating, for instance, if two editors were remonstrating the closing of a publisher. That would be an obvious use of with to connote multiple involved parties.
I don’t say I beat with you, whereas I might say I debated you or you might say I debated with you. Is remonstrated used in the same way as debated in this case, where you may choose or not choose to use with or is with required when using remonstrated?
More specifically, I said it as a direct statement to him “I remonstrated you” (a smaller clause from a larger sentence, with context)