Your grammar was fine cristalrose. Sae is just being specious. To be married with an object implies a different meaning than to be married to an object. One implies that object was or is an additional member of group marriage while the other implies an exclusive property of pairing in defining group 'marriage'. So one may be married to object with objects, implying one is pair bonded (to use anthropological terms) to another and has objects under ownership or relation to one and/or one's mate. Since married implies married to object, it is fine to leave out 'to object'. Object and objects are, for the purpose of this post, placeholder values.
I love redefinitions though.
If I say to beat someone is to violently hit them over the head repeatedly and we all agree to that definition, then I say I beat someone at Monopoly, it would seem I hit them violently over the head repeatedly at a place called Monopoly. Never mind that I merely won an apparently high strung and intense game.
I love redefinitions though.
If I say to beat someone is to violently hit them over the head repeatedly and we all agree to that definition, then I say I beat someone at Monopoly, it would seem I hit them violently over the head repeatedly at a place called Monopoly. Never mind that I merely won an apparently high strung and intense game.
