With, by, or from?

In British English, it is 'fouled by'.

First two seem fine to me.

Technically, all are grammatical. The second one, though, reads the smoothest to me.

To me, the 'with' and 'from' are more associated with states of being. For example: blue with cold; heavy with child; dead from hunger.

Whereas, 'by' is relating to something that has been done to a person or thing (and attributing the cause).

I agree with Pastelnudes; "with" presents the state of the river, which may be your intent. But "by" implies an actor/cause, and if that's your intent, then it is the better choice.

That's what we do. We anguish over word choice cuz we're writers!

By works best for me.

First two both sound correct. I guess it depends on if you want to make a distinction between the water just being bad in general, or fouled WITH coal ash which makes me think the water is sooty and will stain whatever it touches.

"With" makes someone else (the polluter) the one who fouled it. "By" makes the coal ash itself the actor, which is more direct. I like "by" for that reason. Maybe it is closer to active voice too.

hypofocus said:

"With" makes someone else (the polluter) the one who fouled it. "By" makes the coal ash itself the actor, which is more direct.

Click to expand...

Pretty much what I was going to say!
"With" makes me wonder who fouled it with coal ash. "By" feels like the coal ash is to blame. The one I'd choose depends on context.