""Agreed" vs. "Agreed to"" Topic

I've noticed that the BBC always uses the former and not the latter. For example:

"Germany's ruling coalition says that it has agreed a date of 2022 for the shutdown of all of its nuclear power plants."

Is it grammatically correct in the U.K. to use this word without following it by a preposition or is this an example of journalistic laziness?

As a Brit I usually only use "agree to" if there's a verb following; so "agreed a date of 2022 for the shutdown" versus "agreed to shut them down by 2022".

(As a belated addition I guess "agreed to" is also usual where it's an "argument" being reported as it were, eg. "agreed to their demands"…. I'd still be happy with just "agreed" in the context you've quoted though.)

The construction sounds a bit clumsy, in the example.

Then there's the option of 'agreeing on'.

I think they are all fine.

I am not offended, unlike the raging fury I take on when someone uses the term 'wellness'.

"Is it grammatically correct in the U.K. to use this word without following it by a preposition…"

Yep. Correct usage in business, military, academic, wellness, and other professional circles.

Allen

The implied preposition is an apology for the superfluous "u"'s in so many words.

Congrats to Dom for the "versus," as opposed to the "vice" I see around here too often.

I get a little peeved when the is left out.
I.E. Going to hospital instead of to the hospital.

Critterement

SMC1

I get a little peeved when the 'the' is left out.

Correctified for you.

Sorry Critter – in common usage they mean different things, at least in the UK.

Going to hospital – in an ambulance as a patient.

Going to the hospital – as a visitor, doctor etc.

There is a number of words which exhibit this behaviour; in/in the hospital, school, prison, church, bed. The same 'rules' apply with motion towards as they do with location.

Chris (who spends a lot of time in churches, but no time in church)

Common usage and proper usage are often divergent.

The example cited, "agreed a date" is properly incorrect, but is common usage. In common usage, often words are frequently inferred. In this case "to" between "agreed" and "a" or "would be" following "date" may be inferred.

Inferred words are acceptable in conversation because there are other context clues within a dialogue to ensure the correct inferrence is made. However, in broadcasting and the written word, there is no give and take to clarify meaning. Proper English should be the goal to avoid misapprehension.

For your edification and entertainment: towson.edu/ows/verbals.html

Dom,

As a Brit I usually only use "agree to" if there's a verb following; so "agreed a date of 2022 for the shutdown" versus "agreed to shut them down by 2022".

In your first phrase the word "to" is simply inferred and is the preposition as it establishes a relationship between "date of 2022" and "the shutdown". The second phrase contains an explicit "to." However it is used as another a part of speech, an infinitive when combined with "shut." While the two phrases, utilmately, have the same meaning and use many of the same words, they have very different structures.

For further information about the structure of the English language please refer to Phil Barker's seminal work, De Bellis Antiquitatus

You only put a 'to' in to apologise for missing a 'u'

I didn't realise at first what the original post was highlighting, as it is a perfectly correct sentence.