Mixing
“without” without object?
Below is an encrypt from John Lock's "An Essay on Human Understanding".
I am not able to understand the meaning of "without" in this context. The problem is that it's object is not mentioned. I viewed such an instance of "without" in Cambridge Dictionary, i.e,
"A long wool coat is a classic no wardrobe should be without."
But, here it is clear that it means "without it" i.e., "without a long wool coat". In other words, the object is removed here as it can be sensed from the context. But, I am not able to grasp what should be considered removed here?
The mind being every day informed, by the senses, of the alteration of
those simple ideas, it observes in things without; and taking notice
how one comes to an end, and ceases to be, and another begins to exist
which was not before; reflecting also on what passes within itself,
and observing a constant change of its ideas, sometimes by the
impression of outward objects on the senses, and sometimes by the
determination of its own choice; and concluding from what it has so
constantly observed to have been, that the like changes will for the
future be made in the same things, by like agents, and by the like
ways, considers in one thing the possibility of having any of its
simple ideas changed, and in another the possibility of making that
change; and so comes by that idea which we call power. (1690, Chapter
XXI, Section 1, pp. 219–220)
meaning meaning-in-context ambiguity
asked Nov 21 '18 at 12:52
Mushrraf Baig Ashraf
565
add a comment |
Below is an encrypt from John Lock's "An Essay on Human Understanding".
I am not able to understand the meaning of "without" in this context. The problem is that it's object is not mentioned. I viewed such an instance of "without" in Cambridge Dictionary, i.e,
"A long wool coat is a classic no wardrobe should be without."
But, here it is clear that it means "without it" i.e., "without a long wool coat". In other words, the object is removed here as it can be sensed from the context. But, I am not able to grasp what should be considered removed here?
The mind being every day informed, by the senses, of the alteration of
those simple ideas, it observes in things without; and taking notice
how one comes to an end, and ceases to be, and another begins to exist
which was not before; reflecting also on what passes within itself,
and observing a constant change of its ideas, sometimes by the
impression of outward objects on the senses, and sometimes by the
determination of its own choice; and concluding from what it has so
constantly observed to have been, that the like changes will for the
future be made in the same things, by like agents, and by the like
ways, considers in one thing the possibility of having any of its
simple ideas changed, and in another the possibility of making that
change; and so comes by that idea which we call power. (1690, Chapter
XXI, Section 1, pp. 219–220)
meaning meaning-in-context ambiguity
asked Nov 21 '18 at 12:52
Mushrraf Baig Ashraf
565
1
In passing, your interpretation of the "wool coat" sentence is, I think, not quite right. It is not "missing" an "it" (add it in, and the sentence sounds wrong, although "A long wool coat is a classic: no wardrobe should be without one." and variants would work). Instead, it is simply a slightly archaic word order. The "natural" version might be "No wardrobe should be without a long wool coat", although it is harder to weave the notion "being a classic" into this order ("...the classic long wool coat." doesn't, to me, have the same subtlety as the original).
– TripeHound
Nov 21 '18 at 15:11
btw, it should be 'an excerpt from', not 'an encrypt from'. Encryption is what the internet does for cyber-security.
– Aganju
Nov 21 '18 at 20:06
1
There is a reduced relative pronoun '[that]' following 'classic', and it is also the antecedent of the trace that follows 'without'.
– AmI
Nov 21 '18 at 20:13
@TripeHound: There's nothing archaic about the word order; it's the same word order as found in, say, "a person I talked to".
– ruakh
Nov 21 '18 at 22:58
@ruakh You're right, "archaic" was probably the wrong word to use.
– TripeHound
Nov 21 '18 at 23:25
add a comment |
Below is an encrypt from John Lock's "An Essay on Human Understanding".
I am not able to understand the meaning of "without" in this context. The problem is that it's object is not mentioned. I viewed such an instance of "without" in Cambridge Dictionary, i.e,
"A long wool coat is a classic no wardrobe should be without."
But, here it is clear that it means "without it" i.e., "without a long wool coat". In other words, the object is removed here as it can be sensed from the context. But, I am not able to grasp what should be considered removed here?
The mind being every day informed, by the senses, of the alteration of
those simple ideas, it observes in things without; and taking notice
how one comes to an end, and ceases to be, and another begins to exist
which was not before; reflecting also on what passes within itself,
and observing a constant change of its ideas, sometimes by the
impression of outward objects on the senses, and sometimes by the
determination of its own choice; and concluding from what it has so
constantly observed to have been, that the like changes will for the
future be made in the same things, by like agents, and by the like
ways, considers in one thing the possibility of having any of its
simple ideas changed, and in another the possibility of making that
change; and so comes by that idea which we call power. (1690, Chapter
XXI, Section 1, pp. 219–220)
meaning meaning-in-context ambiguity
asked Nov 21 '18 at 12:52
Mushrraf Baig Ashraf
565
Below is an encrypt from John Lock's "An Essay on Human Understanding".
I am not able to understand the meaning of "without" in this context. The problem is that it's object is not mentioned. I viewed such an instance of "without" in Cambridge Dictionary, i.e,
"A long wool coat is a classic no wardrobe should be without."
But, here it is clear that it means "without it" i.e., "without a long wool coat". In other words, the object is removed here as it can be sensed from the context. But, I am not able to grasp what should be considered removed here?
The mind being every day informed, by the senses, of the alteration of
those simple ideas, it observes in things without; and taking notice
how one comes to an end, and ceases to be, and another begins to exist
which was not before; reflecting also on what passes within itself,
and observing a constant change of its ideas, sometimes by the
impression of outward objects on the senses, and sometimes by the
determination of its own choice; and concluding from what it has so
constantly observed to have been, that the like changes will for the
future be made in the same things, by like agents, and by the like
ways, considers in one thing the possibility of having any of its
simple ideas changed, and in another the possibility of making that
change; and so comes by that idea which we call power. (1690, Chapter
XXI, Section 1, pp. 219–220)
meaning meaning-in-context ambiguity
meaning meaning-in-context ambiguity
asked Nov 21 '18 at 12:52
Mushrraf Baig Ashraf
565
asked Nov 21 '18 at 12:52
Mushrraf Baig Ashraf
565
asked Nov 21 '18 at 12:52
Mushrraf Baig Ashraf
565
asked Nov 21 '18 at 12:52
Mushrraf Baig Ashraf
565
asked Nov 21 '18 at 12:52
Mushrraf Baig Ashraf
565
565
1
In passing, your interpretation of the "wool coat" sentence is, I think, not quite right. It is not "missing" an "it" (add it in, and the sentence sounds wrong, although "A long wool coat is a classic: no wardrobe should be without one." and variants would work). Instead, it is simply a slightly archaic word order. The "natural" version might be "No wardrobe should be without a long wool coat", although it is harder to weave the notion "being a classic" into this order ("...the classic long wool coat." doesn't, to me, have the same subtlety as the original).
– TripeHound
Nov 21 '18 at 15:11
btw, it should be 'an excerpt from', not 'an encrypt from'. Encryption is what the internet does for cyber-security.
– Aganju
Nov 21 '18 at 20:06
1
There is a reduced relative pronoun '[that]' following 'classic', and it is also the antecedent of the trace that follows 'without'.
– AmI
Nov 21 '18 at 20:13
@TripeHound: There's nothing archaic about the word order; it's the same word order as found in, say, "a person I talked to".
– ruakh
Nov 21 '18 at 22:58
@ruakh You're right, "archaic" was probably the wrong word to use.
– TripeHound
Nov 21 '18 at 23:25
add a comment |
1
In passing, your interpretation of the "wool coat" sentence is, I think, not quite right. It is not "missing" an "it" (add it in, and the sentence sounds wrong, although "A long wool coat is a classic: no wardrobe should be without one." and variants would work). Instead, it is simply a slightly archaic word order. The "natural" version might be "No wardrobe should be without a long wool coat", although it is harder to weave the notion "being a classic" into this order ("...the classic long wool coat." doesn't, to me, have the same subtlety as the original).
– TripeHound
Nov 21 '18 at 15:11
btw, it should be 'an excerpt from', not 'an encrypt from'. Encryption is what the internet does for cyber-security.
– Aganju
Nov 21 '18 at 20:06
1
There is a reduced relative pronoun '[that]' following 'classic', and it is also the antecedent of the trace that follows 'without'.
– AmI
Nov 21 '18 at 20:13
@TripeHound: There's nothing archaic about the word order; it's the same word order as found in, say, "a person I talked to".
– ruakh
Nov 21 '18 at 22:58
@ruakh You're right, "archaic" was probably the wrong word to use.
– TripeHound
Nov 21 '18 at 23:25
1
1
In passing, your interpretation of the "wool coat" sentence is, I think, not quite right. It is not "missing" an "it" (add it in, and the sentence sounds wrong, although "A long wool coat is a classic: no wardrobe should be without one." and variants would work). Instead, it is simply a slightly archaic word order. The "natural" version might be "No wardrobe should be without a long wool coat", although it is harder to weave the notion "being a classic" into this order ("...the classic long wool coat." doesn't, to me, have the same subtlety as the original).
– TripeHound
Nov 21 '18 at 15:11
In passing, your interpretation of the "wool coat" sentence is, I think, not quite right. It is not "missing" an "it" (add it in, and the sentence sounds wrong, although "A long wool coat is a classic: no wardrobe should be without one." and variants would work). Instead, it is simply a slightly archaic word order. The "natural" version might be "No wardrobe should be without a long wool coat", although it is harder to weave the notion "being a classic" into this order ("...the classic long wool coat." doesn't, to me, have the same subtlety as the original).
– TripeHound
Nov 21 '18 at 15:11
btw, it should be 'an excerpt from', not 'an encrypt from'. Encryption is what the internet does for cyber-security.
– Aganju
Nov 21 '18 at 20:06
btw, it should be 'an excerpt from', not 'an encrypt from'. Encryption is what the internet does for cyber-security.
– Aganju
Nov 21 '18 at 20:06
1
1
There is a reduced relative pronoun '[that]' following 'classic', and it is also the antecedent of the trace that follows 'without'.
– AmI
Nov 21 '18 at 20:13
There is a reduced relative pronoun '[that]' following 'classic', and it is also the antecedent of the trace that follows 'without'.
– AmI
Nov 21 '18 at 20:13
@TripeHound: There's nothing archaic about the word order; it's the same word order as found in, say, "a person I talked to".
– ruakh
Nov 21 '18 at 22:58
@TripeHound: There's nothing archaic about the word order; it's the same word order as found in, say, "a person I talked to".
– ruakh
Nov 21 '18 at 22:58
@ruakh You're right, "archaic" was probably the wrong word to use.
– TripeHound
Nov 21 '18 at 23:25
@ruakh You're right, "archaic" was probably the wrong word to use.
– TripeHound
Nov 21 '18 at 23:25
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
A clue is the later phrase within itself. You might guess from this phrase that the object of without is itself, and that without is the opposite of within.
And indeed, this is correct; here, without takes on its former meaning of outside. From Oxford Dictionaries Online:
literary, archaic Outside. ‘the barbarians without the gates’
So what it means here is things outside the mind.
If you're reading things written in 1690, you have to watch out for words whose meanings have changed. The Cambridge Dictionary seems not to even mention this meaning, which I would guess means that it's not the best dictionary for looking up words from 1690. (In defense of the Cambridge Dictionary, this meaning is virtually never seen in today's English.)
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:14
Peter Shor
61.8k5117223
1
Exactly: you beat me to it.
– Tuffy
Nov 21 '18 at 13:20
2
The Beatles play on this dual meaning in their song Within You Without You.
– hobbs
Nov 21 '18 at 15:58
2
One council ward in the City of London retains this use: Farringdon Without, whose name indicates that it was once outside the city wall - as opposed to Farringdon Within.
– Steve Melnikoff
Nov 21 '18 at 16:54
1
This meaning is still seen occasionally, in the set phrase within and without meaning "inside and outside (of)".
– 1006a
Nov 21 '18 at 19:42
1
"Without" in this sense is literary or archaic in standard British English, but in Scottish English, "outwith" is commonly used with the same meaning.
– alephzero
Nov 21 '18 at 22:24
|
show 3 more comments
I think you're looking at an old meaning of "without" here, namely, "outside" or "external". The only online reference I could find at a quick search was in the LEO English-German online dictionary:
without (obsolete, poetic): outside (preposition)
This makes sense, since Locke is talking about the distinction between the mind and the information it receives from the outside world - the "things without" - through the senses.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:21
Richard Metzler
2043
add a comment |
It's just the opposite of "within": "The mind... observes in things outside itself."
From the OED:
WITHOUT
A. adv. Outside, in various senses: opposed to WITHIN adv. Now only literary and somewhat arch[aic].
- On the outside or outer surface (of a material thing); externally.
In this sense of the word, it's perfectly reasonable for your wardrobe to be without a long wool coat; what would be ridiculous would be to have your wardrobe within your long wool coat! 😀
answered Nov 21 '18 at 19:02
David Richerby
3,45611431
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f473942%2fwithout-without-object%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
A clue is the later phrase within itself. You might guess from this phrase that the object of without is itself, and that without is the opposite of within.
And indeed, this is correct; here, without takes on its former meaning of outside. From Oxford Dictionaries Online:
literary, archaic Outside. ‘the barbarians without the gates’
So what it means here is things outside the mind.
If you're reading things written in 1690, you have to watch out for words whose meanings have changed. The Cambridge Dictionary seems not to even mention this meaning, which I would guess means that it's not the best dictionary for looking up words from 1690. (In defense of the Cambridge Dictionary, this meaning is virtually never seen in today's English.)
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:14
Peter Shor
61.8k5117223
1
Exactly: you beat me to it.
– Tuffy
Nov 21 '18 at 13:20
2
The Beatles play on this dual meaning in their song Within You Without You.
– hobbs
Nov 21 '18 at 15:58
2
One council ward in the City of London retains this use: Farringdon Without, whose name indicates that it was once outside the city wall - as opposed to Farringdon Within.
– Steve Melnikoff
Nov 21 '18 at 16:54
1
This meaning is still seen occasionally, in the set phrase within and without meaning "inside and outside (of)".
– 1006a
Nov 21 '18 at 19:42
1
"Without" in this sense is literary or archaic in standard British English, but in Scottish English, "outwith" is commonly used with the same meaning.
– alephzero
Nov 21 '18 at 22:24
|
show 3 more comments
A clue is the later phrase within itself. You might guess from this phrase that the object of without is itself, and that without is the opposite of within.
And indeed, this is correct; here, without takes on its former meaning of outside. From Oxford Dictionaries Online:
literary, archaic Outside. ‘the barbarians without the gates’
So what it means here is things outside the mind.
If you're reading things written in 1690, you have to watch out for words whose meanings have changed. The Cambridge Dictionary seems not to even mention this meaning, which I would guess means that it's not the best dictionary for looking up words from 1690. (In defense of the Cambridge Dictionary, this meaning is virtually never seen in today's English.)
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:14
Peter Shor
61.8k5117223
1
Exactly: you beat me to it.
– Tuffy
Nov 21 '18 at 13:20
2
The Beatles play on this dual meaning in their song Within You Without You.
– hobbs
Nov 21 '18 at 15:58
2
One council ward in the City of London retains this use: Farringdon Without, whose name indicates that it was once outside the city wall - as opposed to Farringdon Within.
– Steve Melnikoff
Nov 21 '18 at 16:54
1
This meaning is still seen occasionally, in the set phrase within and without meaning "inside and outside (of)".
– 1006a
Nov 21 '18 at 19:42
1
"Without" in this sense is literary or archaic in standard British English, but in Scottish English, "outwith" is commonly used with the same meaning.
– alephzero
Nov 21 '18 at 22:24
|
show 3 more comments
A clue is the later phrase within itself. You might guess from this phrase that the object of without is itself, and that without is the opposite of within.
And indeed, this is correct; here, without takes on its former meaning of outside. From Oxford Dictionaries Online:
literary, archaic Outside. ‘the barbarians without the gates’
So what it means here is things outside the mind.
If you're reading things written in 1690, you have to watch out for words whose meanings have changed. The Cambridge Dictionary seems not to even mention this meaning, which I would guess means that it's not the best dictionary for looking up words from 1690. (In defense of the Cambridge Dictionary, this meaning is virtually never seen in today's English.)
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:14
Peter Shor
61.8k5117223
A clue is the later phrase within itself. You might guess from this phrase that the object of without is itself, and that without is the opposite of within.
And indeed, this is correct; here, without takes on its former meaning of outside. From Oxford Dictionaries Online:
literary, archaic Outside. ‘the barbarians without the gates’
So what it means here is things outside the mind.
If you're reading things written in 1690, you have to watch out for words whose meanings have changed. The Cambridge Dictionary seems not to even mention this meaning, which I would guess means that it's not the best dictionary for looking up words from 1690. (In defense of the Cambridge Dictionary, this meaning is virtually never seen in today's English.)
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:14
Peter Shor
61.8k5117223
edited Nov 21 '18 at 13:20
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:14
Peter Shor
61.8k5117223
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:14
Peter Shor
61.8k5117223
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:14
Peter Shor
61.8k5117223
61.8k5117223
1
Exactly: you beat me to it.
– Tuffy
Nov 21 '18 at 13:20
2
The Beatles play on this dual meaning in their song Within You Without You.
– hobbs
Nov 21 '18 at 15:58
2
One council ward in the City of London retains this use: Farringdon Without, whose name indicates that it was once outside the city wall - as opposed to Farringdon Within.
– Steve Melnikoff
Nov 21 '18 at 16:54
1
This meaning is still seen occasionally, in the set phrase within and without meaning "inside and outside (of)".
– 1006a
Nov 21 '18 at 19:42
1
"Without" in this sense is literary or archaic in standard British English, but in Scottish English, "outwith" is commonly used with the same meaning.
– alephzero
Nov 21 '18 at 22:24
|
show 3 more comments
1
Exactly: you beat me to it.
– Tuffy
Nov 21 '18 at 13:20
2
The Beatles play on this dual meaning in their song Within You Without You.
– hobbs
Nov 21 '18 at 15:58
2
One council ward in the City of London retains this use: Farringdon Without, whose name indicates that it was once outside the city wall - as opposed to Farringdon Within.
– Steve Melnikoff
Nov 21 '18 at 16:54
1
This meaning is still seen occasionally, in the set phrase within and without meaning "inside and outside (of)".
– 1006a
Nov 21 '18 at 19:42
1
"Without" in this sense is literary or archaic in standard British English, but in Scottish English, "outwith" is commonly used with the same meaning.
– alephzero
Nov 21 '18 at 22:24
1
1
Exactly: you beat me to it.
– Tuffy
Nov 21 '18 at 13:20
Exactly: you beat me to it.
– Tuffy
Nov 21 '18 at 13:20
2
2
The Beatles play on this dual meaning in their song Within You Without You.
– hobbs
Nov 21 '18 at 15:58
The Beatles play on this dual meaning in their song Within You Without You.
– hobbs
Nov 21 '18 at 15:58
2
2
One council ward in the City of London retains this use: Farringdon Without, whose name indicates that it was once outside the city wall - as opposed to Farringdon Within.
– Steve Melnikoff
Nov 21 '18 at 16:54
One council ward in the City of London retains this use: Farringdon Without, whose name indicates that it was once outside the city wall - as opposed to Farringdon Within.
– Steve Melnikoff
Nov 21 '18 at 16:54
1
1
This meaning is still seen occasionally, in the set phrase within and without meaning "inside and outside (of)".
– 1006a
Nov 21 '18 at 19:42
This meaning is still seen occasionally, in the set phrase within and without meaning "inside and outside (of)".
– 1006a
Nov 21 '18 at 19:42
1
1
"Without" in this sense is literary or archaic in standard British English, but in Scottish English, "outwith" is commonly used with the same meaning.
– alephzero
Nov 21 '18 at 22:24
"Without" in this sense is literary or archaic in standard British English, but in Scottish English, "outwith" is commonly used with the same meaning.
– alephzero
Nov 21 '18 at 22:24
|
show 3 more comments
I think you're looking at an old meaning of "without" here, namely, "outside" or "external". The only online reference I could find at a quick search was in the LEO English-German online dictionary:
without (obsolete, poetic): outside (preposition)
This makes sense, since Locke is talking about the distinction between the mind and the information it receives from the outside world - the "things without" - through the senses.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:21
Richard Metzler
2043
add a comment |
I think you're looking at an old meaning of "without" here, namely, "outside" or "external". The only online reference I could find at a quick search was in the LEO English-German online dictionary:
without (obsolete, poetic): outside (preposition)
This makes sense, since Locke is talking about the distinction between the mind and the information it receives from the outside world - the "things without" - through the senses.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:21
Richard Metzler
2043
add a comment |
I think you're looking at an old meaning of "without" here, namely, "outside" or "external". The only online reference I could find at a quick search was in the LEO English-German online dictionary:
without (obsolete, poetic): outside (preposition)
This makes sense, since Locke is talking about the distinction between the mind and the information it receives from the outside world - the "things without" - through the senses.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:21
Richard Metzler
2043
I think you're looking at an old meaning of "without" here, namely, "outside" or "external". The only online reference I could find at a quick search was in the LEO English-German online dictionary:
without (obsolete, poetic): outside (preposition)
This makes sense, since Locke is talking about the distinction between the mind and the information it receives from the outside world - the "things without" - through the senses.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:21
Richard Metzler
2043
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:21
Richard Metzler
2043
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:21
Richard Metzler
2043
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:21
Richard Metzler
2043
2043
add a comment |
add a comment |
It's just the opposite of "within": "The mind... observes in things outside itself."
From the OED:
WITHOUT
A. adv. Outside, in various senses: opposed to WITHIN adv. Now only literary and somewhat arch[aic].
- On the outside or outer surface (of a material thing); externally.
In this sense of the word, it's perfectly reasonable for your wardrobe to be without a long wool coat; what would be ridiculous would be to have your wardrobe within your long wool coat! 😀
answered Nov 21 '18 at 19:02
David Richerby
3,45611431
add a comment |
It's just the opposite of "within": "The mind... observes in things outside itself."
From the OED:
WITHOUT
A. adv. Outside, in various senses: opposed to WITHIN adv. Now only literary and somewhat arch[aic].
- On the outside or outer surface (of a material thing); externally.
In this sense of the word, it's perfectly reasonable for your wardrobe to be without a long wool coat; what would be ridiculous would be to have your wardrobe within your long wool coat! 😀
answered Nov 21 '18 at 19:02
David Richerby
3,45611431
add a comment |
It's just the opposite of "within": "The mind... observes in things outside itself."
From the OED:
WITHOUT
A. adv. Outside, in various senses: opposed to WITHIN adv. Now only literary and somewhat arch[aic].
- On the outside or outer surface (of a material thing); externally.
In this sense of the word, it's perfectly reasonable for your wardrobe to be without a long wool coat; what would be ridiculous would be to have your wardrobe within your long wool coat! 😀
answered Nov 21 '18 at 19:02
David Richerby
3,45611431
It's just the opposite of "within": "The mind... observes in things outside itself."
From the OED:
WITHOUT
A. adv. Outside, in various senses: opposed to WITHIN adv. Now only literary and somewhat arch[aic].
- On the outside or outer surface (of a material thing); externally.
In this sense of the word, it's perfectly reasonable for your wardrobe to be without a long wool coat; what would be ridiculous would be to have your wardrobe within your long wool coat! 😀
answered Nov 21 '18 at 19:02
David Richerby
3,45611431
answered Nov 21 '18 at 19:02
David Richerby
3,45611431
answered Nov 21 '18 at 19:02
David Richerby
3,45611431
answered Nov 21 '18 at 19:02
David Richerby
3,45611431
3,45611431
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f473942%2fwithout-without-object%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
In passing, your interpretation of the "wool coat" sentence is, I think, not quite right. It is not "missing" an "it" (add it in, and the sentence sounds wrong, although "A long wool coat is a classic: no wardrobe should be without one." and variants would work). Instead, it is simply a slightly archaic word order. The "natural" version might be "No wardrobe should be without a long wool coat", although it is harder to weave the notion "being a classic" into this order ("...the classic long wool coat." doesn't, to me, have the same subtlety as the original).
– TripeHound
Nov 21 '18 at 15:11
btw, it should be 'an excerpt from', not 'an encrypt from'. Encryption is what the internet does for cyber-security.
– Aganju
Nov 21 '18 at 20:06
1
There is a reduced relative pronoun '[that]' following 'classic', and it is also the antecedent of the trace that follows 'without'.
– AmI
Nov 21 '18 at 20:13
@TripeHound: There's nothing archaic about the word order; it's the same word order as found in, say, "a person I talked to".
– ruakh
Nov 21 '18 at 22:58
@ruakh You're right, "archaic" was probably the wrong word to use.
– TripeHound
Nov 21 '18 at 23:25