2
  • The sun rises earlier and earlier each day and sets later and later, so that the business man upon returning from his office can enjoy reading the evening news with the same degree of comfort that he scanned his morning's paper (with), being no longer dependent upon artificial light.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E14F63C5C17738DDDA80B94D9405B8285F0D3

Why isn't "with" used here?

  • 1
    Short answer: with isn't necessary there because people can usually infer the repeated parts of parallel constructions from context. – Bradd Szonye Mar 12 '14 at 0:42
  • @Bradd, is it really a common and minor stylistic choice, though? It sounds very strange and unnatural to me. Would you ever say, “I was talking to the guy that you talked earlier”? I would assume that it's simply a typo, that the word was accidentally left out on the website, ’cause the sentence makes no sense to me without it. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Mar 12 '14 at 1:16
  • 1
    I think the OP's question is a good one, grammar-wise. Perhaps someone can provide a solid grammatical answer to it? – F.E. Mar 12 '14 at 1:22
  • @Janus Hm, good point. I don't think your counter example is quite analogous, but I can't put my finger on why, so you may be right. – Bradd Szonye Mar 12 '14 at 1:27
  • It's possible that this is a minor stylistic error, one easily overlooked. There might be an interesting point to determining whether it is actually an error and why. (I still think this user would be better served by ELL overall though.) – Bradd Szonye Mar 12 '14 at 1:38
2

Because it's already there earlier in the sentence, serving the same role on a different target:

"with the same degree of comfort that he scanned his morning's paper [with]"

Redundant words that serve the same role on a different target are frequently optional in English:

"I enjoyed the sandwich as much as [I enjoyed] the macaroni."

"He bought the car and [he bought] the computer."

"The clothing is just as stylish as the hat [is stylish]."

"Jeff ate as much as Sarah [ate]."

The second with is redundant and so can be omitted.

| improve this answer | |
  • Absolutely right. It's been moved, so you don't want to put it back where it was moved from. I don't understand the downvote. But then I rarely understand peeving. – John Lawler Mar 12 '14 at 2:30
  • Can you spell it out for us? Is it possible that you are saying that the "with" preposition phrase got fronted? Is a relative clause involved? Exactly what is happening here? – F.E. Mar 12 '14 at 2:33
  • It's ommited, not fronted. Just like "I enjoyed the sandwich as much as [I enjoyed] the macaroni", "He bought the car and [he bought] the computer", or "The clothing is just as stylish as the hat [is stylish]". – David Schwartz Mar 12 '14 at 2:36
  • "He bought the car and [he bought] the computer" -- Could you edit your post to show us that what is happening in that example also applies in the OP's example? And is that deletion mandatory? – F.E. Mar 12 '14 at 2:42
  • It wasn't me that had downvoted you. But, your answer is such that even I didn't get anything out of it. I am hoping that someone would give a clear, well-explained answer so that a person (like me) could go like "well, of course, that's so obvious!" – F.E. Mar 12 '14 at 2:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy