Three 100 dollar bills were placed in an envelope, and then the envelope was sealed.

I want to know whether it is possible to combine the two sentences above as follows:

Three 100 dollar bills were sealed in an envelope.

I looked up some dictionaries, but I couldn't find the answer. It seems that this is grammatically incorrect as with the expression "water filled in a glass".

  • 1
    Since "sealed in" can be used as an alternative to "sealed up", in the sense of "secured" (to prevent access), there's nothing syntactically wrong with The derelict houses were sealed in in 1985 (that was when the doors and windows were boarded up). So stretching a point, I'd say it's "grammatical" to say those bills were sealed in in an envelope. It's just clumsy. Dec 30, 2018 at 17:46
  • 3
    The OP asks about "sealed in an envelope", (only one 'in'), which is absolutely fine, and often seen in UK English. Dec 30, 2018 at 18:46
  • Envelope /ˈenvəˌloʊp/ is the noun, and envelop /ɪnˈveləp/ is the verb. They’re spelled and pronounced differently.
    – user230
    Dec 30, 2018 at 22:19

2 Answers 2


There's nothing wrong with either of your sentences, but the most natural expression is:

Three 100-dollar bills were placed in a sealed envelope.

It's assumed that the sentence means you put the bills into an envelope and then sealed it.

Interpreting the sentence literally ("How did you put them into an envelope that was already sealed?") would make no sense—and nobody does so.


First of all your second sentence needs to be:

Three 100 dollar bills were sealed in an envelope.

I would say both are correct but the first sentence is a bit more logical and more compact.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .