1

"Safer than with" is correct?
I have seen some sentences using this structure, I think it should be safer that not safer than with, could you please help me in this issue?
For exp: as it does not produce vapors and has a high flash point transportation, handling and storage are safer than with diesel

  • Yes, "safer than with" is correct – CowperKettle Feb 14 '19 at 11:33
  • Actually I never seen some structure like this before, could you please explain more about that – Stefano Feb 14 '19 at 11:48
0

In general, the construction is this:

It is X with Y than with Z.

Simply saying it is safer than with diesel is missing an important part of the comparison.


As it does not produce vapors and has a high flash point transportation, handling and storage are safer than with diesel.

This sentence is ungrammatical. The problem lies in what follows the comma:

(its) handling and storage are safer than with diesel

Even though the meaning is clear, the syntax is wrong.


A fuller sentence that would be grammatical is something like this:

As it does not produce vapors and has a high flash point [during] transportation, the handling and storage of it is safer than the handling and storage of diesel.

Or, in a shorter form:

As it does not produce vapors and has a high flash point [during] transportation, the handling and storage of it is safer than that of diesel.

Alternatively, the following is also possible:

As it does not produce vapors and has a high flash point [during] transportation, its handling and storage is safer than diesel's.


Note that I used handling and storage of instead of handling and storage with. This is because you're not using diesel as part of the handling and storage procedure—instead, it's what you actually are handling and storing.

To compare, look at this sentence:

The handling and storage of it with gloves is safer than (its handling and storage) without gloves.

Or, in short:

It is safer with gloves than without them.

This formulation could also express a comparison between to positive things:

Steak is better with vegetables than with fruit.

| improve this answer | |
0

Imagine these two sentences:

"Because solid fuel does not produce vapours, handling and storage are safer than with diesel"

"Because solid fuel does not produce vapours, handling and storage are safer than diesel"

In the second sentence the comparison is ambiguous, and could be taken to be between two different things:

  • "handling and storing solid fuel";
  • "diesel".

In other words, we are assigning "diesel" with a "safety value", but this isn't what the intent of the sentence was.

In the first sentence we use the "with" to make the comparison explicitly between:

  • "handling and storing solid fuel";
  • "handling and storing diesel".

Another way to think of this, is what the "with diesel" means. It could be expanded like this: "they are with diesel". Which in turn could be expanded to this: "handling and storage are with diesel".

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.