The cat disappeared into a bush. There was no way it could have come out (from) the other side, since there was a wall right behind the bush.

Do I need that from? Why or why not?

  • 3
    Do you mean "The camel"? The word "from" is not needed. Why? Because "out" in "out the other side" means "out from" :) Jul 8 '15 at 13:06
  • @TRomano Oh, no I meant cat. Thanks for the answer!
    – alexchenco
    Jul 8 '15 at 13:13
  • 1
    An interesting question. Made me wonder why we regularly omit additional prepositions in such cases. There's an interesting post at Language Log: "Out the door vs Out of the house". Jul 8 '15 at 13:21
  • Come out the door, look out the door, be out the door: different meanings. Jul 8 '15 at 13:29
  • @TRomano - but could you technically use "from" or "on" in addition to "out" and still be grammatically correct, I wonder. "The cat will come out on the other side". Jul 8 '15 at 13:38

Drop It

You don't need it. It's actually better and more natural without it.

Don't Worry Too Much

However, it's not wrong to include it. "Come out from" is used at times.

Come out from there.

General Guideline

If you are describing an object coming out of a container, in this situation a cat coming out of a bush, then whether you need to include another preposition after 'out' is determined by whether you mention a specific exit or not.

You would come 'out the door', but would come 'out of the house'. You would jump 'out the window', but would jump 'out of the house'.

When speaking about a bush, the exit is the side of the bush. So, the cat would come "out the side", but would come "out of the bush".


In your sentence "come out" is used as a phrasal verb, for example when the rain stopped the sun came out the sky,similarly in your sentence "The cat disappeared into a bush. There was no way it could have come out the other side, since there was a wall right behind the bush."- is the grammatically agreeable construction.Further you could learn more about phrasal verbs by going through online materials.


From the writer's point of view, the bush is in front of him, and the wall is beyond the bush. The sentence says that the cat could not come out the other side. From the standpoint of the writer, the cat went to the bush, and into it. To then say it could not come out from the bush means that it could not come back toward the writer. But this is not the case. The wall prevented the cat from going through the bush, coming out on the other side. So using from is not only superfluous, it is vaguely contradictory, given the physical scenario.

You must log in to answer this question.

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