Author Topic: Without "with"  (Read 2074 times)

Miss Mae

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Without "with"
« on: June 30, 2014, 03:09:18 PM »
Why is the second indirect object in this featured sentence of The Free Dictionary without a "with"? I'm referring to this --

Tom gave up the brush with reluctance in his face, but alacrity in his heart.

Joe Carillo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4659
  • Karma: +208/-2
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Without "with"
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2014, 04:29:49 PM »
From a strict grammatical point of view, there should also be a "with" in the second prepositional phrase of that sentence, so it will read as follows: "Tom gave up the brush with reluctance in his face, but with alacrity in his heart." This makes both prepositional phrases perfectly parallel and balanced in construction.

In practice, though, some writers tend to omit that second "with" on the assumption that its presence would be understood anyway--an omission that may be considered as some form of ellipsis. To me this isn't a very agreeable practice, but I think it is tolerable except in highly formal writing.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 04:31:32 PM by Joe Carillo »

Miss Mae

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Without "with"
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2014, 09:07:50 PM »
Uh-okay.

Thank you.