“without” without object?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}






up vote
6
down vote

favorite
1












Below is an encrypt from John Lock's "An Essay on Human Understanding".



I am not able to understand the meaning of "without" in this context. The problem is that it's object is not mentioned. I viewed such an instance of "without" in Cambridge Dictionary, i.e,



"A long wool coat is a classic no wardrobe should be without."



But, here it is clear that it means "without it" i.e., "without a long wool coat". In other words, the object is removed here as it can be sensed from the context. But, I am not able to grasp what should be considered removed here?




The mind being every day informed, by the senses, of the alteration of
those simple ideas, it observes in things without; and taking notice
how one comes to an end, and ceases to be, and another begins to exist
which was not before; reflecting also on what passes within itself,
and observing a constant change of its ideas, sometimes by the
impression of outward objects on the senses, and sometimes by the
determination of its own choice; and concluding from what it has so
constantly observed to have been, that the like changes will for the
future be made in the same things, by like agents, and by the like
ways, considers in one thing the possibility of having any of its
simple ideas changed, and in another the possibility of making that
change; and so comes by that idea which we call power. (1690, Chapter
XXI, Section 1, pp. 219–220)











share|improve this question


















  • 1




    In passing, your interpretation of the "wool coat" sentence is, I think, not quite right. It is not "missing" an "it" (add it in, and the sentence sounds wrong, although "A long wool coat is a classic: no wardrobe should be without one." and variants would work). Instead, it is simply a slightly archaic word order. The "natural" version might be "No wardrobe should be without a long wool coat", although it is harder to weave the notion "being a classic" into this order ("...the classic long wool coat." doesn't, to me, have the same subtlety as the original).
    – TripeHound
    13 hours ago












  • btw, it should be 'an excerpt from', not 'an encrypt from'. Encryption is what the internet does for cyber-security.
    – Aganju
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    There is a reduced relative pronoun '[that]' following 'classic', and it is also the antecedent of the trace that follows 'without'.
    – AmI
    8 hours ago










  • @TripeHound: There's nothing archaic about the word order; it's the same word order as found in, say, "a person I talked to".
    – ruakh
    5 hours ago










  • @ruakh You're right, "archaic" was probably the wrong word to use.
    – TripeHound
    5 hours ago



















up vote
6
down vote

favorite
1












Below is an encrypt from John Lock's "An Essay on Human Understanding".



I am not able to understand the meaning of "without" in this context. The problem is that it's object is not mentioned. I viewed such an instance of "without" in Cambridge Dictionary, i.e,



"A long wool coat is a classic no wardrobe should be without."



But, here it is clear that it means "without it" i.e., "without a long wool coat". In other words, the object is removed here as it can be sensed from the context. But, I am not able to grasp what should be considered removed here?




The mind being every day informed, by the senses, of the alteration of
those simple ideas, it observes in things without; and taking notice
how one comes to an end, and ceases to be, and another begins to exist
which was not before; reflecting also on what passes within itself,
and observing a constant change of its ideas, sometimes by the
impression of outward objects on the senses, and sometimes by the
determination of its own choice; and concluding from what it has so
constantly observed to have been, that the like changes will for the
future be made in the same things, by like agents, and by the like
ways, considers in one thing the possibility of having any of its
simple ideas changed, and in another the possibility of making that
change; and so comes by that idea which we call power. (1690, Chapter
XXI, Section 1, pp. 219–220)











share|improve this question


















  • 1




    In passing, your interpretation of the "wool coat" sentence is, I think, not quite right. It is not "missing" an "it" (add it in, and the sentence sounds wrong, although "A long wool coat is a classic: no wardrobe should be without one." and variants would work). Instead, it is simply a slightly archaic word order. The "natural" version might be "No wardrobe should be without a long wool coat", although it is harder to weave the notion "being a classic" into this order ("...the classic long wool coat." doesn't, to me, have the same subtlety as the original).
    – TripeHound
    13 hours ago












  • btw, it should be 'an excerpt from', not 'an encrypt from'. Encryption is what the internet does for cyber-security.
    – Aganju
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    There is a reduced relative pronoun '[that]' following 'classic', and it is also the antecedent of the trace that follows 'without'.
    – AmI
    8 hours ago










  • @TripeHound: There's nothing archaic about the word order; it's the same word order as found in, say, "a person I talked to".
    – ruakh
    5 hours ago










  • @ruakh You're right, "archaic" was probably the wrong word to use.
    – TripeHound
    5 hours ago















up vote
6
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
6
down vote

favorite
1






1





Below is an encrypt from John Lock's "An Essay on Human Understanding".



I am not able to understand the meaning of "without" in this context. The problem is that it's object is not mentioned. I viewed such an instance of "without" in Cambridge Dictionary, i.e,



"A long wool coat is a classic no wardrobe should be without."



But, here it is clear that it means "without it" i.e., "without a long wool coat". In other words, the object is removed here as it can be sensed from the context. But, I am not able to grasp what should be considered removed here?




The mind being every day informed, by the senses, of the alteration of
those simple ideas, it observes in things without; and taking notice
how one comes to an end, and ceases to be, and another begins to exist
which was not before; reflecting also on what passes within itself,
and observing a constant change of its ideas, sometimes by the
impression of outward objects on the senses, and sometimes by the
determination of its own choice; and concluding from what it has so
constantly observed to have been, that the like changes will for the
future be made in the same things, by like agents, and by the like
ways, considers in one thing the possibility of having any of its
simple ideas changed, and in another the possibility of making that
change; and so comes by that idea which we call power. (1690, Chapter
XXI, Section 1, pp. 219–220)











share|improve this question













Below is an encrypt from John Lock's "An Essay on Human Understanding".



I am not able to understand the meaning of "without" in this context. The problem is that it's object is not mentioned. I viewed such an instance of "without" in Cambridge Dictionary, i.e,



"A long wool coat is a classic no wardrobe should be without."



But, here it is clear that it means "without it" i.e., "without a long wool coat". In other words, the object is removed here as it can be sensed from the context. But, I am not able to grasp what should be considered removed here?




The mind being every day informed, by the senses, of the alteration of
those simple ideas, it observes in things without; and taking notice
how one comes to an end, and ceases to be, and another begins to exist
which was not before; reflecting also on what passes within itself,
and observing a constant change of its ideas, sometimes by the
impression of outward objects on the senses, and sometimes by the
determination of its own choice; and concluding from what it has so
constantly observed to have been, that the like changes will for the
future be made in the same things, by like agents, and by the like
ways, considers in one thing the possibility of having any of its
simple ideas changed, and in another the possibility of making that
change; and so comes by that idea which we call power. (1690, Chapter
XXI, Section 1, pp. 219–220)








meaning meaning-in-context ambiguity






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 15 hours ago









Mushrraf Baig Ashraf

565




565








  • 1




    In passing, your interpretation of the "wool coat" sentence is, I think, not quite right. It is not "missing" an "it" (add it in, and the sentence sounds wrong, although "A long wool coat is a classic: no wardrobe should be without one." and variants would work). Instead, it is simply a slightly archaic word order. The "natural" version might be "No wardrobe should be without a long wool coat", although it is harder to weave the notion "being a classic" into this order ("...the classic long wool coat." doesn't, to me, have the same subtlety as the original).
    – TripeHound
    13 hours ago












  • btw, it should be 'an excerpt from', not 'an encrypt from'. Encryption is what the internet does for cyber-security.
    – Aganju
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    There is a reduced relative pronoun '[that]' following 'classic', and it is also the antecedent of the trace that follows 'without'.
    – AmI
    8 hours ago










  • @TripeHound: There's nothing archaic about the word order; it's the same word order as found in, say, "a person I talked to".
    – ruakh
    5 hours ago










  • @ruakh You're right, "archaic" was probably the wrong word to use.
    – TripeHound
    5 hours ago
















  • 1




    In passing, your interpretation of the "wool coat" sentence is, I think, not quite right. It is not "missing" an "it" (add it in, and the sentence sounds wrong, although "A long wool coat is a classic: no wardrobe should be without one." and variants would work). Instead, it is simply a slightly archaic word order. The "natural" version might be "No wardrobe should be without a long wool coat", although it is harder to weave the notion "being a classic" into this order ("...the classic long wool coat." doesn't, to me, have the same subtlety as the original).
    – TripeHound
    13 hours ago












  • btw, it should be 'an excerpt from', not 'an encrypt from'. Encryption is what the internet does for cyber-security.
    – Aganju
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    There is a reduced relative pronoun '[that]' following 'classic', and it is also the antecedent of the trace that follows 'without'.
    – AmI
    8 hours ago










  • @TripeHound: There's nothing archaic about the word order; it's the same word order as found in, say, "a person I talked to".
    – ruakh
    5 hours ago










  • @ruakh You're right, "archaic" was probably the wrong word to use.
    – TripeHound
    5 hours ago










1




1




In passing, your interpretation of the "wool coat" sentence is, I think, not quite right. It is not "missing" an "it" (add it in, and the sentence sounds wrong, although "A long wool coat is a classic: no wardrobe should be without one." and variants would work). Instead, it is simply a slightly archaic word order. The "natural" version might be "No wardrobe should be without a long wool coat", although it is harder to weave the notion "being a classic" into this order ("...the classic long wool coat." doesn't, to me, have the same subtlety as the original).
– TripeHound
13 hours ago






In passing, your interpretation of the "wool coat" sentence is, I think, not quite right. It is not "missing" an "it" (add it in, and the sentence sounds wrong, although "A long wool coat is a classic: no wardrobe should be without one." and variants would work). Instead, it is simply a slightly archaic word order. The "natural" version might be "No wardrobe should be without a long wool coat", although it is harder to weave the notion "being a classic" into this order ("...the classic long wool coat." doesn't, to me, have the same subtlety as the original).
– TripeHound
13 hours ago














btw, it should be 'an excerpt from', not 'an encrypt from'. Encryption is what the internet does for cyber-security.
– Aganju
8 hours ago




btw, it should be 'an excerpt from', not 'an encrypt from'. Encryption is what the internet does for cyber-security.
– Aganju
8 hours ago




1




1




There is a reduced relative pronoun '[that]' following 'classic', and it is also the antecedent of the trace that follows 'without'.
– AmI
8 hours ago




There is a reduced relative pronoun '[that]' following 'classic', and it is also the antecedent of the trace that follows 'without'.
– AmI
8 hours ago












@TripeHound: There's nothing archaic about the word order; it's the same word order as found in, say, "a person I talked to".
– ruakh
5 hours ago




@TripeHound: There's nothing archaic about the word order; it's the same word order as found in, say, "a person I talked to".
– ruakh
5 hours ago












@ruakh You're right, "archaic" was probably the wrong word to use.
– TripeHound
5 hours ago






@ruakh You're right, "archaic" was probably the wrong word to use.
– TripeHound
5 hours ago












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
13
down vote













A clue is the later phrase within itself. You might guess from this phrase that the object of without is itself, and that without is the opposite of within.



And indeed, this is correct; here, without takes on its former meaning of outside. From Oxford Dictionaries Online:






  1. literary, archaic Outside. ‘the barbarians without the gates’




So what it means here is things outside the mind.



If you're reading things written in 1690, you have to watch out for words whose meanings have changed. The Cambridge Dictionary seems not to even mention this meaning, which I would guess means that it's not the best dictionary for looking up words from 1690. (In defense of the Cambridge Dictionary, this meaning is virtually never seen in today's English.)






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    Exactly: you beat me to it.
    – Tuffy
    15 hours ago










  • @Peter Shor Thank you Sir! It really made it clear. I am hopeful to get help from you in future as well.
    – Mushrraf Baig Ashraf
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    The Beatles play on this dual meaning in their song Within You Without You.
    – hobbs
    12 hours ago






  • 1




    One council ward in the City of London retains this use: Farringdon Without, whose name indicates that it was once outside the city wall - as opposed to Farringdon Within.
    – Steve Melnikoff
    11 hours ago










  • This meaning is still seen occasionally, in the set phrase within and without meaning "inside and outside (of)".
    – 1006a
    9 hours ago


















up vote
3
down vote













I think you're looking at an old meaning of "without" here, namely, "outside" or "external". The only online reference I could find at a quick search was in the LEO English-German online dictionary:




without (obsolete, poetic): outside (preposition)




This makes sense, since Locke is talking about the distinction between the mind and the information it receives from the outside world - the "things without" - through the senses.






share|improve this answer




























    up vote
    1
    down vote













    It's just the opposite of "within": "The mind... observes in things outside itself."



    From the OED:




    WITHOUT

    A. adv. Outside, in various senses: opposed to WITHIN adv. Now only literary and somewhat arch[aic].




    1. On the outside or outer surface (of a material thing); externally.




    In this sense of the word, it's perfectly reasonable for your wardrobe to be without a long wool coat; what would be ridiculous would be to have your wardrobe within your long wool coat! 😀






    share|improve this answer





















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "97"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f473942%2fwithout-without-object%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      13
      down vote













      A clue is the later phrase within itself. You might guess from this phrase that the object of without is itself, and that without is the opposite of within.



      And indeed, this is correct; here, without takes on its former meaning of outside. From Oxford Dictionaries Online:






      1. literary, archaic Outside. ‘the barbarians without the gates’




      So what it means here is things outside the mind.



      If you're reading things written in 1690, you have to watch out for words whose meanings have changed. The Cambridge Dictionary seems not to even mention this meaning, which I would guess means that it's not the best dictionary for looking up words from 1690. (In defense of the Cambridge Dictionary, this meaning is virtually never seen in today's English.)






      share|improve this answer



















      • 1




        Exactly: you beat me to it.
        – Tuffy
        15 hours ago










      • @Peter Shor Thank you Sir! It really made it clear. I am hopeful to get help from you in future as well.
        – Mushrraf Baig Ashraf
        15 hours ago






      • 1




        The Beatles play on this dual meaning in their song Within You Without You.
        – hobbs
        12 hours ago






      • 1




        One council ward in the City of London retains this use: Farringdon Without, whose name indicates that it was once outside the city wall - as opposed to Farringdon Within.
        – Steve Melnikoff
        11 hours ago










      • This meaning is still seen occasionally, in the set phrase within and without meaning "inside and outside (of)".
        – 1006a
        9 hours ago















      up vote
      13
      down vote













      A clue is the later phrase within itself. You might guess from this phrase that the object of without is itself, and that without is the opposite of within.



      And indeed, this is correct; here, without takes on its former meaning of outside. From Oxford Dictionaries Online:






      1. literary, archaic Outside. ‘the barbarians without the gates’




      So what it means here is things outside the mind.



      If you're reading things written in 1690, you have to watch out for words whose meanings have changed. The Cambridge Dictionary seems not to even mention this meaning, which I would guess means that it's not the best dictionary for looking up words from 1690. (In defense of the Cambridge Dictionary, this meaning is virtually never seen in today's English.)






      share|improve this answer



















      • 1




        Exactly: you beat me to it.
        – Tuffy
        15 hours ago










      • @Peter Shor Thank you Sir! It really made it clear. I am hopeful to get help from you in future as well.
        – Mushrraf Baig Ashraf
        15 hours ago






      • 1




        The Beatles play on this dual meaning in their song Within You Without You.
        – hobbs
        12 hours ago






      • 1




        One council ward in the City of London retains this use: Farringdon Without, whose name indicates that it was once outside the city wall - as opposed to Farringdon Within.
        – Steve Melnikoff
        11 hours ago










      • This meaning is still seen occasionally, in the set phrase within and without meaning "inside and outside (of)".
        – 1006a
        9 hours ago













      up vote
      13
      down vote










      up vote
      13
      down vote









      A clue is the later phrase within itself. You might guess from this phrase that the object of without is itself, and that without is the opposite of within.



      And indeed, this is correct; here, without takes on its former meaning of outside. From Oxford Dictionaries Online:






      1. literary, archaic Outside. ‘the barbarians without the gates’




      So what it means here is things outside the mind.



      If you're reading things written in 1690, you have to watch out for words whose meanings have changed. The Cambridge Dictionary seems not to even mention this meaning, which I would guess means that it's not the best dictionary for looking up words from 1690. (In defense of the Cambridge Dictionary, this meaning is virtually never seen in today's English.)






      share|improve this answer














      A clue is the later phrase within itself. You might guess from this phrase that the object of without is itself, and that without is the opposite of within.



      And indeed, this is correct; here, without takes on its former meaning of outside. From Oxford Dictionaries Online:






      1. literary, archaic Outside. ‘the barbarians without the gates’




      So what it means here is things outside the mind.



      If you're reading things written in 1690, you have to watch out for words whose meanings have changed. The Cambridge Dictionary seems not to even mention this meaning, which I would guess means that it's not the best dictionary for looking up words from 1690. (In defense of the Cambridge Dictionary, this meaning is virtually never seen in today's English.)







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 15 hours ago

























      answered 15 hours ago









      Peter Shor

      61.1k5116219




      61.1k5116219








      • 1




        Exactly: you beat me to it.
        – Tuffy
        15 hours ago










      • @Peter Shor Thank you Sir! It really made it clear. I am hopeful to get help from you in future as well.
        – Mushrraf Baig Ashraf
        15 hours ago






      • 1




        The Beatles play on this dual meaning in their song Within You Without You.
        – hobbs
        12 hours ago






      • 1




        One council ward in the City of London retains this use: Farringdon Without, whose name indicates that it was once outside the city wall - as opposed to Farringdon Within.
        – Steve Melnikoff
        11 hours ago










      • This meaning is still seen occasionally, in the set phrase within and without meaning "inside and outside (of)".
        – 1006a
        9 hours ago














      • 1




        Exactly: you beat me to it.
        – Tuffy
        15 hours ago










      • @Peter Shor Thank you Sir! It really made it clear. I am hopeful to get help from you in future as well.
        – Mushrraf Baig Ashraf
        15 hours ago






      • 1




        The Beatles play on this dual meaning in their song Within You Without You.
        – hobbs
        12 hours ago






      • 1




        One council ward in the City of London retains this use: Farringdon Without, whose name indicates that it was once outside the city wall - as opposed to Farringdon Within.
        – Steve Melnikoff
        11 hours ago










      • This meaning is still seen occasionally, in the set phrase within and without meaning "inside and outside (of)".
        – 1006a
        9 hours ago








      1




      1




      Exactly: you beat me to it.
      – Tuffy
      15 hours ago




      Exactly: you beat me to it.
      – Tuffy
      15 hours ago












      @Peter Shor Thank you Sir! It really made it clear. I am hopeful to get help from you in future as well.
      – Mushrraf Baig Ashraf
      15 hours ago




      @Peter Shor Thank you Sir! It really made it clear. I am hopeful to get help from you in future as well.
      – Mushrraf Baig Ashraf
      15 hours ago




      1




      1




      The Beatles play on this dual meaning in their song Within You Without You.
      – hobbs
      12 hours ago




      The Beatles play on this dual meaning in their song Within You Without You.
      – hobbs
      12 hours ago




      1




      1




      One council ward in the City of London retains this use: Farringdon Without, whose name indicates that it was once outside the city wall - as opposed to Farringdon Within.
      – Steve Melnikoff
      11 hours ago




      One council ward in the City of London retains this use: Farringdon Without, whose name indicates that it was once outside the city wall - as opposed to Farringdon Within.
      – Steve Melnikoff
      11 hours ago












      This meaning is still seen occasionally, in the set phrase within and without meaning "inside and outside (of)".
      – 1006a
      9 hours ago




      This meaning is still seen occasionally, in the set phrase within and without meaning "inside and outside (of)".
      – 1006a
      9 hours ago












      up vote
      3
      down vote













      I think you're looking at an old meaning of "without" here, namely, "outside" or "external". The only online reference I could find at a quick search was in the LEO English-German online dictionary:




      without (obsolete, poetic): outside (preposition)




      This makes sense, since Locke is talking about the distinction between the mind and the information it receives from the outside world - the "things without" - through the senses.






      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        3
        down vote













        I think you're looking at an old meaning of "without" here, namely, "outside" or "external". The only online reference I could find at a quick search was in the LEO English-German online dictionary:




        without (obsolete, poetic): outside (preposition)




        This makes sense, since Locke is talking about the distinction between the mind and the information it receives from the outside world - the "things without" - through the senses.






        share|improve this answer























          up vote
          3
          down vote










          up vote
          3
          down vote









          I think you're looking at an old meaning of "without" here, namely, "outside" or "external". The only online reference I could find at a quick search was in the LEO English-German online dictionary:




          without (obsolete, poetic): outside (preposition)




          This makes sense, since Locke is talking about the distinction between the mind and the information it receives from the outside world - the "things without" - through the senses.






          share|improve this answer












          I think you're looking at an old meaning of "without" here, namely, "outside" or "external". The only online reference I could find at a quick search was in the LEO English-German online dictionary:




          without (obsolete, poetic): outside (preposition)




          This makes sense, since Locke is talking about the distinction between the mind and the information it receives from the outside world - the "things without" - through the senses.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 15 hours ago









          Richard Metzler

          2042




          2042






















              up vote
              1
              down vote













              It's just the opposite of "within": "The mind... observes in things outside itself."



              From the OED:




              WITHOUT

              A. adv. Outside, in various senses: opposed to WITHIN adv. Now only literary and somewhat arch[aic].




              1. On the outside or outer surface (of a material thing); externally.




              In this sense of the word, it's perfectly reasonable for your wardrobe to be without a long wool coat; what would be ridiculous would be to have your wardrobe within your long wool coat! 😀






              share|improve this answer

























                up vote
                1
                down vote













                It's just the opposite of "within": "The mind... observes in things outside itself."



                From the OED:




                WITHOUT

                A. adv. Outside, in various senses: opposed to WITHIN adv. Now only literary and somewhat arch[aic].




                1. On the outside or outer surface (of a material thing); externally.




                In this sense of the word, it's perfectly reasonable for your wardrobe to be without a long wool coat; what would be ridiculous would be to have your wardrobe within your long wool coat! 😀






                share|improve this answer























                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote









                  It's just the opposite of "within": "The mind... observes in things outside itself."



                  From the OED:




                  WITHOUT

                  A. adv. Outside, in various senses: opposed to WITHIN adv. Now only literary and somewhat arch[aic].




                  1. On the outside or outer surface (of a material thing); externally.




                  In this sense of the word, it's perfectly reasonable for your wardrobe to be without a long wool coat; what would be ridiculous would be to have your wardrobe within your long wool coat! 😀






                  share|improve this answer












                  It's just the opposite of "within": "The mind... observes in things outside itself."



                  From the OED:




                  WITHOUT

                  A. adv. Outside, in various senses: opposed to WITHIN adv. Now only literary and somewhat arch[aic].




                  1. On the outside or outer surface (of a material thing); externally.




                  In this sense of the word, it's perfectly reasonable for your wardrobe to be without a long wool coat; what would be ridiculous would be to have your wardrobe within your long wool coat! 😀







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 9 hours ago









                  David Richerby

                  3,44511431




                  3,44511431






























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded



















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f473942%2fwithout-without-object%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      A CLEAN and SIMPLE way to add appendices to Table of Contents and bookmarks

                      Calculate evaluation metrics using cross_val_predict sklearn

                      Insert data from modal to MySQL (multiple modal on website)