I recently heard a political journalist talking about "...the gov't both within and without the house of commons...", meaning internally and externally. is ok to use 'without' in this context? I am a language student and interested in the different ways in which people use language
2007-03-21 05:04:15 · 15 answers · asked by lushpoppy 4 in Education & Reference ➔ Words & Wordplay
Yes; it's a somewhat archaic use of "without" and literally the opposite of "within", but still acceptable.
2007-03-21 05:11:02 · answer #1 · answered by ensign183 5 · 6⤊ 1⤋
it is more than *ok* to use without in this context. it is in fact *correct* :)
*without* has two meanings - it can mean the opposite of within, as it does here, and also the more usual *not having*. the first meaning is the older meaning, and tends to be used in more formal contexts these days.
you could substitue *outwith*, but using the same construction for both serves to draw attention to the difference. if you say *within and without* you are stressing the *in* and *out*, whereas if you say *within and outwith* you are stressing the *in* and *with* - the emphasis is not on the contrasting words.
when i was little, i always used to think that the green hill in that hymn didn't have a city wall too! 'why WOULD a hill have a city wall?' i used to think quietly to myself every easter. lol
2007-03-21 14:37:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Without is indeed the opposite of within.
There is a Christian hymn sung at Easter which goes:
"There is a green hill far away
Without a city wall."
It took me years to realise this meant outside the city wall.
Another word which confused me for a long time was "misled". I read it as "my zeld" (or something like that!) rather than as "miss led".
Also, there are those great stories of old - Myths and Legends where "legends" is pronounced "ledge-ends" not as if they were the end bits of legs!!!
2007-03-21 13:46:46 · answer #3 · answered by Who Yah 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I would say outwith or outside but dictionary says:
Without,
On the outside: a sturdy structure within and without.
2007-03-21 12:13:39 · answer #4 · answered by Basement Bob 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is. In fact, that's its original meaning, and the more modern meaning has evolved from that one - although it might not be obvious at first glance.
2007-03-22 18:46:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would.
George Harrison used that line of thought in a song, writing, "...life goes on within you and without you (as in with your meditation and in the world around you)."
2007-03-21 12:08:37 · answer #6 · answered by Zeera 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It certainly can be used. It is a little out of fashion but it is still the correct use of the word.
2007-03-21 12:14:45 · answer #7 · answered by michael w 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I would use With as the opposite of Without.
I would use within to describe internally as suggested but not without to describe externally - surely that does not make sense?
2007-03-21 12:08:59 · answer #8 · answered by cathandmike 2 · 0⤊ 6⤋
Yes it is. Here is the dictionary definition that tells you so.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/without
2007-03-21 12:12:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
No you can't. Without means, not having. Within means inside.
Hope this helps.
People representing the English language should know how to use it.
2007-03-21 12:07:42 · answer #10 · answered by natasha * 4 · 0⤊ 8⤋