Is the opposite of 'within', 'without'?
Typically without is used to mean not having something.
E.g.
He went to work without his pants on.
However, I'm wondering if it can be used for outside the bounds of.
We do this with within. For example:
Please keep your children within the bounds of the school.
So could the following:
The vigilante was operating without the bounds of the law (or)
The shop refused to refund my item, as it was without the warranty period.
be viewed as being acceptable?
meaning prepositions antonyms
edited May 28 '14 at 5:43
Mari-Lou A
61.9k55219456
asked May 28 '14 at 5:30
dwjohnstondwjohnston
8,858105387
|
show 1 more comment
Typically without is used to mean not having something.
E.g.
He went to work without his pants on.
However, I'm wondering if it can be used for outside the bounds of.
We do this with within. For example:
Please keep your children within the bounds of the school.
So could the following:
The vigilante was operating without the bounds of the law (or)
The shop refused to refund my item, as it was without the warranty period.
be viewed as being acceptable?
meaning prepositions antonyms
edited May 28 '14 at 5:43
Mari-Lou A
61.9k55219456
asked May 28 '14 at 5:30
dwjohnstondwjohnston
8,858105387
3
Neat question, I don't know if that's an archaic usage, or, if it's never in history been used that way. The enemy within. The enemy without.....
– Fattie
May 28 '14 at 5:44
2
Quoth the Beatles: “…when you see we’re all one and life flows on within you and without you…”
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
May 28 '14 at 6:21
@JanusBahsJacquet That usage, and other similar songs of the era, make equal sense with the word taken in the other sense as a pun. "Life flows on in your absence."
– Potatoswatter
May 28 '14 at 8:14
That was exactly its usage in the medieval period. The City of London Church Saint Botolph without Bishopsgate was so named because it was just outside the City gate. There were also two wards called Bridge Within and Bridge Without and even a children's book The Battle of Saint George without.
– user24964
May 28 '14 at 8:29
@Potatoswatter You’ll note I didn’t say whether the Beatles quote speaks for or against without as a semantic antonym to within. It does show that without can be used as a formal antonym (i.e., a word juxtaposed with an obviously opposite form, regardless of meaning), like “They fought bravely within the city walls, but without help”.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
May 28 '14 at 8:30
|
show 1 more comment
Typically without is used to mean not having something.
E.g.
He went to work without his pants on.
However, I'm wondering if it can be used for outside the bounds of.
We do this with within. For example:
Please keep your children within the bounds of the school.
So could the following:
The vigilante was operating without the bounds of the law (or)
The shop refused to refund my item, as it was without the warranty period.
be viewed as being acceptable?
meaning prepositions antonyms
edited May 28 '14 at 5:43
Mari-Lou A
61.9k55219456
asked May 28 '14 at 5:30
dwjohnstondwjohnston
8,858105387
Typically without is used to mean not having something.
E.g.
He went to work without his pants on.
However, I'm wondering if it can be used for outside the bounds of.
We do this with within. For example:
Please keep your children within the bounds of the school.
So could the following:
The vigilante was operating without the bounds of the law (or)
The shop refused to refund my item, as it was without the warranty period.
be viewed as being acceptable?
meaning prepositions antonyms
meaning prepositions antonyms
edited May 28 '14 at 5:43
Mari-Lou A
61.9k55219456
asked May 28 '14 at 5:30
dwjohnstondwjohnston
8,858105387
edited May 28 '14 at 5:43
Mari-Lou A
61.9k55219456
asked May 28 '14 at 5:30
dwjohnstondwjohnston
8,858105387
edited May 28 '14 at 5:43
Mari-Lou A
61.9k55219456
edited May 28 '14 at 5:43
Mari-Lou A
61.9k55219456
edited May 28 '14 at 5:43
Mari-Lou A
61.9k55219456
61.9k55219456
asked May 28 '14 at 5:30
dwjohnstondwjohnston
8,858105387
asked May 28 '14 at 5:30
dwjohnstondwjohnston
8,858105387
asked May 28 '14 at 5:30
dwjohnstondwjohnston
8,858105387
8,858105387
3
Neat question, I don't know if that's an archaic usage, or, if it's never in history been used that way. The enemy within. The enemy without.....
– Fattie
May 28 '14 at 5:44
2
Quoth the Beatles: “…when you see we’re all one and life flows on within you and without you…”
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
May 28 '14 at 6:21
@JanusBahsJacquet That usage, and other similar songs of the era, make equal sense with the word taken in the other sense as a pun. "Life flows on in your absence."
– Potatoswatter
May 28 '14 at 8:14
That was exactly its usage in the medieval period. The City of London Church Saint Botolph without Bishopsgate was so named because it was just outside the City gate. There were also two wards called Bridge Within and Bridge Without and even a children's book The Battle of Saint George without.
– user24964
May 28 '14 at 8:29
@Potatoswatter You’ll note I didn’t say whether the Beatles quote speaks for or against without as a semantic antonym to within. It does show that without can be used as a formal antonym (i.e., a word juxtaposed with an obviously opposite form, regardless of meaning), like “They fought bravely within the city walls, but without help”.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
May 28 '14 at 8:30
|
show 1 more comment
3
Neat question, I don't know if that's an archaic usage, or, if it's never in history been used that way. The enemy within. The enemy without.....
– Fattie
May 28 '14 at 5:44
2
Quoth the Beatles: “…when you see we’re all one and life flows on within you and without you…”
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
May 28 '14 at 6:21
@JanusBahsJacquet That usage, and other similar songs of the era, make equal sense with the word taken in the other sense as a pun. "Life flows on in your absence."
– Potatoswatter
May 28 '14 at 8:14
That was exactly its usage in the medieval period. The City of London Church Saint Botolph without Bishopsgate was so named because it was just outside the City gate. There were also two wards called Bridge Within and Bridge Without and even a children's book The Battle of Saint George without.
– user24964
May 28 '14 at 8:29
@Potatoswatter You’ll note I didn’t say whether the Beatles quote speaks for or against without as a semantic antonym to within. It does show that without can be used as a formal antonym (i.e., a word juxtaposed with an obviously opposite form, regardless of meaning), like “They fought bravely within the city walls, but without help”.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
May 28 '14 at 8:30
3
3
Neat question, I don't know if that's an archaic usage, or, if it's never in history been used that way. The enemy within. The enemy without.....
– Fattie
May 28 '14 at 5:44
Neat question, I don't know if that's an archaic usage, or, if it's never in history been used that way. The enemy within. The enemy without.....
– Fattie
May 28 '14 at 5:44
2
2
Quoth the Beatles: “…when you see we’re all one and life flows on within you and without you…”
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
May 28 '14 at 6:21
Quoth the Beatles: “…when you see we’re all one and life flows on within you and without you…”
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
May 28 '14 at 6:21
@JanusBahsJacquet That usage, and other similar songs of the era, make equal sense with the word taken in the other sense as a pun. "Life flows on in your absence."
– Potatoswatter
May 28 '14 at 8:14
@JanusBahsJacquet That usage, and other similar songs of the era, make equal sense with the word taken in the other sense as a pun. "Life flows on in your absence."
– Potatoswatter
May 28 '14 at 8:14
That was exactly its usage in the medieval period. The City of London Church Saint Botolph without Bishopsgate was so named because it was just outside the City gate. There were also two wards called Bridge Within and Bridge Without and even a children's book The Battle of Saint George without.
– user24964
May 28 '14 at 8:29
That was exactly its usage in the medieval period. The City of London Church Saint Botolph without Bishopsgate was so named because it was just outside the City gate. There were also two wards called Bridge Within and Bridge Without and even a children's book The Battle of Saint George without.
– user24964
May 28 '14 at 8:29
@Potatoswatter You’ll note I didn’t say whether the Beatles quote speaks for or against without as a semantic antonym to within. It does show that without can be used as a formal antonym (i.e., a word juxtaposed with an obviously opposite form, regardless of meaning), like “They fought bravely within the city walls, but without help”.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
May 28 '14 at 8:30
@Potatoswatter You’ll note I didn’t say whether the Beatles quote speaks for or against without as a semantic antonym to within. It does show that without can be used as a formal antonym (i.e., a word juxtaposed with an obviously opposite form, regardless of meaning), like “They fought bravely within the city walls, but without help”.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
May 28 '14 at 8:30
|
show 1 more comment
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
It appears that it can also be used in that sense, though less common.
without
- On the outside: a sturdy structure within and without.
The Online Etymology Dictionary has reference to your issue.
without (adv., prep.) Old English wiðutan "outside of, from
outside," literally "against the outside" (opposite of within),
see with + out (adv.). As a word expressing lack or want of
something (opposite of with), attested from c.1200. In use by late
14c. as a conjunction, short for without that.
within (adv., prep.) Old English wiðinnan "within, from within",
literally "against the inside", see with + in.
edited May 28 '14 at 6:14
Mari-Lou A
61.9k55219456
3
I don't agree with this. If at one time it was acceptable doesn't mean you can use it now. If I wrote the set of sentences using without, I would at best look ignorant or a non-native speaker, really I would just confuse people. The word is outside - it's not confusing and it is common usage.
– RyeɃreḁd
May 28 '14 at 6:24
It is not used these days. Even the references you have mentioned are from Old English. The word doesn't give any meaning to the statements mentioned in the question.
– Veronica Diamond
May 28 '14 at 7:03
3
@RyeɃreḁd Agreed, today we would say "outside", but Josh61 is answering the title of the question. Is within the opposite of without? And the reply is a tentative "yes".
– Mari-Lou A
May 28 '14 at 7:32
Commonly we use outside but not always
– Neil W
May 28 '14 at 8:36
2
One needs to be very careful using it in the sense of "outside" in order to avoid confusion; it is almost always seen in recent writing (even in recent writing that is meant to seem archaic, as in fantasy or period fiction) as the last word in a sentence for that reason: The doors were oaken within and brazen without. A reader unaccustomed to the usage might want to ask "without what?", but cannot be nearly as confused as if the answer to that question seemed to be in the sentence already.
– bye
May 29 '14 at 7:27
add a comment |
There is a hymn that starts with the words, "There is a green hill far away, Without a city wall." Here the word without clearly means the opposite of within. It is archaic but it certainly used to be used in this sense.
answered 36 mins ago
JohnJohn
1
New contributor
John is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Without is the (negative) antonym of with, and that's the end of that story.
Within means inside, and the (opposite) antonym would be outside. (This fits "the bounds of the law" or "the warranty period.")
EDIT: Others have suggested that your proposed usage, while archaic, is still correct. Beware the distinction of negative vs. opposite:
"Without the bounds of the law" would imply that the law was not bounding him, or inapplicable, not that he was dodging it.
"Without the warranty period" would imply that there was never any warranty, not that it had lapsed.
The usage you suggest does not exist in modern English. It is incorrect in your examples.
answered May 28 '14 at 5:45
PotatoswatterPotatoswatter
534313
When changing your answer after receiving a lot of downvotes, I'd recommend deleting the answer, and reposting.
– dwjohnston
Jun 2 '14 at 21:46
add a comment |
No, we cannot use without as opposite of within or as holding a meaning 'outside the bounds of'. It can't be used for that purpose.
They are not antonyms of each other.
answered May 28 '14 at 5:45
Veronica DiamondVeronica Diamond
1,403712
"Wamba had improved their town and made it a fair and comfortable place to dwell in, and the barbarians without the gates were quieted now by frequent defeat." ~ ~ Does this sentence mean the barbarians outside the gates, or the barbarians who didn't own a single gate between them?
– Roaring Fish
May 28 '14 at 6:15
Here, it means the barbarians who weren't stopped by any gates.
– Veronica Diamond
May 28 '14 at 7:00
1
You really think so? ~ ~ "archaic or literary - Outside: 'the barbarians without the gates' -> oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/without
– Roaring Fish
May 28 '14 at 9:43
add a comment |
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f173507%2fis-the-opposite-of-within-without%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It appears that it can also be used in that sense, though less common.
without
- On the outside: a sturdy structure within and without.
The Online Etymology Dictionary has reference to your issue.
without (adv., prep.) Old English wiðutan "outside of, from
outside," literally "against the outside" (opposite of within),
see with + out (adv.). As a word expressing lack or want of
something (opposite of with), attested from c.1200. In use by late
14c. as a conjunction, short for without that.
within (adv., prep.) Old English wiðinnan "within, from within",
literally "against the inside", see with + in.
edited May 28 '14 at 6:14
Mari-Lou A
61.9k55219456
3
I don't agree with this. If at one time it was acceptable doesn't mean you can use it now. If I wrote the set of sentences using without, I would at best look ignorant or a non-native speaker, really I would just confuse people. The word is outside - it's not confusing and it is common usage.
– RyeɃreḁd
May 28 '14 at 6:24
It is not used these days. Even the references you have mentioned are from Old English. The word doesn't give any meaning to the statements mentioned in the question.
– Veronica Diamond
May 28 '14 at 7:03
3
@RyeɃreḁd Agreed, today we would say "outside", but Josh61 is answering the title of the question. Is within the opposite of without? And the reply is a tentative "yes".
– Mari-Lou A
May 28 '14 at 7:32
Commonly we use outside but not always
– Neil W
May 28 '14 at 8:36
2
One needs to be very careful using it in the sense of "outside" in order to avoid confusion; it is almost always seen in recent writing (even in recent writing that is meant to seem archaic, as in fantasy or period fiction) as the last word in a sentence for that reason: The doors were oaken within and brazen without. A reader unaccustomed to the usage might want to ask "without what?", but cannot be nearly as confused as if the answer to that question seemed to be in the sentence already.
– bye
May 29 '14 at 7:27
add a comment |
It appears that it can also be used in that sense, though less common.
without
- On the outside: a sturdy structure within and without.
The Online Etymology Dictionary has reference to your issue.
without (adv., prep.) Old English wiðutan "outside of, from
outside," literally "against the outside" (opposite of within),
see with + out (adv.). As a word expressing lack or want of
something (opposite of with), attested from c.1200. In use by late
14c. as a conjunction, short for without that.
within (adv., prep.) Old English wiðinnan "within, from within",
literally "against the inside", see with + in.
edited May 28 '14 at 6:14
Mari-Lou A
61.9k55219456
3
I don't agree with this. If at one time it was acceptable doesn't mean you can use it now. If I wrote the set of sentences using without, I would at best look ignorant or a non-native speaker, really I would just confuse people. The word is outside - it's not confusing and it is common usage.
– RyeɃreḁd
May 28 '14 at 6:24
It is not used these days. Even the references you have mentioned are from Old English. The word doesn't give any meaning to the statements mentioned in the question.
– Veronica Diamond
May 28 '14 at 7:03
3
@RyeɃreḁd Agreed, today we would say "outside", but Josh61 is answering the title of the question. Is within the opposite of without? And the reply is a tentative "yes".
– Mari-Lou A
May 28 '14 at 7:32
Commonly we use outside but not always
– Neil W
May 28 '14 at 8:36
2
One needs to be very careful using it in the sense of "outside" in order to avoid confusion; it is almost always seen in recent writing (even in recent writing that is meant to seem archaic, as in fantasy or period fiction) as the last word in a sentence for that reason: The doors were oaken within and brazen without. A reader unaccustomed to the usage might want to ask "without what?", but cannot be nearly as confused as if the answer to that question seemed to be in the sentence already.
– bye
May 29 '14 at 7:27
add a comment |
It appears that it can also be used in that sense, though less common.
without
- On the outside: a sturdy structure within and without.
The Online Etymology Dictionary has reference to your issue.
without (adv., prep.) Old English wiðutan "outside of, from
outside," literally "against the outside" (opposite of within),
see with + out (adv.). As a word expressing lack or want of
something (opposite of with), attested from c.1200. In use by late
14c. as a conjunction, short for without that.
within (adv., prep.) Old English wiðinnan "within, from within",
literally "against the inside", see with + in.
edited May 28 '14 at 6:14
Mari-Lou A
61.9k55219456
It appears that it can also be used in that sense, though less common.
without
- On the outside: a sturdy structure within and without.
The Online Etymology Dictionary has reference to your issue.
without (adv., prep.) Old English wiðutan "outside of, from
outside," literally "against the outside" (opposite of within),
see with + out (adv.). As a word expressing lack or want of
something (opposite of with), attested from c.1200. In use by late
14c. as a conjunction, short for without that.
within (adv., prep.) Old English wiðinnan "within, from within",
literally "against the inside", see with + in.
edited May 28 '14 at 6:14
Mari-Lou A
61.9k55219456
edited May 28 '14 at 6:14
Mari-Lou A
61.9k55219456
edited May 28 '14 at 6:14
Mari-Lou A
61.9k55219456
edited May 28 '14 at 6:14
Mari-Lou A
61.9k55219456
61.9k55219456
answered May 28 '14 at 5:55
user66974
3
I don't agree with this. If at one time it was acceptable doesn't mean you can use it now. If I wrote the set of sentences using without, I would at best look ignorant or a non-native speaker, really I would just confuse people. The word is outside - it's not confusing and it is common usage.
– RyeɃreḁd
May 28 '14 at 6:24
It is not used these days. Even the references you have mentioned are from Old English. The word doesn't give any meaning to the statements mentioned in the question.
– Veronica Diamond
May 28 '14 at 7:03
3
@RyeɃreḁd Agreed, today we would say "outside", but Josh61 is answering the title of the question. Is within the opposite of without? And the reply is a tentative "yes".
– Mari-Lou A
May 28 '14 at 7:32
Commonly we use outside but not always
– Neil W
May 28 '14 at 8:36
2
One needs to be very careful using it in the sense of "outside" in order to avoid confusion; it is almost always seen in recent writing (even in recent writing that is meant to seem archaic, as in fantasy or period fiction) as the last word in a sentence for that reason: The doors were oaken within and brazen without. A reader unaccustomed to the usage might want to ask "without what?", but cannot be nearly as confused as if the answer to that question seemed to be in the sentence already.
– bye
May 29 '14 at 7:27
add a comment |
3
I don't agree with this. If at one time it was acceptable doesn't mean you can use it now. If I wrote the set of sentences using without, I would at best look ignorant or a non-native speaker, really I would just confuse people. The word is outside - it's not confusing and it is common usage.
– RyeɃreḁd
May 28 '14 at 6:24
It is not used these days. Even the references you have mentioned are from Old English. The word doesn't give any meaning to the statements mentioned in the question.
– Veronica Diamond
May 28 '14 at 7:03
3
@RyeɃreḁd Agreed, today we would say "outside", but Josh61 is answering the title of the question. Is within the opposite of without? And the reply is a tentative "yes".
– Mari-Lou A
May 28 '14 at 7:32
Commonly we use outside but not always
– Neil W
May 28 '14 at 8:36
2
One needs to be very careful using it in the sense of "outside" in order to avoid confusion; it is almost always seen in recent writing (even in recent writing that is meant to seem archaic, as in fantasy or period fiction) as the last word in a sentence for that reason: The doors were oaken within and brazen without. A reader unaccustomed to the usage might want to ask "without what?", but cannot be nearly as confused as if the answer to that question seemed to be in the sentence already.
– bye
May 29 '14 at 7:27
3
3
I don't agree with this. If at one time it was acceptable doesn't mean you can use it now. If I wrote the set of sentences using without, I would at best look ignorant or a non-native speaker, really I would just confuse people. The word is outside - it's not confusing and it is common usage.
– RyeɃreḁd
May 28 '14 at 6:24
I don't agree with this. If at one time it was acceptable doesn't mean you can use it now. If I wrote the set of sentences using without, I would at best look ignorant or a non-native speaker, really I would just confuse people. The word is outside - it's not confusing and it is common usage.
– RyeɃreḁd
May 28 '14 at 6:24
It is not used these days. Even the references you have mentioned are from Old English. The word doesn't give any meaning to the statements mentioned in the question.
– Veronica Diamond
May 28 '14 at 7:03
It is not used these days. Even the references you have mentioned are from Old English. The word doesn't give any meaning to the statements mentioned in the question.
– Veronica Diamond
May 28 '14 at 7:03
3
3
@RyeɃreḁd Agreed, today we would say "outside", but Josh61 is answering the title of the question. Is within the opposite of without? And the reply is a tentative "yes".
– Mari-Lou A
May 28 '14 at 7:32
@RyeɃreḁd Agreed, today we would say "outside", but Josh61 is answering the title of the question. Is within the opposite of without? And the reply is a tentative "yes".
– Mari-Lou A
May 28 '14 at 7:32
Commonly we use outside but not always
– Neil W
May 28 '14 at 8:36
Commonly we use outside but not always
– Neil W
May 28 '14 at 8:36
2
2
One needs to be very careful using it in the sense of "outside" in order to avoid confusion; it is almost always seen in recent writing (even in recent writing that is meant to seem archaic, as in fantasy or period fiction) as the last word in a sentence for that reason: The doors were oaken within and brazen without. A reader unaccustomed to the usage might want to ask "without what?", but cannot be nearly as confused as if the answer to that question seemed to be in the sentence already.
– bye
May 29 '14 at 7:27
One needs to be very careful using it in the sense of "outside" in order to avoid confusion; it is almost always seen in recent writing (even in recent writing that is meant to seem archaic, as in fantasy or period fiction) as the last word in a sentence for that reason: The doors were oaken within and brazen without. A reader unaccustomed to the usage might want to ask "without what?", but cannot be nearly as confused as if the answer to that question seemed to be in the sentence already.
– bye
May 29 '14 at 7:27
add a comment |
There is a hymn that starts with the words, "There is a green hill far away, Without a city wall." Here the word without clearly means the opposite of within. It is archaic but it certainly used to be used in this sense.
answered 36 mins ago
JohnJohn
1
New contributor
John is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
There is a hymn that starts with the words, "There is a green hill far away, Without a city wall." Here the word without clearly means the opposite of within. It is archaic but it certainly used to be used in this sense.
answered 36 mins ago
JohnJohn
1
New contributor
John is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
There is a hymn that starts with the words, "There is a green hill far away, Without a city wall." Here the word without clearly means the opposite of within. It is archaic but it certainly used to be used in this sense.
answered 36 mins ago
JohnJohn
1
New contributor
John is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
There is a hymn that starts with the words, "There is a green hill far away, Without a city wall." Here the word without clearly means the opposite of within. It is archaic but it certainly used to be used in this sense.
answered 36 mins ago
JohnJohn
1
New contributor
John is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 36 mins ago
JohnJohn
1
New contributor
John is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 36 mins ago
JohnJohn
1
answered 36 mins ago
JohnJohn
1
1
New contributor
John is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
John is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
John is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Without is the (negative) antonym of with, and that's the end of that story.
Within means inside, and the (opposite) antonym would be outside. (This fits "the bounds of the law" or "the warranty period.")
EDIT: Others have suggested that your proposed usage, while archaic, is still correct. Beware the distinction of negative vs. opposite:
"Without the bounds of the law" would imply that the law was not bounding him, or inapplicable, not that he was dodging it.
"Without the warranty period" would imply that there was never any warranty, not that it had lapsed.
The usage you suggest does not exist in modern English. It is incorrect in your examples.
answered May 28 '14 at 5:45
PotatoswatterPotatoswatter
534313
When changing your answer after receiving a lot of downvotes, I'd recommend deleting the answer, and reposting.
– dwjohnston
Jun 2 '14 at 21:46
add a comment |
Without is the (negative) antonym of with, and that's the end of that story.
Within means inside, and the (opposite) antonym would be outside. (This fits "the bounds of the law" or "the warranty period.")
EDIT: Others have suggested that your proposed usage, while archaic, is still correct. Beware the distinction of negative vs. opposite:
"Without the bounds of the law" would imply that the law was not bounding him, or inapplicable, not that he was dodging it.
"Without the warranty period" would imply that there was never any warranty, not that it had lapsed.
The usage you suggest does not exist in modern English. It is incorrect in your examples.
answered May 28 '14 at 5:45
PotatoswatterPotatoswatter
534313
When changing your answer after receiving a lot of downvotes, I'd recommend deleting the answer, and reposting.
– dwjohnston
Jun 2 '14 at 21:46
add a comment |
Without is the (negative) antonym of with, and that's the end of that story.
Within means inside, and the (opposite) antonym would be outside. (This fits "the bounds of the law" or "the warranty period.")
EDIT: Others have suggested that your proposed usage, while archaic, is still correct. Beware the distinction of negative vs. opposite:
"Without the bounds of the law" would imply that the law was not bounding him, or inapplicable, not that he was dodging it.
"Without the warranty period" would imply that there was never any warranty, not that it had lapsed.
The usage you suggest does not exist in modern English. It is incorrect in your examples.
answered May 28 '14 at 5:45
PotatoswatterPotatoswatter
534313
Without is the (negative) antonym of with, and that's the end of that story.
Within means inside, and the (opposite) antonym would be outside. (This fits "the bounds of the law" or "the warranty period.")
EDIT: Others have suggested that your proposed usage, while archaic, is still correct. Beware the distinction of negative vs. opposite:
"Without the bounds of the law" would imply that the law was not bounding him, or inapplicable, not that he was dodging it.
"Without the warranty period" would imply that there was never any warranty, not that it had lapsed.
The usage you suggest does not exist in modern English. It is incorrect in your examples.
answered May 28 '14 at 5:45
PotatoswatterPotatoswatter
534313
edited May 28 '14 at 8:17
answered May 28 '14 at 5:45
PotatoswatterPotatoswatter
534313
answered May 28 '14 at 5:45
PotatoswatterPotatoswatter
534313
answered May 28 '14 at 5:45
PotatoswatterPotatoswatter
534313
534313
When changing your answer after receiving a lot of downvotes, I'd recommend deleting the answer, and reposting.
– dwjohnston
Jun 2 '14 at 21:46
add a comment |
When changing your answer after receiving a lot of downvotes, I'd recommend deleting the answer, and reposting.
– dwjohnston
Jun 2 '14 at 21:46
When changing your answer after receiving a lot of downvotes, I'd recommend deleting the answer, and reposting.
– dwjohnston
Jun 2 '14 at 21:46
When changing your answer after receiving a lot of downvotes, I'd recommend deleting the answer, and reposting.
– dwjohnston
Jun 2 '14 at 21:46
add a comment |
No, we cannot use without as opposite of within or as holding a meaning 'outside the bounds of'. It can't be used for that purpose.
They are not antonyms of each other.
answered May 28 '14 at 5:45
Veronica DiamondVeronica Diamond
1,403712
"Wamba had improved their town and made it a fair and comfortable place to dwell in, and the barbarians without the gates were quieted now by frequent defeat." ~ ~ Does this sentence mean the barbarians outside the gates, or the barbarians who didn't own a single gate between them?
– Roaring Fish
May 28 '14 at 6:15
Here, it means the barbarians who weren't stopped by any gates.
– Veronica Diamond
May 28 '14 at 7:00
1
You really think so? ~ ~ "archaic or literary - Outside: 'the barbarians without the gates' -> oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/without
– Roaring Fish
May 28 '14 at 9:43
add a comment |
No, we cannot use without as opposite of within or as holding a meaning 'outside the bounds of'. It can't be used for that purpose.
They are not antonyms of each other.
answered May 28 '14 at 5:45
Veronica DiamondVeronica Diamond
1,403712
"Wamba had improved their town and made it a fair and comfortable place to dwell in, and the barbarians without the gates were quieted now by frequent defeat." ~ ~ Does this sentence mean the barbarians outside the gates, or the barbarians who didn't own a single gate between them?
– Roaring Fish
May 28 '14 at 6:15
Here, it means the barbarians who weren't stopped by any gates.
– Veronica Diamond
May 28 '14 at 7:00
1
You really think so? ~ ~ "archaic or literary - Outside: 'the barbarians without the gates' -> oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/without
– Roaring Fish
May 28 '14 at 9:43
add a comment |
No, we cannot use without as opposite of within or as holding a meaning 'outside the bounds of'. It can't be used for that purpose.
They are not antonyms of each other.
answered May 28 '14 at 5:45
Veronica DiamondVeronica Diamond
1,403712
No, we cannot use without as opposite of within or as holding a meaning 'outside the bounds of'. It can't be used for that purpose.
They are not antonyms of each other.
answered May 28 '14 at 5:45
Veronica DiamondVeronica Diamond
1,403712
answered May 28 '14 at 5:45
Veronica DiamondVeronica Diamond
1,403712
answered May 28 '14 at 5:45
Veronica DiamondVeronica Diamond
1,403712
answered May 28 '14 at 5:45
Veronica DiamondVeronica Diamond
1,403712
1,403712
"Wamba had improved their town and made it a fair and comfortable place to dwell in, and the barbarians without the gates were quieted now by frequent defeat." ~ ~ Does this sentence mean the barbarians outside the gates, or the barbarians who didn't own a single gate between them?
– Roaring Fish
May 28 '14 at 6:15
Here, it means the barbarians who weren't stopped by any gates.
– Veronica Diamond
May 28 '14 at 7:00
1
You really think so? ~ ~ "archaic or literary - Outside: 'the barbarians without the gates' -> oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/without
– Roaring Fish
May 28 '14 at 9:43
add a comment |
"Wamba had improved their town and made it a fair and comfortable place to dwell in, and the barbarians without the gates were quieted now by frequent defeat." ~ ~ Does this sentence mean the barbarians outside the gates, or the barbarians who didn't own a single gate between them?
– Roaring Fish
May 28 '14 at 6:15
Here, it means the barbarians who weren't stopped by any gates.
– Veronica Diamond
May 28 '14 at 7:00
1
You really think so? ~ ~ "archaic or literary - Outside: 'the barbarians without the gates' -> oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/without
– Roaring Fish
May 28 '14 at 9:43
"Wamba had improved their town and made it a fair and comfortable place to dwell in, and the barbarians without the gates were quieted now by frequent defeat." ~ ~ Does this sentence mean the barbarians outside the gates, or the barbarians who didn't own a single gate between them?
– Roaring Fish
May 28 '14 at 6:15
"Wamba had improved their town and made it a fair and comfortable place to dwell in, and the barbarians without the gates were quieted now by frequent defeat." ~ ~ Does this sentence mean the barbarians outside the gates, or the barbarians who didn't own a single gate between them?
– Roaring Fish
May 28 '14 at 6:15
Here, it means the barbarians who weren't stopped by any gates.
– Veronica Diamond
May 28 '14 at 7:00
Here, it means the barbarians who weren't stopped by any gates.
– Veronica Diamond
May 28 '14 at 7:00
1
1
You really think so? ~ ~ "archaic or literary - Outside: 'the barbarians without the gates' -> oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/without
– Roaring Fish
May 28 '14 at 9:43
You really think so? ~ ~ "archaic or literary - Outside: 'the barbarians without the gates' -> oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/without
– Roaring Fish
May 28 '14 at 9:43
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f173507%2fis-the-opposite-of-within-without%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
3
Neat question, I don't know if that's an archaic usage, or, if it's never in history been used that way. The enemy within. The enemy without.....
– Fattie
May 28 '14 at 5:44
2
Quoth the Beatles: “…when you see we’re all one and life flows on within you and without you…”
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
May 28 '14 at 6:21
@JanusBahsJacquet That usage, and other similar songs of the era, make equal sense with the word taken in the other sense as a pun. "Life flows on in your absence."
– Potatoswatter
May 28 '14 at 8:14
That was exactly its usage in the medieval period. The City of London Church Saint Botolph without Bishopsgate was so named because it was just outside the City gate. There were also two wards called Bridge Within and Bridge Without and even a children's book The Battle of Saint George without.
– user24964
May 28 '14 at 8:29
@Potatoswatter You’ll note I didn’t say whether the Beatles quote speaks for or against without as a semantic antonym to within. It does show that without can be used as a formal antonym (i.e., a word juxtaposed with an obviously opposite form, regardless of meaning), like “They fought bravely within the city walls, but without help”.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
May 28 '14 at 8:30