Something

Question

Hello there, someone says "it's something you can't know what's inside of" , what's with "inside of" ? Why isn't "inside of it" ? And can you solve the problem with a few examples please? And also I'm not sure if I wrote the correct example but I've been hearing this sort of thing a lot.

GPY · Accepted Answer

Venom Snake"it's something (that) you can't know what's inside of"

This isn't good English. However, the thinking behind it is the same as we see in e.g. "it's something (that) you can't touch", where the implied object of "touch" is the "something" previously mentioned, i.e. you can't touch that thing. In your case the implied object of "inside of" is the "something" previously mentioned, i.e. you can't know what's inside of that thing. The word "of" is actually redundant: we say that one thing is "inside" another. We do not need to say that it is "inside of" another.

Venom SnakeWhy isn't "inside of it" ?

That would be wrong (or more wrong) for the same reason that e.g. "it's something that you can't touch it" would be wrong, i.e. incorrect supply of an object, "it", when the object is already implied.

Something

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions