0
Komountain Posted 21 years ago
Grammar
With ticket in hand
Hi, all.
In the [with + N + prepositional phrase] pattern, I often find no indefinite article used.
Examples:
With ticket in hand, I proceeded to the boarding gate.
With suitcase in hand, he briskly walked into his office.
With book in hand, the teacher paced the floor back and forth.
All the nouns here (ticket, suitcase, book) are countable and singular, so I think they are well qualified to take indefinite article 'a'. Could it be wrong if I add it? If I add adjectives like 'shiny', 'heavy' and 'thick' before the nouns, respectively, do I need to use 'a'?
I would very much appreciate your comments on this.
Best regards,
In the [with + N + prepositional phrase] pattern, I often find no indefinite article used.
Examples:
With ticket in hand, I proceeded to the boarding gate.
With suitcase in hand, he briskly walked into his office.
With book in hand, the teacher paced the floor back and forth.
All the nouns here (ticket, suitcase, book) are countable and singular, so I think they are well qualified to take indefinite article 'a'. Could it be wrong if I add it? If I add adjectives like 'shiny', 'heavy' and 'thick' before the nouns, respectively, do I need to use 'a'?
I would very much appreciate your comments on this.
Best regards,
Top answer
Dear Komountain, It is an interesting question. It is my opinion that it is normal to omit «with» if there is no article and to say «Ticket in hand, I proceeded to the boarding gate». We may also say «Heavy suitcase in hand, I proceeded to the boarding gate».
- Dear Komountain, It is an interesting question.
- It is my opinion that it is normal to omit «with» if there is no article and to say «Ticket in hand, I proceeded to the boarding gate».
- We may also say «Heavy suitcase in hand, I proceeded to the boarding gate».
- We must add «my» also when we add an article: «With a heavy suitcase in my hand».
- But it is only my opinion.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
11 Answers
0
Dear Komountain,
It is an interesting question.
It is my opinion that it is normal to omit «with» if there is no
It is an interesting question.
It is my opinion that it is normal to omit «with» if there is no
00
Hello KM
I almost to Goldmund. My E-J says as follows.
[with + something + in some body part]
an expression to describe a simultaneous situation that the subject has the thing in the body part.
(EX) He began to speak with a pipe in his hand/mouth.
The determiners are often elided.
I almost to Goldmund. My E-J says as follows.
[with + something + in some body part]
an expression to describe a simultaneous situation that the subject has the thing in the body part.
(EX) He began to speak with a pipe in his hand/mouth.
The determiners are often elided.
00
Yes; it has a rather "mannered" or "would-be literary" sound to it.
The version with "with" but no article seems like an uncomfortable hybrid.
MrP
The version with "with" but no article seems like an uncomfortable hybrid.
MrP
00
Paco2004I almost to Goldmund.Oops! Must be "I almost agree to Goldmund".
paco
00
Thank you all for your contributions.
Let me summarize what you have said.
1. With no article: you don't need a possessive before the body part.
With x ticket in x hand, ....
2. With an article: you need a possessive.
With a ticket in m
Let me summarize what you have said.
1. With no article: you don't need a possessive before the body part.
With x ticket in x hand, ....
2. With an article: you need a possessive.
With a ticket in m
00
Hello Professor KM
The google search gives results as follows.
(1) "with a pipe in his mouth" 10,100.
(2) "pipe in mouth" about 5,000.
(3) "with pipe in mouth" 465.
(4) "with pipe in his mouth" 150.
(5) "with a pipe in mouth" 90.
I think we should take #3, 4, 5 as vulgar versions of #1.
paco
The google search gives results as follows.
(1) "with a pipe in his mouth" 10,100.
(2) "pipe in mouth" about 5,000.
(3) "with pipe in mouth" 465.
(4) "with pipe in his mouth" 150.
(5) "with a pipe in mouth" 90.
I think we should take #3, 4, 5 as vulgar versions of #1.
paco
00
KomountainThank you all for your contributions.
Let me summarize what you have said.
1. With no article: you don't need a possessive before the body part.
With x ticket in x hand, ....
2. With an article: you need a possessive.
With a
00
Thank you, Paco.
Your research results help in further consolidating my summary above. The 'uncomfartable hybrid,' as MrPedantic aptly termed the pattern in question, is quite troublesome for the learners like you and me, and perhaps many others out there. Well, if we look at the other side of the coin, I dare say it adds some zest to our shared language-learning endeavors by allowing us
Your research results help in further consolidating my summary above. The 'uncomfartable hybrid,' as MrPedantic aptly termed the pattern in question, is quite troublesome for the learners like you and me, and perhaps many others out there. Well, if we look at the other side of the coin, I dare say it adds some zest to our shared language-learning endeavors by allowing us
00
Hi, Paco,
Let me **** in here and add just a word about Google results -- and my particular take on them.
When a string of words is less used than another within a given corpus, there are at least two possible reasons. Either the string of words is less used because it is from a "lower" standard of language ('vulgar') or the string of words is less used because it is from a "hig
Let me **** in here and add just a word about Google results -- and my particular take on them.
When a string of words is less used than another within a given corpus, there are at least two possible reasons. Either the string of words is less used because it is from a "lower" standard of language ('vulgar') or the string of words is less used because it is from a "hig
00
Hello CJ
I believe your ears should be much more reliable than any other grammar books. But am I wrong if I take "with pipe in month" as a lower version of "pipe in month" (without with)?
paco
I believe your ears should be much more reliable than any other grammar books. But am I wrong if I take "with pipe in month" as a lower version of "pipe in month" (without with)?
paco
0
Related Questions