3 ms·
I've seen it in older literature, as "within and without", where the latter approximately translates to "outside" and is supposed to be an opposite for "within"
by mrkgnao 10y ago
I've seen it in older literature, as "within and without", where the latter approximately translates to "outside" and is supposed to be an opposite for "within".
(I'm Indian, but I can't remember seeing any instances of this in any texts that I'd say were written by people who wrote in an Indian idiom.)
- throwanem 10y agoIt's also very unusual to see "without" used in this meaning and paired with "in"; one expects to see either "in and out" or "within and without", rather than a mixture of the two. I don't know that the latter is incorrect per se, but it does fall rather oddly on the mind's ear.