Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations SkipVought on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Near to? 2
- Thread starter Dimandja
- Start date
MikeBarone
Programmer
The word "to" is an extra word that can be eliminated (IMO). I think they are both proper uses of vocabulary but if you can say the same thing using less words I feel that is the better way to go.
Mike Barone
FREE CGI/Perl Scripts & JavaScript Generators
Mike Barone
FREE CGI/Perl Scripts & JavaScript Generators
-
1
- #3
RodKnowlton
MIS
- Apr 26, 2000
- 1,005
- 0
- 0
I'm not sure that "near to" is proper usage, but I agree that it's better to use fewer words.
Rod Knowlton
IBM Certified Advanced Technical Expert pSeries and AIX 5L
CompTIA Linux+
CompTIA Security+
Rod Knowlton
IBM Certified Advanced Technical Expert pSeries and AIX 5L
CompTIA Linux+
CompTIA Security+
CajunCenturion
Programmer
As far as I know, both sentences are correct and mean the same thing. The reason is that both 'near' and 'near to' are valid prepositions.
That being said, it is generally a good practice to shy away from using un-necessary words, and for this example, the 'to' is not necessary.
Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
That being said, it is generally a good practice to shy away from using un-necessary words, and for this example, the 'to' is not necessary.
Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
-
1
- #5
My initial reaction was to say near to the highway was incorrect, but I thought close to the highway sounded perfectly acceptable.
So maybe it is correct verbally speaking, but it sounds odd to my ears. Rarely, if ever, do I hear people say near to in that context.
So maybe it is correct verbally speaking, but it sounds odd to my ears. Rarely, if ever, do I hear people say near to in that context.
I keep hearing the 'to', maybe because the related words
My house sits close to the highway.
My house sits next to the highway.
My house sits near to the highway.
or maybe this is a UK thing.
Columb Healy
Living with a seeker after the truth is infinitely preferable to living with one who thinks they've found it.
My house sits close to the highway.
My house sits next to the highway.
My house sits near to the highway.
or maybe this is a UK thing.
Columb Healy
Living with a seeker after the truth is infinitely preferable to living with one who thinks they've found it.
Stella740pl
Programmer
I hear 'to' in the first 2 of your examples, but not the 3rd one:
My house sits close to the highway.
My house sits next to the highway.
My house sits near the highway.
Even though the meaning is nearly the same, the word constructions used to achieve it are different. Some require 'to', some don't.
Like in the examples below, meaning is more or less close, grammatical constructions are different:
I should do this.
I ought to do this.
I have to do this.
CajunCenturion
Programmer
Granted the difference in meaning is subtle, but what are the different word constructions in play? Are they not all of the form?Stella740pl said:
<subject> My house
<verb> sits
<preposition> 'close to', 'next to', 'near', or 'near to'
<object of preposition> the highway.
Also, in the final three sentences, I agree that the meanings are similar but not quite the same, but please explain the different grammatical constructions in use.
Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Stella740pl
Programmer
Well, what I meant is that when used as prepositions, "close to" and "next to" are almost always 2-word constructs. I read that even for those words "to" is sometimes omitted, but never heard real-life examples.
"Near" can be a preposition on it's own and doesn't really require "to". So, gramatically, they are not exactly the same constructs, or so I understand.
"Near" can be a preposition on it's own and doesn't really require "to". So, gramatically, they are not exactly the same constructs, or so I understand.
I'm not sure if this is correct, but I'd use the expressions depending on the degree of proximity:
close to / near to the highway: Only a minute to the nearest drive-up
next to the highway: I can tell the brand of the passing cars by the sound of their motors...
near the highway: somewhere in the vicinity; weaker than near to
But again: I'm not sure, if this is valid.
[blue]The last voice we will hear before the world explodes will be that of an expert saying:
"This is technically impossible!" - Sir Peter Ustinov[/blue]
close to / near to the highway: Only a minute to the nearest drive-up
next to the highway: I can tell the brand of the passing cars by the sound of their motors...
near the highway: somewhere in the vicinity; weaker than near to
But again: I'm not sure, if this is valid.
[blue]The last voice we will hear before the world explodes will be that of an expert saying:
"This is technically impossible!" - Sir Peter Ustinov[/blue]
CajunCenturion
Programmer
I understand what your saying, but the preposition is the grammatical construct. It doesn't matter whether it's a single word or a two-word construct, a preposition is still a preposition. There is no grammatical difference between the two.
Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Stella740pl
Programmer
CajunCenturion,
It doesn't matter whether it's a single word or a two-word construct, a preposition is still a preposition. There is no grammatical difference between the two.
1. Not completely sure, but it's not the point now.
2. Whether it is so or not, it still doesn't explain usage of 'to' with 'near', so what's your point then?
I was trying to explain that "close to"-"next to"-"near to" analogy cannot be used, because as prepositions, "close to" and "next to" are always 2-word constructs, and "near" can be used independently. Do you agree or not?
If "near to" is effectively a 2-word preposition or not, still not completely clear, too, by the way. At least, in the one dictionary I had time to look up so far, dictionary.com , I didn't find "near to" construction as a preposition, only "near".
It doesn't matter whether it's a single word or a two-word construct, a preposition is still a preposition. There is no grammatical difference between the two.
1. Not completely sure, but it's not the point now.
2. Whether it is so or not, it still doesn't explain usage of 'to' with 'near', so what's your point then?
I was trying to explain that "close to"-"next to"-"near to" analogy cannot be used, because as prepositions, "close to" and "next to" are always 2-word constructs, and "near" can be used independently. Do you agree or not?
If "near to" is effectively a 2-word preposition or not, still not completely clear, too, by the way. At least, in the one dictionary I had time to look up so far, dictionary.com , I didn't find "near to" construction as a preposition, only "near".
CajunCenturion
Programmer
No I don't agree. Grammatically speaking, whether a preposition is a one or two word construct is completely irrelavent. A preposition is a preposition whether it's one word, or four words, such as 'by the time of'.Stella740p said:
My point is that there is no grammatical question here. There is no word construction question. Both sentences in the original post are grammatically correct. Neither sentence contains an ambiguous word construct. They mean the same thing. Now, there may be a euphonic question, and there may be a unncessary word question, both of which have already been addressed, but grammer is not an issue in this case.
Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Stella740pl
Programmer
CajunCenturion,
it seems we are talking about somewhat different things. OK, I would agree that whether a preposition is a one or two word construct is completely irrelevant. But it's not what I am asking.
Can the fact that "close" is used with "to", and that "next" is used with "to" be used as a ground to use "near" with "to", also, because of the analogy?
I would say no (and what about you?), because in "close to" and "next to", "to" is a part of a construct. In "near to", it's not, so analogy cannot be used (or you think it can?).
I would say, analogy here is not any more valid than using analogy to prove that since modal verb "ought" is used with "to", and "have" used with "to", therefore "should", "can" and "must" got to be used with "to", also. There are cases where analogy just isn't working (do you agree with this?).
mscallisto
Technical User
MColeman
I would rephrase the sentence to remove 'sits'.
'Sits' does not seem to be an appropriate verb for 'house'.
My New World (Simon and Schuster) specifically refers to "a house sitting on the hill".
I just don't know how a house decides to sit or stand!
I would rephrase the sentence to remove 'sits'.
'Sits' does not seem to be an appropriate verb for 'house'.
My New World (Simon and Schuster) specifically refers to "a house sitting on the hill".
I just don't know how a house decides to sit or stand!
- Thread starter
- #17
CajunCenturion
Programmer
Stella740pl - I don't think there is an analogy. I'm not even sure where the notion of an applicable analogy originated.
Close to
Close by
Next to
Near
Near to
are all independant prepositions which share only in their meaning described by another preposition: 'in the proximity of'.
If you are simply questioning that 'near to' is a valid proposition, then I refer you to the following sites:
TestMagic - see # 44, 45, 75, 76, and 77
Dept of English - see paragraph titled "A list of most of the common prepositions in English:"
Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Close to
Close by
Next to
Near
Near to
are all independant prepositions which share only in their meaning described by another preposition: 'in the proximity of'.
If you are simply questioning that 'near to' is a valid proposition, then I refer you to the following sites:
TestMagic - see # 44, 45, 75, 76, and 77
Dept of English - see paragraph titled "A list of most of the common prepositions in English:"
Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Stella740pl
Programmer
CajunCenturion,
I don't think there is an analogy.
So we do agree.
I'm not even sure where the notion of an applicable analogy originated.
I was answering to columb's post.
I don't think there is an analogy.
So we do agree.
I'm not even sure where the notion of an applicable analogy originated.
I was answering to columb's post.
Without regard to whether "sit" is the most suitable verb here, I think we all agree that My house sits near the highway sounds perfectly acceptable, yes?
Okay. So assuming near to the highway is fine also (though I'm not sold on it yet), I'd also have to assume there are times when "near to" is more appropriate than just "near". If you think both uses are interchangeable at all times, than why not stick to "near" at all times?
Okay. So assuming near to the highway is fine also (though I'm not sold on it yet), I'd also have to assume there are times when "near to" is more appropriate than just "near". If you think both uses are interchangeable at all times, than why not stick to "near" at all times?
- Status
Similar threads
