Hey guys, On one of my reviews I suggested the writer omit the 'of' in a sentence like "she rolled out of the way." Another forum user commented, saying they were under the impression, "she rolled out the way" would be gramatically incorrect and asked for clarification. Since I've never read a grammar book before and have no recollection of ever looking into this matter, I decided to do a little searching. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything emphatic on the net. I see now the query post has been deleted, so I'm posting the question here in the hope a more educated member will shed some light.
'Move out of the way' is the standard use of the phrasal preposition. 'Move out the way' is sometimes heard in casual conversation and is considered very informal or substandard.
What was your reason for suggesting the omission of "of"? Maybe you're coming from a colloquial vantagepoint, or maybe it simply meant something other than what we're likely to assume. "She rolled out the way" means (grammatically) that she unfolded a path, in a sense. Like, "We were all very confused at this point till she 'rolled out the way,' which suddenly made everything perfectly clear." If "she rolled out of the way," it means (grammatically) that she rolled herself out of a pathway of some kind to make way for something else. So, it depends on meaning and context. Something like "Get out the way," as I've heard it used (often), is usually an ungrammatical colloquial expression that means "Get out of the (or "my") way." Such an expression could easily give dialogue a particular flavor, but it wouldn't be a grammatically correct way of asking someone to "move so I can get past," e.g., in exposition and probably not used in narrative form (unless the narrator was speaking colloquially). "Get out the way" isn't grammatically incorrect if you're using a horrendously awkward way of insisting that someone better produce the "way" from a roadmap or some instruction he might have in his pocket, as in "So now we're lost here, so you better 'get out the way' and show us how to figure out where we went wrong" (or something like that). So, I think the answer to your question isn't necessariy straightforward.
So effectively you're saying that a phrase like: "The boy rushed out the room." would be gramatically incorrect?
Yeah, in dialogue it would be fine, but I wouldn’t use it in narrative. I use that kind of speech sometimes. And, in other contexts, be careful where “of” is left out, for it can change the meaning of a sentence drastically. “Hey, you, get out of here!” – get lost “Hey, you, get out here!” – show yourself
Precisely. The of is a preposition in this sentence which cannot grammatically be omitted. This kind of syntax might well be a go in dialogue if the speaker has this particular speech mannerism, but it is not grammatically correct at all. I lived for a few months outside of the Pittsburgh area where it is very common to hear people drop connector verbs in casual speech. It would be quite common to hear someone say, "The car needs washed," but this is an ungrammatical speech mannerism that is common to the area. I might include it in dialogue if my character where from that area, but never in my narrative.
I think you might, perhaps, be confused by the common phrasing of "threw it out the window," "tossed out the window," "look out the window," etc. . . which are grammatically correct, though I couldn't tell you exactly why in technical terms. Inserting an "of" there would make it awkward and wrong, just as omiting the "of" in your sample sentence would make that awkward and wrong. I suppose the window example is similar to "clean out the grease trap, John." If you stick an "of" in there, it would sound kinda like "clean (your way) out of the grease trap, John. Rescue isn't coming." But there are other sentences, other times I have wondered, such as, "in all my life, I never. . ." In that case, it seems perfectly grammatical to insert an "of" or leave it out, either one. . . and so I tend to leave it out. The litmus test is to read it out loud and see if it sounds natural to me. . . but that might not work so well for you if you have a colloquialism-heavy dialect.
Thanks guys. I think I'm beginning to understand now. "I rushed out the room"-----wrong "I rushed out the door"------right I think.
It is certainly possible to overanalyze these things, especially in English. There is no accounting for idioms, which often defy all the conventional rules of the language.
Just my theory: You're occupying the room, so you rush out of it. You're not occupying the door but is on one side of it, so you'd rush out through it. Therefore, the complete sentences would have been "I rushed out of the room" and "I rushed out through the door" and for some reason through can be omitted while of cannot. "I rushed out of the door" sounds completely wrong to me, because it leaves an image of someone being inside the woodplanks of the door itself. Do you agree?
So can we say the broad rule is use 'Out of' if there is movement from within an object to the outside, and 'Out' when there is movement through an object? So, "Get out of the way" indicates movement from within 'the way' and "Go out the window" indicates movement through the window.
My thoughts exactly. Or they were standing within the doorway and then rushed out of that area. But then you'd say, "I rushed out of the doorway" to be clear. And then the sentence is pretty much the same as, "I rushed out of the way," since you're talking about the doorway.
yup! you go out the door, to go out of a room... the reason for the difference is that in 'go out the door' the word 'through' is understood... so, to be wordily precise, 'you go out through the door, to go out of the room'...
“Ok, man, if you want leave, go out there, out the kitchen, and out the room, and then you’ll be outside.” Makes sense in that context. Who would have thought this thread would have been so educational?
EDIT: SHorgan already posted this. Dur hur hur... Sorry guys. Kas, good point! Basically, my understanding is that when an object is inside a place and going out, you need either of or from. Because when you "throw something out the window" it is only passing through the window, not originating from inside the window, you don't use of or from. If for some reason, you are standing in the window, you could say "I threw it out of/from the window", but otherwise if it is only passing through, you can use "through" or just nothing.
I think that this edit would be correct by the general consensus on this thread, although would through be better used here? "...Go out there, through the kitchen, out of the room, then you'll be outside." My reasoning being that you start on the outside of the kitchen and end up on the outside.
That’s why I omitted “of”. “Through” is implied in a sentence like: “Look out the window.” – Look out through the window. I don’t think I’d write something like that. Just exploring the rules, doing what Cogito said: overanalyzing – which I do often.
in that example, however, 'through' isn't understood in re either 'kitchen' or 'room' as it is with 'window'...
The only difference to me is in pacing. The first one sounds like a rushed action, like maybe an escape from something because it is shorter whereas the 2nd one sounds like there was more consideration put into the action.
I usually omit the "of" in cases like that, so "dove off the cliff" works better for me. I don't care for the unnecessary back-to-back "f" sounds either.
