English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The word rarely turns up outside that context.

and

The word rarely turns up outside of that context.

Which one is correct and why?

share|improve this question
1  
I edited your text to make context singular, so that it would agree with its singular antecedent, that. If you want it plural, you should use those instead of that. – Robusto Jan 23 '11 at 23:58
    
Edited your title for clarity. Hope you don't mind :) – Jimi Oke Jan 24 '11 at 1:52
    
Err, you should really merge your questions: this and english.stackexchange.com/questions/9702/…. I ended up answering this question in the other one already. – Noldorin Jan 24 '11 at 2:05
up vote 10 down vote accepted

The preposition/adverb, outside, and the compound preposition, outside of, both have the same meaning: beyond the boundaries/limits of _

The New Oxford American Dictionary provides an excellent exposition on the usage of these two:

Outside of tends to be more commonly used in the US than in Britain, where outside usually suffices, but, like its cousin off of, it is colloquial and not recommended for formal writing. … The adverb outside is not problematic when referring to physical space, position , etc. (I‘m going outside), but the compound preposition outside of is often used as a colloquial (and often inferior) way of saying except for, other than, apart from (outside of what I just mentioned, I can’t think of any reason not to). Besides possibly sounding more informal than desired, outside of may cause misunderstanding by suggesting physical space or location when that is not the point to be emphasized, or when no such sense is intended — consider the ambiguity in this sentence: outside of China, he has few interests. Does this mean that his primary interest is China? Or does it mean that whenever he is not in China, he has few interests?

share|improve this answer

'Outside of' grates on my ear too! The 'of' is superfluous - and I was brought up to believe that brevity is the key to good writing: so unnecessary words should be omitted.

share|improve this answer

Let's consider two sentences: 1. Outside/Outside of Norway, the world's largest Norse community is in Minnesota. 2. The cemetery is located outside/outside of the town. In these two sentences, the term outside/outside of is used in two different ways. In the first sentence it means "apart from" or "anywhere other than in." Because the synonymous phrase ends with a preposition, the best term here is "outside of." In the second sentence it means "beside" or "alongside." The best term here, I think, is "outside." To summarize, if you could substitute the words "apart from" or other than in," use "outside of." If you could substitute the word "beside" or "alongside," use "outside." I hope this is helpful.

share|improve this answer
2  
This does not answer the question. The question is about whether to include "of" in the sentence. – MετάEd 8 hours ago

protected by Rathony 6 hours ago

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.