Some small questions

tdh10 nl 네덜란드

1. I have a white blouse. It isn't fancy, but it looks nice with the skirt.

Q: Can I say: but it looks nice "for" the skirt with the same meaning? Which means replace "with" with "for"? Or people just commonly use "it looks nice WITH something."

2. A: I'll bring a sweater. I have one that matches my skirt perfectly.

B: You mean...a plaid sweater?

A: No, a blue sweater, the same blue that's in the skirt.

Q: In the last sentence, can I just omit "that's"? So the sentence would be "the same blue in the skirt". Does it grammatically correct? Or it sounds strange?

August 2018
  • jungleboy pt 포르투갈

    >> Q: Can I say: but it looks nice "for" the skirt with the same meaning? Which means replace "with" with "for"?

    No, you can't. It has to be with. 'It looks nice with...', 'it goes (well) with...'. If you want to omit the preposition, you can say, 'it matches' as in your next example.

    >> A: No, a blue sweater, the same blue that's in the skirt.

    >> Q: In the last sentence, can I just omit "that's"? So the sentence would be "the same blue in the skirt".

    No, you can't. As an alternative to 'that's', you could say 'the same blue as (in) the skirt', but not 'the same blue in the skirt'.

    August 2018
    • khardy us United States

      You can say, "No, a blue sweater, the same blue in the skirt." But that would be very conversational and ungrammatical. In quick, informal, sloppy speech it is not uncommon for "necessary" elements to be omitted. I do not know whether or not there are any "rules" for what can be omitted in cases such as this. I would not recommend that you spend too much time trying to learn to speak this way, though.

      August 2018