# I'd like toast without butter on/on it



## audiolaik

Hello,

Which form sounds more idiomatic to you?

_a) I'd like toast without butter on._

_b) I'd like toast without butter on it._

Can one delete the pronoun _it_ from the prepositional phrase?

Thank you!


----------



## Starfrown

In short, no. Without "it" the sentence sounds very unnatural.

You could say simply "without butter."


----------



## ewie

They're pretty much of a muchness to me, Audi.
Yes, the _it_ is optional.

I'd probably say _I'd like toast *with nothing* on it

_


Starfrown said:


> In short, no. Without "it" the sentence sounds very unnatural.


_Really_, SF?  It sounds fine to me


----------



## cyberpedant

But one may say: "Toast, no butter;" "toast without butter." A bit abrupt, perhaps, but not unusual.


----------



## cyberpedant

"Dry toast" is another option.


----------



## cuchuflete

Which is more idiomatic will depend on the local or regional flavor of English used.

For most AE speakers, it would be natural to say-

I'd like toast without butter.


----------



## sound shift

I've heard both versions.


----------



## Starfrown

ewie said:


> They're pretty much of a muchness to me, Audi.
> Yes, the _it_ is optional.
> 
> I'd probably say _I'd like toast *with nothing* on it_
> 
> 
> _Really_, SF? It sounds fine to me


 
I thought when I was posting that some from the UK might find it acceptable. Without "it" the sentence doesn't seem natural AE to me.


----------



## ewie

Starfrown said:


> I thought when I was posting that some from the UK might find it acceptable. Without "it" the sentence doesn't seem natural AE to me.


Ah I see.  Yet another AE><BE difference I was unaware of


----------



## Starfrown

ewie said:


> Ah I see. Yet another AE><BE difference I was unaware of


 
I guess I can't speak for all my fellow AEers, but it certainly seems as though we may be discovering yet another rift.


----------



## sound shift

Yes, and I think there's an intra-BE difference. As I recall, a Scot of my acquaintance told me this construction sounded strange to him without "it".


----------



## George French

Interesting posts. I would use:-

I'd like toast without butter.
I'd like toast without butter on it.
I'd like toast with no butter.
I'd like my toast un-buttered.
Etc.
I can't remember ever using "I'd like toast without butter on." But then my memory is not so good. I find this variant strange to my ears and lips....

English is a wierd language!

GF..


----------



## cuchuflete

Setting, as well as regional variations, may come into play.  In an American diner (a simple and unpretentious restaurant) one might hear, "Toast. Hold the butter."

This usage can become interesting, as those who remember Jack Nicholson in Five Easy Pieces will attest. His character is trying to order plain toast.  




> *Bobby*: I'd like an omelet, plain, and a chicken salad sandwich on wheat toast, no mayonnaise, no butter, no lettuce. And a cup of coffee.
> *Waitress*: A #2, chicken salad sand. _*Hold the butter*_, the lettuce, the mayonnaise, and a cup of coffee. Anything else?
> *Bobby*: Yeah, now all you have to do is hold the chicken, bring me the toast, give me a check for the chicken salad sandwich, and you haven't broken any rules.


source, including the punch line


----------



## panjandrum

From my extensive personal experience of buttering toast for fifty mums and fifty toddlers most Tuesday mornings - the non-butter contingent ask for their toast "without butter" - no "on", no "it".

... or sometimes, "with no butter."


----------



## ssp

*George French said:

I'd like my toast un-buttered.*

I definitely rate this the best so far _for originality_. 

"I'd like my toast un-buttered and my eggs un-shelled, please."


----------



## cuchuflete

ssp said:


> George French said:
> 
> I'd like my toast un-buttered.
> 
> I definitely rate this *the best* so far.



"The best"?  From what viewpoint?  You may have a personal preference for it, which is fine.  That is not at all the same as
finding it the most idiomatic in any particular variety of English.


----------



## ewie

_Unbuttered_ is fine with me.


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm with ewie.  I take my grapes unpeeled, my grizzly bears unskinned, and my toast unbuttered from time to time.  





_Learners please note: this is my own quirky style, and has little to do with English as it is usually spoken in the U.S. _


----------



## xebonyx

As an AE speaker, I would never say "unbuttered", it sounds kind of silly to me, or a little hoity toity. (Maybe that's just me?) I would just say "no butter please" or "without butter".


----------



## Packard

"Un-buttered" sounds like first you butter it, then you un-butter it.

Waitresses in New York's famously noisy diners would process my Dad's request for toast without any butter this way:

"Two eggs over easy; hold the home fries; toasted white, dry."

I'd go with the way the professionals do, with "toast, dry".


----------



## ewie

Packard said:


> "Un-buttered" sounds like first you butter it, then you un-butter it.


Nah ~ that's _debutter_, Mr.P


----------



## xebonyx

Packard said:


> "Un-buttered" sounds like first you butter it, then you un-butter it.



 Yeah, it also sounds like that. We just don't say it in AE.


----------



## fnaynay

Back to the very original question, no you cannot delete the "it" because on is a preposition.  Often, Americans are likely to leave "dangling prepositions" (prepositions with no objects following them) at the end of sentences, and even more often, at the end of a question.  Such as:

"Who did you give that to?"
(The proper form is "To whom did you give that?")

A very annoying thing to hear is:
"Where is that store at?"

My mom has a cute answer for that:
"Behind the 'at' on preposition street." 

Just remember, no dangling prepositions!


----------



## cuchuflete

Oh gracious, what a nice collection of don'ts and cant's!   

Dangling prepositions can, in the right place and style, be absolutely gracious and lovely.
Nineteenth century prescriptivists didn't like the style, and so invented a phoney "rule" stating that they were erroneous in all settings.  That, of course, is pure hogwash.

fnaynay's comments may be valid for some cases of formal English, but in no way apply to the language as it is spoken.  I share the distaste for "Where is it at?", but find that it has taken hold as part of the language, my lamentations notwithstanding.


----------



## cyberpedant

Did someone once say, "Prohibiting the ending of a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put?"


----------



## ewie

Yes.  Then there's the famous story of the child of a friend of a friend who, upon being put to bed and being told he wasn't going to be read to from his usual bedtime book, said_ [obviously this is a half-remembered misquote, like all my quotes]_:
_Daddy, why didn't you bring the book you I usually get read to out of up?_


----------



## panjandrum

How on earth did this manage to get back to that hoary old chestnut?
Preposition at the end of a sentence. Sentence ending in with.
Preposition at the end of a sentence.  Churchill - with which?
Relative clauses: preposition at end of sentence.
Preposition at the end of a sentence. Examples, general discussion, history of the "rule" #19.
Preposition at the end of a sentence: Where does the bus go to?
Preposition at the end of a sentence.
Preposition at the end of a sentence. What is this for?
Preposition at the end of a sentence. Who did you buy it for?
Preposition at the end of a sentence. Churchill - up with which I will not put.
Preposition at the end of a sentence.
Who or whom: Between <who, whom>? Preposition at the end of a sentence.

Never mind chestnuts, dangle those marshmallows and prepositions over a glowing roasting of prescriptivists.


----------



## kalamazoo

I think if you don't want any butter on your toast, you should just say "I'd like toast with no butter."  If you really want to say it differently, you can say "I'd like toast without butter on it" but that seems a little verbose. I wouldn't say "I'd like toast without butter on" but I am not convinced that "on" is actually a preposition in such a sentence anyway. Wiser heads may have a different opinion on this. 

I would avoid phrases like "dry toast" which are somewhat inexact. (The first time I was in NYC, I answered "yes" when I was asked if I wanted "regular" coffee, and was pretty surprised to find out that "regular" coffee didn't mean what I thought it did.)


----------



## cuchuflete

panjandrum said:


> Never mind chestnuts, dangle those marshmallows and prepositions over a glowing roasting of prescriptivists.



Better yet, do as my mother taught me, and dangle the prescriptivists over a glowing
marshmallow, add _jus de_ preposition, and serve well-chilled with a garnish of split infinitive.


----------



## Loob

Nothing tastier than glowing prescriptivists.

By the way, I've got two longer versions of ewie's sentence:
_(1) Dad, what did you bring that book I didn't want to be read to out of up for?_
and (2) - for which you need the added context that the book was about Australia -  _ Dad, what did you bring that book I didn't want to be read to out of about Down Under up for?_



audiolaik said:


> Which form sounds more idiomatic to you?
> 
> _a) I'd like toast without butter on._
> 
> _b) I'd like toast without butter on it._
> 
> Can one delete the pronoun _it_ from the prepositional phrase?


My answer is "yes, you can". 

_I'd like toast without butter_
_I'd like toast without butter on_
_I'd like toast without butter on it_

They all sound pretty idiomatic to me - although, funnily enough, in the third one I feel the urge to add in "any" before "butter":
_I'd like toast without any butter on it_


----------



## ewie

Loob said:


> (2) - for which you need the added context that the book was about Australia -  _ Dad, what did you bring that book I didn't want to be read to out of about Down Under up for?_


Well done, Loob-rush ~ I _knew_ there was some connexion with Australia to it but couldn't remember it (obviously).

Tomorrow for breakfast I'm intending to have toast with nothing on.


----------



## xebonyx

Again, I would just like to point out that saying "I'd like toast with butter *on*" without "it" following it sounds strange in AE. So this is definitely a difference between AE and BE.


----------



## panjandrum

xebonyx said:


> Again, I would just like to point out that saying "I'd like toast with butter *on*" without "it" following it sounds strange in AE. So this is definitely a difference between AE and BE.


I think the "with (or without) butter on" faction in BE is a minority.  It's certainly not an expression to be heard in my part of the BE world.


----------



## Loob

ewie said:


> Well done, Loob-rush ~ I _knew_ there was some connexion with Australia to it but couldn't remember it (obviously).
> 
> Tomorrow for breakfast I'm intending to have toast with nothing on.


I look forward to that, ewie.

Perhaps you'll send us a photo?


----------



## panjandrum

Toast with nothing on.


----------



## JamesM

To add to the complexity... 

I might say, "plain toast", "dry toast", "unbuttered toast" or "toast with no butter".  I think of them all as reasonable and useable.

"Toast with no butter on it" sounds a little odd to me because toast gets used as a sort of uncountable noun: "Two pieces of toast without butter on it"?  The "it" sounds odd there to me.


----------



## Packard

JamesM said:


> ..."Toast with no butter on it" sounds a little odd to me because toast gets used as a sort of uncountable noun: "Two pieces of toast without butter on it"? The "it" sounds odd there to me.


 

Actually the waiter is not hearing "two slices of toast" but rather "one order of toast". Of course the single order of toast comes with two slices.

I was in a Chinese restaurant once and I wanted one (1) egg roll. The conversation with the waiter went like this:

_"One egg roll please."_
_"One order egg roll--two egg roll."_
_"I'd like one half order of egg rolls--just one egg roll"._
_"No half order! One order--two egg roll."_

So "orders" and "slices" I would think would be like "orders" and "egg rolls".


----------



## cuchuflete

Packard said:


> So "orders" and "slices" I would think would be like "orders" and "egg rolls".



If you will explain what this has to do with "on/on it" in regard to toast, I'll get persuasive with the waiter.  Deal?


----------



## Packard

cuchuflete said:


> If you will explain what this has to do with "on/on it" in regard to toast, I'll get persuasive with the waiter. Deal?


 
I am sorry. I should have expanded more.

Two slices of toast would be "them"; one order of toast would be "it".

I was trying to show that waiters look at these orders in a different light than the consumer might look at them.


----------



## cuchuflete

> I was trying to show that waiters look at these orders in a different light than the consumer might look at them.


Following Packard's deftly placed trail of (unbuttered?) bread crumbs...

And all of this ties back neatly to either a single slice or an entire order (two slices) without butter on/ without butter on it (The Thread Topic!) precisely how?


----------



## Packard

cuchuflete said:


> Following Packard's deftly placed trail of (unbuttered?) bread crumbs...
> 
> And all of this ties back neatly to either a single slice or an entire order (two slices) without butter on/ without butter on it (The Thread Topic!) precisely how?


 
I was commenting on JamesM's comment:

*"Toast with no butter on it" sounds a little odd to me because toast gets used as a sort of uncountable noun: "Two pieces of toast without butter on it"? The "it" sounds odd there to me.*


I guess that is how this thread got to be wondering. 

If I don't go back to the original post on a long thread I run the risk of following it to wherever it meanders.

My fault. I'll try to keep tabs on that in the future.


----------

