I'm still not able to follow your reasoning. Are you perhaps saying the door, in the process of opening, had moved away from where it originally was, against the jamb/doorpost? That's not how it's expressed.Write says "the man slipped in the house through the space made by the ajar street door". So I thought "from where" might be used.
I see it as not requiring (or able to have) "from":The street door was still open, just a little, where the knife and the man who held it had slipped in.
Adding from (in the sense of “as a result of”) is not out of the question, but for it to read properly you’d have to rewrite the whole thing.
Um... No, It's merely redundant. Seems I'm in good company.No. Whence means "from where", so "from whence" is "from from where".
If anything, the door could remain ajar “from when” the man with the knife came in. If you say “from where” it points the mind towards a more specific location than is given, and it doesn’t make sense.And when I use "from";
The front door was left open that whole night, just a little, from where ( as a result of it) the man who held the knife had slipped in (into the house).
Yes, you British folks seems to love the ambiguities of 'prise' and 'prize'. Nobody here ever says praɪz unless they won one and can't spell too good.That’s the second time “pried open” has been used in this thread, so I looked it up (having previously assumed the first one was a typo ). For the benefit of any other baffled BE-speakers out there, it seems that in American English pry means the same as what in the UK would be prise.
This is a most excellent explanation. The writer is dramatizing just as you explained. Tinkering with 'where' is silly.I think he's using poetic license and personifying the knife. The door was not pried open with the knife. The door was simply unlocked. The man with the knife opened the door, slipped inside and did not fully re-close the door, through inattention to detail, most likely. Once inside, his attention was on other matters.
Saying the "knife slipped in" is simply a literary way of adding drama, giving the knife, as an element of danger, a malevolent place of its own in the story.
The street door was still open, just a little, where the knife and the man who held it had slipped in(side).
In more prosaic terms, he is saying a knife-wielding person has gained entry to the house and, to be specific, his place of entry was through the outside door, which, as evidence of unusual events happening, had been left open just a bit, which was not normal. But he reverses it and first mentions the unusual state of the door, and tells you the unusual state is a result of a knife-wielding intruder entering there. The intruder is in the house. Where did he get into the house? Through that door (not through a window or anywhere else). What did he bring with him? A knife.
Again, agreed. It's a fanciful idea that the knife was used that way.And I don't think it was prised or pried. I think it is simply a creative way of saying a man brought a knife with him when he surreptitiously entered the house. (See my #15.)
"Where" refers to the specific spot on the perimeter of the house that was the point of entry. "From where" would not make sense because that is not an origin that was traveled from, it is simply a specific spot.