detected through

[navi tasan]

Is this sentence correct:

1-The object was not detected through security.

I assume the meaning is that it was not detected when it went through security (and not that it was not detected by means of security).


It seems a very smart and concise way of expressing the idea, but I don't know if it is grammatical or not.


Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/15/amanda-seyfried-knife-plane-tsa_n_4970495.html

Gratefully,
Navi.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I think "by" would be better.

 

[Barb_D]

Note that it was a tweet where brevity is the primary virtue.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Is "by" more wordy than "through"?

 

[5jj]

No, but the brevity point refers to Navi's "I assume the meaning is that it was not detected when it went through security (and not that it was not detected by means of security)."

 

[MikeNewYork]

I see no substantive difference.

 

[Barb_D]

What I mean is that while "by" is a better word, Navi should not consider the original tweet, which used "through," to be a "smart and concise way of expressing 'when it went through security'" in normal writing. In a tweet, it's understood that we abbreviate our thoughts.

 

[navi tasan]

Yes! That is what I wanted to know. Mike's version is, as usual, flawless. But I do believe that it is not what Amanda Seyfried wanted to say. Her version is incorrect in normal English, as Barb_D has pointed out. And yet, she has made a good mistake in that she has condensed a lot of stuff into one sentence. It is a mistake, but it is a smart one. That's the way I see it. Therefore, you are both correct.

Gratefully,
Navi.