(original) It was given to me by a kind woman. (passive voice—using "by" makes it passive.)
A kind woman gave it to me. (same thought, but transformed to active voice)
The active voice phrasing has only one prepositional phrase ("to me".) The preposition "to" indicates the indirect object "me"; the direct object "it"needs no preposition.
I hope you can see that there is no logical need for (nor even a possibility of) a conjunction in the active voice construction, so there is likewise no logical need for a conjunction in the original construction.
Your example of the moonlight walk on top of the building uses a longer series of prepositional phrases.
Let's take a different example to see how this works:
- the keyhole of the lock in the door by the gate of the city...
The prepositional phrases attach consecutively, each preposition applying at its own level to link one noun logically to the next.
One can continue this indefinitely.
The A [of the B [in the C [by the D [of the E]]]]...
There is no need for a conjunction, because each noun has only one relation to the next one, which is fully specified by that preposition.
You might think of this as a stack, or a nest. The reader parses the multiple prepositional phrases by "unstacking" or "unwrapping" as indicated by the brackets, like evaluating a mathematical expression with parentheses. The nesting itself defines the relationships of the elements. Thus:
- the keyhole is of the lock, which is in the door, which is by the gate, which is of the city.
That's it. As we say... "No Ifs, Ands or buts about it!" http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/no+ifs+ands+or+buts+about+it
Or more accurately:
No Ands or Ors.
No conjunction needed. None possible. None "elided".
+++++++++
oh, by the way, it's more idiomatic to say "under the moonlight" or "by the light of the moon"
It's a matter of style and good usage. It's generally agreed that of is not necessary after off in such sentences.
Chicago Manual of Style recommends this:
off. Never put of after this word {we got off the bus}.
Cambridge Grammar of the English Language says this:
Off licenses an of phrase only in AmE (%He fell off of the wall).
There's a limited amount of prepositions that select of as head of their complement: because, exclusive, irrespective, abreast, ahead, instead, regardless, upward(s),
east, north, south, west, alongside, inside, out, outside. With off it's optional.
She took it out of the box
She pulled it off the shelf.
Best Answer
The use of prepositions is not determined by general rules. It is a mess of special cases. But the rules about determiners do follow general rules.
Nouns that are proper names do not take determiners. Nouns that are mass nouns do not take determiners. Nouns that are countable nouns, are in the singular, and are not being used as proper names do require determiners. There is a more complex rule for plural countable nouns that is not relevant to your question.
"Sunlight" is an odd noun. If I go outside, can I count how many "sunlights" there are? No. That indicates "sunlight" can be considered a mass noun in some contexts. However, there are many sources of light, of which sunlight is one. So in other contexts, "sunlight" can be considered a countable noun. Thus, whether a determiner is needed depends on intended meaning in a specific context.
"Sun" is most definitely a countable noun. How many are there in this solar system? One. No doubt at all. Determiners apply to singular uses of "sun" unless it is being used as a proper name.
When we get to the prepositions, the rules are numerous and fuzzy and subject to many exceptions. "In" is generally used to specify a state of being surrounded rather than a direction. Sunlight envelops us outdoors (unless it is night or cloudy). So the "sound" of "in" seems "natural" to a native speaker. If we were surrounded by the sun, we would be fried to a crisp in an instant. The sun is distant and has a distinct direction associated with it; it is above us, and we are below it. So it "sounds natural" to say "under the sun." However, if "the sun" is being equated conceptually to "sunlight," it will then sound just as natural to say "in the sun" because there is no directionality being referenced.
Personally, I would say "dry in the sun." "Dry under the sun," "dry in the sunlight," and "dry in sunlight" sound a little odd to me. The first because the directionality implied by "under" is irrelevant in context; the second and third because heat rather than light is the actual drying agent. But I suspect that these judgments are mere personal preference. I certainly shall not say that the three variants I disfavor are ungrammatical.