(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"
Of is not 'deleted' in the second sentence; it is improperly intruded into the first.
This intrusive of has been common in colloquial English at least since I was a child in the 1950s, but it is not acceptable in formal writing.
As for the article: it is required by the ordinary sense:
He is a man.
It falls after the adjective here because melodramatic is not a direct attributive adjective (He is a melodramatic man) but the first term in the predicate comparison as melodramatic as . . . In fact, it would be entirely proper to write it that way:
He is a man as melodramatic as any I have seen.
There are really two predicates here: the "matrix" predication He is a man and the subordinate predication He is as melodramatic as any man I have ever seen.
Best Answer
As a rule of thumb, I would use "in" for larger items of clothing that clearly contain significant parts of the body (shirt, pants; even hats, shoes, and gloves) and "with" for smaller accessories (including earrings and necklaces). "Wearing" can be used for both, but has a more formal/stuffy tone. "With wearing" is never correct -- use one or the other.
Of course there are many nuances; for example all of these are idiomatic:
but have increasingly strong connotations about how distinctive the red dress was.