The Old English word lang has suffix forms -ling and -long, (“with the direction, duration, or length”), similar to -lic (“with the body or form”) that survives as the very common -ly adverbial suffix form.
The -ling form, once used in words like hinderling (“in the backward direction”) has been supplanted by another usage, the nominal diminutive: darling, yearling. The -long form still survives, with all three senses, in words like headlong, nightlong, and footlong.
The suffix is adverbial in directional modifiers like headlong and arselong, adjectival in metric modifiers like footlong and nightlong. When combined with a quantifier to form an adjectival or adverbial phrase, the metrics compounds break into their component words:
- I ate a footlong sandwich. [adjective]
- This sandwich is one foot long. [adjectival phrase]
- This sandwich measures one foot long. [adverbial phrase]
- We attended a nightlong party. [adjective]
- We stayed at the party the whole night long. [adverbial phrase]
As these express spatial and temporal dimension rather than relationship, it's not clear whether these are adpositions or simply adjectives with an idiomatic phrase order. However, the close similarity to a hole one foot through or party the whole night through suggests that they may indeed be postpositions.
They are both grammatically correct.
With the same consideration in both cases is an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying the verb treat.
That I would a friend is an adjectival clause modifying consideration. The verb in the clause is implied, and in full form would be that I would treat a friend. While the preposition could be added along with the verb, it is not essential. If it were added, the possibilities are
Am I treating this stranger with the same consideration that I would treat a friend with?
Am I treating this stranger with the same consideration with which I would treat a friend?
While both are grammatically correct (assuming you have surrendered on the avoidance of terminal prepositions), they sound clumsy.
The originals sound fine.
Best Answer
It's usually the case that if a preposition works in a sentence, then any other preposition would also be grammatical. However, which you should use depends on your intent - that isn't something we can reliably predict from the rest of the sentence. Here are some examples:
Each sentence is grammatical, but they mean different things.
In your example, you are deciding between in and through.
"In" often carries the idea of boundaries. Saying that the a river flows in Odisha means that within Odisha, the river flows. Perhaps it doesn't flow in the next region. Perhaps it doesn't flow into or out of Odisha. But within Odisha itself, the river certainly flows.
"Through" carries the idea of transition. Saying that a river flows through Odisha implies that the river starts outside Odisha, enters Odisha, then goes out of Odisha.