[Style] "the place to live in" vs "the place to live"

[simile]

When we say "to live in the place," there is a preposition "in." Therefore, when "to-V" becomes the modifier of "the place," the preposition "in" should also be there to complete its function--thus "the place to live in.'

However, the teacher's manual I'm using (in Taiwan) has the guidelines that say "when some specific nouns like 'place, day and time' are used, the preposition can also be omitted."

Is this true to American, British and Australian style? Is it awkward or natural? Should the omission of the preposition be applied to only these three words "place, day and time" or should there be more nouns that can be used like this? And in what kind of category(nature, objects, tools, seasons,....) should we predict and expect to see this?

Why do you think you can accept the omission of preposition? Is it a trend in oral English but not in written? Or is it also a formal writing style? Is there a country difference? Is the reason also unknown even for native speakers?

Thank you in advance.

 

[bhaisahab]

When we say "to live in the place," there is a preposition "in." Therefore, when "to-V" becomes the modifier of "the place," the preposition "in" should also be there to complete its function--thus "the place to live in.'

However, the teacher's manual I'm using (in Taiwan) has the guidelines that say "when some specific nouns like 'place, day and time' are used, the preposition can also be omitted."

Is this true to American, British and Australian style? Is it awkward or natural? Should the omission of the preposition be applied to only these three words "place, day and time" or should there be more nouns that can be used like this? And in what kind of category(nature, objects, tools, seasons,....) should we predict and expect to see this?

Why do you think you can accept the omission of preposition? Is it a trend in oral English but not in written? Or is it also a formal writing style? Is there a country difference? Is the reason also unknown even for native speakers?

Thank you in advance.

It depends on context.

 

[simile]

So I guess this would be something like a trend in the language users' feelings. In some unspeakable contexts, speakers tend to omit the preposition while others, don't. It's like a kind of speakers' option for some contexts in which the omission wouldn't do any harm to the meaning. But this is only limited to some specific wording.

 

[bhaisahab]

So I guess this would be something like a trend in the language users' feelings. In some unspeakable contexts, speakers tend to omit the preposition while others, don't. It's like a kind of speakers' option for some contexts in which the omission wouldn't do any harm to the meaning. But this is only limited to some specific wording.

There is nothing wrong with omitting the preposition in sentences like "It's a nice place to live", in fact it's more natural without it. However, the preposition is necessary in "I live in Timbuctoo", for example.

 

[Chicken Sandwich]

So I guess this would be something like a trend in the language users' feelings. In some unspeakable contexts, speakers tend to omit the preposition while others, don't. It's like a kind of speakers' option for some contexts in which the omission wouldn't do any harm to the meaning. But this is only limited to some specific wording.

NOT A TEACHER

Two more examples that you may find helpful:

Kagoshima is a good place to live/work/be. :tick:
Kagoshima is a good city to live/work/be. :cross:

See this thread.

 

[5jj]

More than three months later, I still haven't come up with a convincing explanation.

 

[emsr2d2]

Their is nothing wrong with omitting the preposition in sentences like ...

There is nothing wrong with omitting the preposition but there just might be something wrong with your post! ;-)

 

[Chicken Sandwich]

More than three months later, I still haven't come up with a convincing explanation.

Are you sure that there is an explanation? I'm no expert by any means, but I believe that so many things in English do not really have a logical explanation. It's certainly odd that you can leave out "in" with "place" but not with "city" or "country" as the difference isn't all that signigicant, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's just 'the way it is'. Just throwing it out there .

 

[5jj]

Are you sure that there is an explanation?

No

 

[simile]

How can I tell my students why the omission is acceptable and correct? Can I interpret it as a modern usage? And this is only applicable to the three words "time, place and day." And do not generalize it to other words.
...kill John at the time --> ...the time to kill John (The omission of "at" is correct.)
...marry Linda on the very day --> ...the very day to marry Linda (The omission of "on" is correct.)
...live in the place --> ...the place to live (The omission of "in" is correct.)


"Sunday is the very day to marry Linda on." --> This sounds unnatural to me, too!!
"Copenhagen is a beautiful place to live in." --> It sounds good.
"Copenhagen is a beautiful place to live." --> It sounds good.
"Copenhagen is a beautiful city to live." --> Is this OK? (Maybe OK to spoken English?)
"Mamamia is the restaurant to have dinner in" --> Unnatural!!


What about wh-clause?
"...the place where I live" -->OK
"...the place which I live in" --> OK
''...the place in which I live" --> OK
"...the place which I live" --> NOT OK!!