ellipsis

[azz]

Can one say:

a. There are a few things left for us to finish the project.
instead of:
b. There are a few things left for us to do to finish the project.


Can one say:

c. There are a few miles left for us to get there.
instead of:
d. There are a few miles left for us to go to get there.

 

[fighting spirit]

Yes, but it would sound more natural if you drop for us

 

[euncu]

***neither a teacher nor a native-speaker***

b. "to do" is redundant.
d. You go from A to B, but you get B, so drop "to go".

 

[fighting spirit]

***neither a teacher nor a native-speaker***

b. "to do" is redundant.
d. You go from A to B, but you get B, so drop "to go".

This is what he says, read more carefully

 

[euncu]

This is what he says, read more carefully

I re-read it, and my answer stands.

 

[fighting spirit]

He asked if he could say

1.

a. There are a few things left for us to finish the project.

which means he dropped to do

2.

c. There are a few miles left for us to get there.

which means he dropped to go

 

[Raymott]

Can one say:

a. There are a few things left for us to finish the project.
instead of:
b. There are a few things left for us to do to finish the project.


Can one say:

c. There are a few miles left for us to get there.
instead of:
d. There are a few miles left for us to go to get there.

I think the second version of each sounds better. You can ellipse out the suggested words, but they are not redundant.
Consider this:
There are still a few things to finish my homework.
This is essentially the same construction. It sounds incomplete without "to do".