I don't have any place to go.

99bottles

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2018
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Greek
Home Country
Greece
Current Location
Greece
I don't have any place to go.

That's the title of a song. I wonder: Shouldn't it be I don't have any place to go to? Or am I wrong?
 

99bottles

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2018
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Greek
Home Country
Greece
Current Location
Greece
No, it shouldn't. Yes, you are.
Can you please explain?

Since go somewhere becomes don't have anywhere to go, shouldn't go to a place become don't have any place to go to?
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
You can treat any place like anywhere:

I don't have any place to go = I don't have anywhere to go
 

99bottles

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2018
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Greek
Home Country
Greece
Current Location
Greece
You can treat any place like anywhere:

I don't have any place to go = I don't have anywhere to go
Is it wrong to add to or just redundant?
 

SoothingDave

VIP Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
"Going to" is natural, if redundant.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
I'd stop short of calling it wrong but I don't think it's good.

I'll point out that this is probably an example of American English, in which some speakers use any place and some place to substitute for anywhere and somewhere. British speakers don't tend to do that.
 

Phaedrus

Key Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I don't have any place to go.

That's the title of a song. I wonder: Shouldn't it be I don't have any place to go to? Or am I wrong?
Both choices are fine, but the syntax is different.

If you use "any place to go," the infinitival relative clause modifying "place" has a silent relative adverb ("where").

If you use "any place to go to," the infinitival relative clause modifying "place" has a silent relative pronoun ("which").

Compare: I don't have any place to which to go.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Silent relative adverbs as opposed to noisy ones?
 

Phaedrus

Key Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Silent relative adverbs as opposed to noisy ones?
Silent as opposed to non-silent.

Silent like the that or which which many would suppose to be tacitly present in a noun phrase with a zero relative clause like the point I made.

If the noun phrase is changed to the point that I made or the point which I made, the that or the which is no longer silent.

Similarly, in finite relatives with relative adverbs (viz., the one in the place where I went yesterday), we have that- and zero-relative correlates:

the place that I went yesterday
the place I went yesterday


We also have a correlate with which, in which correlate the relativized element is no longer a prepositional phrase but a noun phrase, and to is needed:

the place which I went to yesterday

Or with Pied Piping:

the place to which I went yesterday

Similarly, we can have the nonfinite relatives with a tacit relative adverb (any place to go) or a tacit relative pronoun (any place to go to).

In the latter case, we can have Pied Piping, and, when we do, the relative pronoun, though perhaps not noisy, is no longer silent:

any place to which to go
 
Top