live in

Question

Hi,"He has no house to live in.""The room is too small for five persons to live."Can someone explain to me why there should not be an 'in' after 'live' in the second example whereas it is OK (even necessary?) to have it in the first example? Thank you.

Clive · Accepted Answer

Both need in.

Sandy sandyjr · Answer

Hello, I guess you are simply asking what is difference between "He has no house to live in" and "he has no house to live". What I am getting is that, if we don't use "in" or use it what the difference in meaning will there be?....so there are two main question are

1 Is it okay to end sentences with the preposition? and

2. when a verb comes with preposition like as "in" or "to" what does it actually mean ?....

The answer of first question is, it is perfectly okay if we end sentences with preposition. But if the sentence means same thing after removing the preposition then we should not use it.
For example Where are you at? mean the same where are you ? so in this case we need not to use preposition at the end.

The answer of second question is when we use "in" or "to" with the verb it is called "phrasal verb" or "infinitive" ......."Live in" is phrasal verb and "To live" is infinitive they are used according to flow of language. They simply enhance the fluency and beauty of language. You will come to know this when you spend so much time in listening English language.

so in your first sentence it is important to use "in" to enhance the beauty of language. It seems more nice when we say "He has no house to live in" than "he has no house to live".
And in your second sentence, if we use "in" still the sentence mean the same thing so if is okay if we don't use "in". Just like the sentence "Where are you?"

SuperESL · Answer

Thanks for your very detailed explanation.

I think what I was wondering about is if it is even permissible for 'in' to be omitted in either sentence.

I feel that "He has no house to live." simply would not do. The 'in' has to be there.

But "The house is too small for five persons to live." for some reason sounds acceptable. And I have come across a rather dated grammar book that actually says there should not be an 'in' for this sentence after 'live,' and I couldn't figure out why.

My own feeling is that the 'in' should be not only acceptable but compulsory for both sentences. Would you say putting it this way is a bit too strong?

Thank you.

Avangi · Answer

SuperESLI feel that "He has no house to live." simply would not do. The 'in' has to be there.

Right! "He has no house to live." is nonsense.

Sandy sandyjr · Answer

Yes, you are right. "in" should be acceptable in both sentences. But when it comes to make something "compulsory"; the answer is if it is increasing the "fluency" of language then it automatically comes, we need not to make it "compulsory". If it is not increasing "fluency" in spite of making compulsory no one would use it. My point is, "Language is the first then grammar."

t's OK to end sentences with prepositions when the preposition isn't extraneous - See more at: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/ending-a-sentence-with-a-preposition?page=all#sthash.G1pyR4XB.dpuf

CalifJim · Answer

SuperESL"He has no house to live in.""The room is too small for five persons to live."
Can someone explain to me why there should not be an 'in' after 'live' in the second example

Where did you get the idea that there should not be an "in" after "live" in the second example? Not so. In fact, it sounds strange without "in".

... house to live in.
... too small to live in.

CJ

SuperESL · Answer

I actually feel the same way. It's just a grammar book I have that says otherwise.

CalifJim · Answer

SuperESLI actually feel the same way. It's just a grammar book I have that says otherwise.

Ah! Just a grammar book. Well, who needs grammar books anyway?

CJ

Cool Breeze · Answer

In careless speech prepositions are sometimes dropped. I'm not saying this is right but it does happen. I think it was a singer called Chuck Berry who sang about "no particular place to go." The verb go was used as a transitive verb in the song. If that is right, then these, too, must be right by the same logic:

He went several places on his holiday.
We'll go that place tomorrow.
I have never gone that place.

Sorry, one more for A

Anonymous · Answer

Both of the sentences need 'in' but it is an adverb not a preposition because it has no object.

live in

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions