0

I think 3 of them are right.

  1. I cannot go to where I was raped.

  2. I cannot go to the place where I was raped.

  3. I cannot go to the place that I was raped at.

But, I'm not sure this one is right.

  1. I cannot go to where I was raped at.

Can you just tell me which one is acceptable and not from 1 to 4?

Improve this question
3
  • To is required in #1. #2 is 0K. At, though unnecessary, can be used in informal English. #4 sounds 0K.
    – Khan
    Commented Nov 28, 2015 at 11:56
  • 1
    @Khan To is not required in #1.
    – StoneyB on hiatus
    Commented Nov 28, 2015 at 12:20
  • 1
    StoneyB, Thanks for correcting me. It was a typo. Not was inadvertantly left out..
    – Khan
    Commented Nov 28, 2015 at 12:28

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1
  1. I cannot go to where I was raped.

The word 'where' in the sentence has been used as a conjunction that means "to a place in which". So the use of the preposition 'to' is unnecessary in the sentence. We should go where it's quieter (The Free Dictionary).

  1. I cannot go to the place where I was raped.

The sentence is correct grammatically. The 'where' has been used as a relative pronoun that also means at or in a place in which".

  1. I cannot go to the place that I was raped at.

This sentence is also OK; that has been used as a relative pronoun. The preposition 'at' in the end position sounds correct.

  1. I cannot go to where I was raped at.

In light of explanation for the sentence #1, if you remove the prepositions to and at, the sentence will sound natural.

Improve this answer
0

Some people who are so pedant say "you can never end the sentence with a preposition". Some agree, others don't.

There are two types of relative pronouns. One is the type which requires antecedents such as which, who, that, etc. and the other one doesn't always require antecedents. No. 1 is the example for the latter. Some call it headless relative pronoun or relative adverb. Whichever it is called, it has a different function from the former.

I cannot go to the place at (in) which I was raped.

In the above sentence, the antecedent of the relative pronoun which is the place. Without this antecedent, which can't be used. at which or in which can be changed to where as in:

I cannot go to the place where I was raped.

If you put a preposition at or in after "raped", it would be ungrammatical because you are repeating the same preposition twice as in:

*I cannot go to the place at which I was raped at.

The above sentence is marked by * because it is ungrammatical and can't be used. Whenever you find relative adverbs such as when, where, why and how, you don't use a preposition at the end of a sentence.

No. 4 is a construction where the antecedent of where the place is omitted. If you put it back before where, it would be No. 2 sentence.

Note: at in No. 3 sentence is optional as that is broadly used as a relative adverb.

Edit:

No. 1 and No. 4 sentences have to after go and they are not necessary. You don't need to use to there.

Improve this answer
5
  • Which of them is/are correct?
    – V.V.
    Commented Nov 28, 2015 at 14:59
  • @V.V. All the sentences not marked by * are correct.
    – user24743
    Commented Nov 28, 2015 at 15:41
  • I mean those in the question (four).
    – V.V.
    Commented Nov 28, 2015 at 16:14
  • 1
    I like your answer but l would like to know your opinion about using "to" in the first and the fourth sentences.
    – V.V.
    Commented Nov 28, 2015 at 16:33
  • @V.V. If you consider the place is omitted, both of them are right, but less popular and idiomatic. You don't need to use to in both sentences. I think I had better edit my answer. Thank you for your comment.
    – user24743
    Commented Nov 28, 2015 at 16:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .