0

  1. This is not a safe place to live.

  2. This is not a safe place to live in.

What is the difference in meaning between these two sentences? Why prepositions are used at the end of some sentences like sentence 2 or “he gave me a pen to write with.”?

Improve this question
1
  • For the same reason that we don't just write this is not a safe place. (Why bother with to live?) Additional words add additional meaning or nuance.
    – Jason Bassford
    Commented May 18, 2020 at 7:09

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

When the antecedent is 'place', 'in' is optional. But in this case, if we drop the preposition, the sentence sounds good.

"This is not a safe place to live." (= This is not a safe place where you live).

"This is not a safe place to live in." (= This is not a safe place in which you live / which you live in.)

When the antecedent is another noun (NOT, 'Place'), you cannot drop the preposition 'in' :

"This is not a safe city to live in." ✔

"This is not a safe city to live." ✖

Improve this answer
3
  • I do not think both the sentences are different. I think one can easily live without 'in' at the end.
    – Ram Pillai
    Commented May 18, 2020 at 9:47
  • 2
    In my English, This is not a safe city to live is odd, and I can't imagine saying it.
    – Colin Fine
    Commented Dec 13, 2022 at 19:12
  • "to live" seems temporal in this context whereas the sentence as a whole seems geographical, "to live in" seems more geographical
    – Klors
    Commented Dec 13, 2022 at 21:53

You must log in to answer this question.

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