I have noticed that "as close as possible" is sometimes followed by "to where" instead of a noun. The bold text in square brackets is added by me.

To speed up the flow of data, electrons need to be turned into photons "as close as possible to [the point] where the signal is processed", explains Bert Offrein of IBM Research.

Health services would ideally be available as close as possible to [the places] where people live and be affordable.

I know that relative pronouns are sometimes omitted as well, e.g.

I suppose [that] you don't like Jim.

In style guides addressed to writing for global audience, it is sometimes advised to not omit relative pronouns since they make the text more clear.

If I want to give a recommendation to not omit the nouns after "as close as possible" (for the same reason) (and in similar cases), how would I call these nouns? Or how I can describe such an omission in other way?

  • 2
    Syntactically, there's no real difference between as close as possible and near in your context (except that the former must be followed by preposition to, whereas Health services are available near where I live is fine without optional to). But note that you never need to include a noun phrase such as the places before where - the first word in Where I live is near London functions perfectly well as the subject noun in that sentence without me explicitly specifying The town where I live... So arguably there is no "omission" anyway. Oct 11, 2020 at 12:49
  • @FumbleFingersReinstateMonica So in other words such an omission is more acceptable than omission of relative pronouns?
    – user90726
    Oct 11, 2020 at 13:29
  • 1
    Like I said, it's not really a case of "omission". It's just that there's no absolute reason to introduce additional text between to and where in your example context. This is nothing to do with the fact that the relativiser that is optional in many contexts. Oct 11, 2020 at 13:34


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .