0

And Brandon wasn’t acting maliciously. Instead, he was complying with everything I asked of him, to the point that he was living out of a hotel despite having the legal right to reside with me here, in a house he apparently co-owned. If it were all some elaborate lie, then what was he gaining from it?

I don't know what "in" does in the sentence "in a house he apparently co-owned"

I think if I remove "in", the sentence is also correct.

Am I right? or it can't be deleted, because there is a function of "in" I don't know.

EDIT: the source is here

1 Answer 1

2

No, it can't be deleted. You reside (live) in a house. It's a very common function of 'in'.

I suppose it could be argued that a house he apparently co-owned defines here, but the sentence really would not sound natural with out the 'in'.

NB You really need to give the source of a sentence that you ask about.

2
  • so the part of the sentence should be. "Despite having the legal right to reside in a house he apparently co-owned with me here." since reside in a house he apparently co-owned is too long, so,the author just put it behind. right ?
    – novice
    Feb 18, 2023 at 15:54
  • No, the sentence is fine as it is. The speaker says that Brandon has the right to live 'here' with her, and then adds the reason - that he part-owns the house. Feb 18, 2023 at 16:18

You must log in to answer this question.

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