places we have to go <to>

Curiosity777

Senior Member
Korean
1.There are still a lot of places we have to go.
2.There are still a lot of places we have to go to.
(No context, I made these sentences to know which one is strictly grammatically correct.)

I've asked some native speakers which sentence is grammatically correct, but they gave different answers. Two in three of them told me 1 is grammatically correct, but the rest told me 1 is wrong but 2 is correct.

I have no idea whose opinion is really right and why their opinions are different.

To my way of thinking, 1 is wrong, because a relative pronoun implied between places and we cannot be the adverb of "go". So, I think to make 1 grammtically correct, we should rephrase it as "There are still a lot of places for us to go".
 
  • KHS

    Senior Member
    I'm not entirely sure, but I think there's something about having PLACES as the preceding noun ... maybe making the relative pronoun that is omitted be WHERE - places (WHERE) we have to go. The idea of "to" is implicit in WHERE, just as any preposition is implicit when WHEN is the relative pronoun.

    That's my best guess as to why I find it acceptable.
     

    Curiosity777

    Senior Member
    Korean
    :eek: No! Certainly not!

    But to go to can be considered a transitive phrasal verb that means "visit".
    You said 1 is following the pattern that you suggested and in which, "a lot of things" is obviously the direct object of "do". If certainly not, what is the reason you gave me the pattern as an example for 1?
     

    PaulQ

    Senior Member
    UK
    English - England
    If certainly not, what is the reason you gave me the pattern as an example for 1?
    :rolleyes:
    Please read what I said!

    1.There are still a lot of places [that] we have to go.

    [that] we have to go is a relative clause (and/or acts adjectivally) qualifying "places." The transitivity of a relative clause is not relevant. Places is not the object of "go".
     

    dojibear

    Senior Member
    English - Northeast US
    I won't comment on grammar (PaulQ is the expert).

    I agree with KHS. Both sentences are acceptable in AE. Here is the reason:

    To an AE speaker you clearly mean "visit" when you say "go to". The sentences cannot possibly mean "go/go to" as a 1-way trip to each of these "many places". When I read these sentences, I read "visit". So they mean the same to me:

    1.There are still a lot of places we have to must go visit.
    2.There are still a lot of places we have to must go to visit.

    Native speakers automatically (unconsciously) reject incorrect meanings. We must, to understand our language.

    For example, "He threw the ball." Did he toss it, cheat at it, yell at it, confuse it, mold it? "Throw" has 22 meanings. "A ball" is a toy, a shape, a bullet, a formal dance, and other things. So in the process of understanding "He threw the ball." I rejected about 30 meanings in 1 second. Similarly I see "visit", not "go".

    Sorry for getting side-tracked. Language is fun :D
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top