5

From Cat's Cradle (Vonnegut).

"The highest possible form of treason," said Minton, "is to say that Americans aren't loved wherever they go, whatever they do. Claire tried to make the point the American foreign policy should recognize hate rather than imagine love."

"I guess Americans are hated a lot of places."

"People are hated a lot of places. Claire pointed out in her letter...."

How would you describe the grammar in this sentence? Is there a zero copula equivalent for prepositions?

4
  • 1
    I can't make any comment on the grammar in play one way or the other (I'm not qualified), but I can tell you that simply reading the sentence naively, nothing rings wrong about it to my ear. It might seem a little smoother phrased "hated [in] a lot of places", or it might not. Really, it seems fine as it stands to me.
    – Dan Bron
    Commented Apr 24, 2015 at 11:44
  • 1
    I can't see anything wrong with it. There's no rule saying we always have to use a preposition wherever possible. This one seems similar to, say, I have been many places (which is in fact less common with the preposition to). Commented Apr 24, 2015 at 12:16
  • 3
    In your title you assume something is wrong, and none of us (so far) agree. What do you think the problem with it is?
    – Useless
    Commented Apr 24, 2015 at 12:25
  • 2
    It seems the word places, in phrases like other places, many places and a lot of places, can behave like an adverb. "People speak funny other places" and "people walk fast a lot of places" sound fine. But "people speak funny Boston" and "people walk fast New York" both need the in. And in fact, just by itself, "I've been places" is okay. Commented Apr 24, 2015 at 12:39

1 Answer 1

3

This sentence, grammatically, is perfectly fine. It sounds better as "...are hated in a lot of places." but that's just personal opinion.

You must log in to answer this question.

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