In the original question there was some confusion,
why we omit with when we say... grammatically, it's the same as
"I have no ball to play soccer with". In this case, having with is
correct, while in the case of the first sentence, it feels weird to have with at the end of the sentence. Also, "I have no
time to study" and "I have no one to study with"... how would I
explain why we omitted with in the first sentence?
and one couldn't possible give a rational answer. OP was mixing, confusing the concepts of 'grammatical', 'correct' and 'feel weird, and in the last example he was asking why we don't say:
- "I have no time to study with"
what can one possibly answer? what has grammar got to do with an absurd concept/ proposition?
this question reports
it sounds better...
Indeed, the 'with' feels redundant
'with' here would make it ungrammatical I have no ball to play with. As one of the answers in the quoted
question says, it may be okay to use 'with which' Given that the version
without 'with which' sounds right, it might be argued that this
version with 'with which' may be redundant and thus as unidiomatic
.. But native speakers seem to find
the former grammatical...
(1) I have no money I can buy a bed. (??)..
(2) I have no money I can buy a bed with...
(3) I have no money with which I can buy a bed. Here, it seems clear
to me that 'with' cannot be omitted,
Again, what can one answer to this rambling? answer if it is grammatical, ungrammatical not ungrammatical, sounds/feels right, is or feels reduntant, is idiomatic or unidiomatic (whatever that means) or is okay? What does 'okay' mean: correct, incorrect, grammatical, that feels correct or not weird?:
"Before jumping ... Citing a reference is not obligatory to get the
bounty, although I'd prefer one. - JK2"
What reference can one quote to affirm that a sentence feels okay, or is/feels redundant?, I ask!
Now, let's come to the:
Therefore, I'd say that the idiomatic "I have no money to buy a bed"
resisting with at the end is more of an exception in the sense that
corresponding finite relative clauses do require 'with' either at the
beginning or at the end of the clause, and that the corresponding
infinitive clause with 'which' requires 'with'.What do you think triggers this exception?
It may be worthwhile to note that the version with "with" is not
I have no money to buy a bed with. Some native speakers might find
this version more correct -- if not more common -- than the one
lacking "with". -JK2
The question is not only confused, but loaded: he has already decided it is an exception and is asking what is the reason of that exception.
Now, it takes some time to digest this question, it seems to regard the difference between the 2 forms, the first of which is the exception, if I got it wrong he will correct me:
- I have no money to buy a bed (idiomatic, an exception to the rule)
- I have no money to buy a bed with (not ungramatical)
Ellie Kesselman replied that the correct form is: "I have no money with which to buy a bed." wasn't it enough?
Mari-Lou confirm this is correct, but, in her opinion, it sounds formal and prefers "I have no money to buy a bed (food). Which is correct, too. She does not directly answer the question, but we may infer from another example (I have no ball to play soccer with. [modern]) that she thinks that "I have no money to buy a bed with" sounds correct and 'modern', to boot.
phaedrus, user78549, Andy ielding etc., do not like that form. "I suspect that when we depart from the resource/object during the act, we feel weird to use 'with' ". - phaedrus
Grammar has nothing to do with this: some thinks it is okay, and so does OP. I will not express my opinion because it is just an opinion and I'm sure that if it ìsounds weird* to me, it is not relevant or interesting.
I'll only reply to the question affirming that
*I have no money to buy a bed (idiomatic, an exception to the rule)* is neither idiomatic nor an exception to any rule it is only a short (elliptical) form of the formal canonical: "I have no money [with which]..
that the second form requires a far more complex (if not mirror-climbing) canonical grammatical justification
I'd like to know if you think that you could readily omit prepositions
from Prem's 3rd-7th examples,.... and if you still think that Prem's 4th
example is not an exception, - JK2
I think I have identified the concept you are missing: register
The concept of 'grammatical' is different from the concept of 'appropriate', 'right', 'acceptable', 'sounds good/ okay', that's why I kept repeating it and I hope that after reading that article now you can understand.
What is 'grammatically incorrect' can be quite acceptable, can 'sound/be okay':
- in different situations
- to a) people belonging to different areas, b) social classes, c) levels of education
Just to give you a strong example, if you are in a certain area, among a certain group of people:
- "I don't need nobody" sounds okay, as a straw poll of six native speakers will certify!
Conversely, what is grammatically correct is not acceptable in different situations. I suppose no examples are needed, as you surely know that the same correct proposition you say to your friends you can't say to your professor.
In addition to this complex situation, the very concept of correct changes with time, and a statement is true only here and now
If/ when you understand that, you'll understand what so many posters have told you. The state of the art, now, is that a preposition at the end is correct in a few cases. Outside that, the context and only the context can tell you if it sounds okay or not.
- "I have no bed to buy a bed [with]"
the preposition simply **should not be there*. Period. But, in a sitting-room, in a pub, or among low-educated people, it can be anything. Nobody can be blamed, except a teacher who teaches his/her students what is acceptable only in a pub.
In case it is not yet clear, I'll comply with your request, adding a last remark, and then I'll drop out of the discussion:
- examples 1, 2 do not require a preposition at all, I do not see why they are here: adding a preposition would be simply irrational, nothing to do with grammar,
- examples 3-7 are all alike, they have the same structure, so I can't see why you are singling it out, it is no exception. There is no difference in meaning, the preposition is redundant, useless as far as meaning is concerned. Therefore I, for one, see no reason why one should add something which is useless, especially when it is an infraction of current grammatical standards