This question already has an answer here:

The two sentences I encountered when I read grammar book are as follows:

  1. I had no place to live in.
  2. A good place to eat is the Sichuan restaurant around the corner.

Regarding the 1st sentence, the grammar book says the infinitive phrase to live in serves as attributive to modify place. The sentence can be changed into: I had no place in which I can live. And there must be a preposition in to form the phrase to live in the place.

Thus, if the rule of the grammar book is right, there should be a preposition at right after eat and the sentence will be A good place to eat at is the Sichuan restaurant around the corner for the 2nd one, which makes up the phrase A good place at which we can eat.

So, what do I want to know now is which one is right or both of them are correct?

marked as duplicate by Edwin Ashworth, Community Mar 14 '18 at 3:37

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
    Both should be ok when used in everyday speech, unless you're known for eating buildings. – as4s4hetic Mar 12 '18 at 6:46
  • @as4s4hetic Thanks for your reply. What about the 1st sentence without the preposition in, thus changed into I had no place to live. is it still correct? – kevin4fly Mar 12 '18 at 6:52
  • 1
    It is not natural to include the "in" or the "at". See here link and here link – BillJ Mar 12 '18 at 7:53
  • Of course, unless you're going there to eat the place. The "at" is nearly always elided in a sentence like this and it actually sounds much better without the "at," in spite of being both semantically and grammatically inadequate. – Kris Mar 12 '18 at 8:07
  • The infinitivals function as adjuncts of place. The "in" and at" components are contributed by the locative meaning of the adjuncts and hence there is no need to repeat them. – BillJ Mar 12 '18 at 9:10