Reduced relative clauses.

[man of manners]

Hi!
Can you, please, tell me what was removed from the following sentences and what is the general rule of the reduction of the following clauses?
1- This is the road he travelled.
2- He had no place to stay. [Shouldn't we say "place to stay in?"]
3- It is the same speed this machine is used.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Matthew Wai]

1. This is the road on which he travelled.
2. He had no place to stay in.
3. It is the same speed at which this machine runs.

 

[man of manners]

What is the general rule?

 

[Raymott]

Have you checked the web?
"reduced relative clause rules"
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sou...pv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=reduced relative clause rules

 

[Matthew Wai]

Also see 'contact relative clause' at https://www.google.com/?ion=1&espv=2#q=contact+relative+clause

 

[PaulMatthews]

[1] "This is the road he travelled".
[2] "He had no place to stay".
[3] "It is the same speed this machine is used".

In [1] "he travelled" is a 'bare' relative clause, the kind without the subordinator "that". In [2], "to stay" is an infinitival relative clause (compare the finite relative "He had no place where he could stay") and in [3], a preposition (or preposition phrase) is required to make it grammatical: either the bare relative "... the speed this machine is used at" or "... the speed at which this machine is used".

I wouldn't say that these examples are 'reduced relative clauses'. That term (in my experience) is normally applied to constructions like "Students living on campus must attend the meeting", where the relative pronoun and "be" are deleted; compare "Students who are living on campus ...".

 

[man of manners]

You can travel (transitive) a road, so there is no necessity for a preposition

What if it is: This is the road he walked?

Have you checked the web?
"reduced relative clause rules"
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sou...pv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=reduced relative clause rules

Yes, I checked the internet so many times.

Also see 'contact relative clause' at https://www.google.com/?ion=1&espv=2#q=contact+relative+clause

Thanks, Matthew.

[2] "He had no place to stay".
In [2], "to stay" is an infinitival relative clause (compare the finite relative "He had no place where he could stay")

OK, why did we not say "He had no place to stay at"?

and in [3], a preposition (or preposition phrase) is required to make it grammatical: either the bare relative "... the speed this machine is used at" or "... the speed at which this machine is used".

I somewhat feel it informal but correct.

I wouldn't say that these examples are 'reduced relative clauses'. That term (in my experience) is normally applied to constructions like "Students living on campus must attend the meeting", where the relative pronoun and "be" are deleted; compare "Students who are living on campus ...".

Thanks for this note.

 

[man of manners]

I still need answers.

 

[ChinaDan]

2. He had no place to stay at.

You don't stay "in" in a place, you stay "at" a place.

 

[Raymott]

I still need answers.

There's no general rule. There are a few 'rules' or conventions, all of which are quite well set out in the links you've been given.
Are you having trouble accessing those links?
If you are looking for an over-arching general rule for reducing clauses, and cannot find one, it's probably because it doesn't exist. The examples will show you that there are several (a non-specific number) ways of doing it.