A variation of “the places where” in english.
I think more interaction in public places and human traffic on the sidewalks would increase surveillance of the places where people now fear to go. Link
As far as I know, the sentence above can be changed into:
More interaction in public places and human traffic on the sidewalks would increase surveillance of the places people now fear to go.
If people are not on the sidewalks and interact in public spaces, there could be more human traffic there, which would create an environment where people would be unable to be detected and monitored.
In most cases, an antecedent like “place” can be omitted, but in this case, it is impossible because “the places” serves a role as an object.
If people were to be monitored in the streets, which place would the security be concerned about? Is
the first sentence in the previous paragraph really grammatically correct?
If traffic on sidewalks is increased and interactions improved, it will increase authorities surveillance of places more likely to fear to go and not want to be seen. However, people are concerned if the street safety is being compromised.
Please verify my variations of the sentence.
If there is
- more interaction in public places and human traffic on the sidewalks, would this increase surveillance of the places where people fear to go? And not just a pedestrian.
We have two clauses – the main clause ” More interaction in public places and human traffic on the sidewalks would increase surveillance of the places ” and the defining relative clause’where people now fear to go ” (judging by the context); Why do commas separate a general or a significant clause from the rest of the sentence?
The relative pronoun here is ” where ” that is use with places to make it clear which place we are talking about.
If people were able to carry out an earthquake without disturbing other people, would it
- increase the surveillance of the places to which people now fear to go?
” which ” like’where ” here introduces the relative clause. If we include the to-infinitive, we imply direction. … the places to which people now fear to go.
- Where does people fear to
- go? What are some places that people here fear to
visit. (you
- can also use that instead of which)?
- If there is more interaction and more human traffic on the sidewalks would increase surveillance of where people see light. The above example illustrates why: “Person to person interaction is the same as people on the sidewalks”, which is an aesthetically beautiful thing.
If relative clause is used on Noun clause then noun clause is used. What are noun clauses? Here are quite a few examples of such clauses (noun clauses in bold)
- : This is where we sleep.
- I mean go where my mom used to go. I would often go to the same place my mom used to go.
In a sentence, the noun clause will be the dependent clause. In other words, a noun clause does not stand alone as a complete thought.
- Do you think extra interaction in public places and human traffic on the sidewalks would increased surveillance of places people now fear to go?
What is a reduced relative clause? What Is a reduced relative clause if it is not a relative clause? When ‘the object’ is the relative pronoun, it can be omitted. In this sentence ” where ” is omitted and the relative clause becomes a reduced relative clause,…the
- places (where) people now fear to go.
I see fit to include the to-infinitive at the end:…all the places people fear
- to go to.
How can a girl escape from a foreign country to a new country?
