I have no money to buy a bed [with]
BACKGROUND
In this question, it was asked why it sounds better to omit 'with' in
I have no money to buy a bed (with).
whereas 'with' sounds right in
I have no ball to play soccer with.
Indeed, the 'with' feels redundant at best in
I have no money to buy a bed with.
On the other hand, leaving out 'with' here would make it ungrammatical
I have no ball to play soccer. (??)
This is not limited to 'soccer'
I have no ball to play. (??)
Instead, it should be:
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' as in:
I have no money with which to buy a bed.
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 as I have no money to buy a bed with. But native speakers seem to find the former grammatical.
Now, moving on to the finite relative clause, compare these:
(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, unlike the infinitive relative clause.
QUESTION
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?
EDIT
It may be worthwhile to note that the version with "with" is not ungrammatical:
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".
Here, grammar is not the main issue; It is what people will understand by your statement.
I have no reason to buy a bed.
I have no inclination to buy a bed.
I have no room to put a bed [in].
I have no money to buy a bed [with].
I know of no good shop to buy a bed [from].
I have no family to buy a bed [for].
I have no other furniture to put a bed [beside]. (this might be in response to a salesman saying "Here is a colourful bed which will add glamour to a bookshelf or a desk nearby")
Here, the first two statements do not require any word after "bed", while all the remaining can take a preposition.
These are all grammatically fine, but if contemporary folks can understand the statements without a preposition (the last word in square brackets) & if they think it is "pompous" to use that preposition, then drop it. If they do not understand the meaning or they feel that it sounds incomplete, then use the preposition. My choice is to use the preposition, atleast where the meaning changes without it.
Depending on whether the preposition is included or not, the two sentences (while being grammatically correct) will have two slightly different meanings, so most of my examples require the last word to completely convey the intended meaning. In the case of the fourth example, the preposition may be dropped, without much change in conveyed meaning, because money is usually used for buying things with. Hence, native speakers will have the tendency to drop it, I guess.
In order to play a game of soccer you need ability and a ball, so it's quite natural to say:
(i) I can play (soccer). (ii) I can't play (soccer) (iii) I can play soccer with a ball (iv) I can't play soccer without a ball.
Likewise it is possible to use the modal can with the verb buy
(i) I can buy. (ii) I can't buy (note that we are speaking about the ability to buy, no object is required, sentences (i) and (ii) stand on their own.) (iii) I can buy food. (iv) I can buy food with money. (v) I can't buy food without money
to have no + object
- I have no money. [to do with what?]
- I have no money with which to buy [to buy what?]
- I have no money with which to buy food. [outdated]
- I have no money to buy food with. [the same meaning as 3.]
- I have no money to buy food. [grammatical]
To specify that you buy food with money is tautological. Can sentence 5 stand alone? Yes, it can. The positive sentence “I have money with which to buy food” is grammatical but it sounds very formal. By deleting “with which” we have a more modern sounding sentence:
- I have money to buy food. [YES]
- I have no ball [to do with what?]
- I have no ball with which to play [to play what?]
- I have no ball with which to play soccer. [outdated]
- I have no ball to play soccer with. [modern]
Delete soccer and we're left with
- I have no ball to play with
In #2. which refers to ball. If the object of the sentence was friend then whom could be used.
- I have no friend with whom to play.
This is quite formal and today's native speakers may find it pompous-sounding and artificial. Nowadays, it is more common to hear:
- I have no friend to play with.
delete with and we're left with
- *I have no friend to play [?]
This sentence is incomplete. In positive sentences, we would not normally say
-
I have a friend to play.[NO]
- What does the speaker need a friend for?
- To play (soccer) with.
- I have a friend with whom to play. [YES]
- I have a friend to play with. [YES]
- I have a friend who I play with. [YES]
This construction also holds true in the negative; therefore, after the clause I have no friend we can insert with whom before the verb to play as in sentence #2, or we add the preposition with at the end of the sentence as in #5.
The preposition with refers to the friend. You play with a friend. Similarly you can play soccer with a friend. You don't play with soccer; e.g. *I play with soccer. [NO] However, you play soccer with a ball. Here with tells us that a ball is used in order to play soccer. E.g. I write with a pen. But I could also write with a pencil, biro, marker, penknife etc. If I have no pen, I say:
- *I have no pen to write [to do what?]
- I have no pen to write with
In #2. the sentence sounds incomplete.
with
10. a. By the means or agency of: eat with a fork; made us laugh with his jokes.
EDIT
In answer to Araucaria's comment “However - I don't understand why to buy food with money is tautological, (i.e. why the ‘with’ is tautological), but to write with a pen is not. In standard British English, 4 and 5 are equally acceptable ...”
I gave the following explanation
Why do you think “with money” is not tautological (maybe redundant would have been a better word) to say?
- I have money to buy food (with).
- I can buy food (with money).
- I can afford to buy food (with money).
The words in brackets do not add meaning to the sentence. The exchange of money is implied when we say ‘buy’.