When is it appropriate to end a sentence in a preposition?
Like many others, I commonly find myself ending a sentence with a preposition. Yes, it makes me cringe. I usually rewrite the sentence, but sometimes (in emails) I just live with it. To, with... you know who you are.
Should I keep fighting myself on this one, or is it okay in some circumstances?
grammaticality prepositions word-order sentence-ends pied-piping
|
show 4 more comments
Like many others, I commonly find myself ending a sentence with a preposition. Yes, it makes me cringe. I usually rewrite the sentence, but sometimes (in emails) I just live with it. To, with... you know who you are.
Should I keep fighting myself on this one, or is it okay in some circumstances?
grammaticality prepositions word-order sentence-ends pied-piping
12
I think this question is much too steeped in grammar-school pedantry. You yourself say you use it frequently without conscious effort. What better way is there to describe the correctness of an utterance from a descriptive perspective? Is this the type of question the site is interested in?
– Charlie
Aug 6 '10 at 3:05
49
As the little boy said [about the Australian book]: "Daddy, what did you bring that book that I don't want to be read to out of [about Down Under] up for?"
– ShreevatsaR
Aug 6 '10 at 3:23
31
Don't you mean, "When is it okay to use a preposition to end a sentence with?"?
– Sophie Alpert
Aug 6 '10 at 17:57
8
Relevant.
– Kosmonaut
Aug 26 '10 at 18:35
6
Whenever you want to.
– Adam
Mar 29 '11 at 20:15
|
show 4 more comments
Like many others, I commonly find myself ending a sentence with a preposition. Yes, it makes me cringe. I usually rewrite the sentence, but sometimes (in emails) I just live with it. To, with... you know who you are.
Should I keep fighting myself on this one, or is it okay in some circumstances?
grammaticality prepositions word-order sentence-ends pied-piping
Like many others, I commonly find myself ending a sentence with a preposition. Yes, it makes me cringe. I usually rewrite the sentence, but sometimes (in emails) I just live with it. To, with... you know who you are.
Should I keep fighting myself on this one, or is it okay in some circumstances?
grammaticality prepositions word-order sentence-ends pied-piping
grammaticality prepositions word-order sentence-ends pied-piping
edited Apr 27 '14 at 19:00
tchrist♦
108k28290464
108k28290464
asked Aug 5 '10 at 19:54
Brian KellyBrian Kelly
855276
855276
12
I think this question is much too steeped in grammar-school pedantry. You yourself say you use it frequently without conscious effort. What better way is there to describe the correctness of an utterance from a descriptive perspective? Is this the type of question the site is interested in?
– Charlie
Aug 6 '10 at 3:05
49
As the little boy said [about the Australian book]: "Daddy, what did you bring that book that I don't want to be read to out of [about Down Under] up for?"
– ShreevatsaR
Aug 6 '10 at 3:23
31
Don't you mean, "When is it okay to use a preposition to end a sentence with?"?
– Sophie Alpert
Aug 6 '10 at 17:57
8
Relevant.
– Kosmonaut
Aug 26 '10 at 18:35
6
Whenever you want to.
– Adam
Mar 29 '11 at 20:15
|
show 4 more comments
12
I think this question is much too steeped in grammar-school pedantry. You yourself say you use it frequently without conscious effort. What better way is there to describe the correctness of an utterance from a descriptive perspective? Is this the type of question the site is interested in?
– Charlie
Aug 6 '10 at 3:05
49
As the little boy said [about the Australian book]: "Daddy, what did you bring that book that I don't want to be read to out of [about Down Under] up for?"
– ShreevatsaR
Aug 6 '10 at 3:23
31
Don't you mean, "When is it okay to use a preposition to end a sentence with?"?
– Sophie Alpert
Aug 6 '10 at 17:57
8
Relevant.
– Kosmonaut
Aug 26 '10 at 18:35
6
Whenever you want to.
– Adam
Mar 29 '11 at 20:15
12
12
I think this question is much too steeped in grammar-school pedantry. You yourself say you use it frequently without conscious effort. What better way is there to describe the correctness of an utterance from a descriptive perspective? Is this the type of question the site is interested in?
– Charlie
Aug 6 '10 at 3:05
I think this question is much too steeped in grammar-school pedantry. You yourself say you use it frequently without conscious effort. What better way is there to describe the correctness of an utterance from a descriptive perspective? Is this the type of question the site is interested in?
– Charlie
Aug 6 '10 at 3:05
49
49
As the little boy said [about the Australian book]: "Daddy, what did you bring that book that I don't want to be read to out of [about Down Under] up for?"
– ShreevatsaR
Aug 6 '10 at 3:23
As the little boy said [about the Australian book]: "Daddy, what did you bring that book that I don't want to be read to out of [about Down Under] up for?"
– ShreevatsaR
Aug 6 '10 at 3:23
31
31
Don't you mean, "When is it okay to use a preposition to end a sentence with?"?
– Sophie Alpert
Aug 6 '10 at 17:57
Don't you mean, "When is it okay to use a preposition to end a sentence with?"?
– Sophie Alpert
Aug 6 '10 at 17:57
8
8
Relevant.
– Kosmonaut
Aug 26 '10 at 18:35
Relevant.
– Kosmonaut
Aug 26 '10 at 18:35
6
6
Whenever you want to.
– Adam
Mar 29 '11 at 20:15
Whenever you want to.
– Adam
Mar 29 '11 at 20:15
|
show 4 more comments
12 Answers
12
active
oldest
votes
A preposition is a perfectly reasonable word to end a sentence with. Admonitions against doing so are not something anyone needs pay heed to. It's the kind of made-up rule that is not based on the reality of the language and anguish over doing it is something no writer need suffer from. And if you don't believe me, look it up.
3
Agreed. Though I am in no way unsympathetic to prescriptivist rules, this one is indeed too far from reality and too weakly motivated by aesthetics to warrant such lack of a sense of reality.
– Cerberus
Dec 30 '10 at 16:54
8
+1 (mieux vaut tard que jamais) This is the kind of witty answer that make this forum so entertaining (did I say addictive ?).
– Alain Pannetier Φ
Apr 2 '11 at 15:52
1
Slate has a great podcast episode that goes into detail how and why ending sentences with a preposition is considered bad grammar. goo.gl/vGbVO
– RHPT
Feb 9 '12 at 16:55
3
@Stat-R and sometimes it's just plain ungrammatical if a preposition is what you end an sentence with.
– nohat♦
Jul 30 '12 at 1:02
15
@AAT: No, not Winston Churchill. That's a misattribution no longer to be put up with.
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 21 '12 at 13:48
|
show 1 more comment
When is it okay to end a sentence in a preposition?
Any time you please. The "rule" against ending sentences with a preposition is pseudo-Latin piffle with no relevance to modern English in any register.
1
Of course, there's the guideline against twisting your sentences just to find a place for which end a sentence a preposition can be used to.
– Joe Z.
Feb 21 '13 at 16:07
add a comment |
There is just simply no such rule in English.
Now, in the seventeenth century, Dryden complained about it, because he wanted to write a bit about how he was a much better writer than Shakespeare and Johnson, and the best he could come up with is that Shakespeare and Johnson hadn't followed a rule about preposition position that existed in Latin, but had never existed in English.
On the one hand, that at least is a bit better than the nonsense about split infinitives — where people prohibit something in English not because it's forbidden in Latin but because it's actually impossible in it. On the other hand, it's still pretty stupid.
Ironically, English is overall a much stricter language than Latin about word order, and it's precisely because of this that in Latin a preposition not only can't appear at the end of a sentence, but can not appear after its object (that is indeed the etymology of the word — pre- + position). The idea that this means anything in English only follows if we allow that "means the idea in English anything" is a well-written clause (hey, the preposition's in the right place!).
Following Dryden, some more people followed suit. Now, some would say that it is often more graceful to place the preposition before the object, or that it's a good idea to make sure that the preposition isn't so separated from the words it most closely relates to as to cause confusion. I'll agree with the latter and allow the former as true much of the time, though it can be the graceless option other times.
But some went further and said that there was some magical rule against prepositions.
You might think that today we could easily counter such foolishness by pointing out Shakespeare and the King James Bible use it, and you don't have to believe in biblical infallibility — or indeed believe any of it to any degree — to believe the King James is as infallible as can be when it comes to grammar, with Shakespeare as grammar made flesh. (And Shakespeare clearly isn't infallible in other ways — his geography is hilariously bad and his history allowed clocks to chime in Ancient Rome, but it's bad geography and history, beautifully expressed).
But that was a different era, and such ramblers actually cited Shakespeare as an example of bad English, much as people today may complain that an MTV host saying "yo! We gonna pimp yo' ride sweeeeet!" is a bad example to children learning English today.
Thankfully, Shakespeare won the popularity contest, and we can enjoy his plays in any city in the world, and only rarely are such pontificators of invented grammar rules something we have to put up with.
2
Though I'm sure there are some expressions ending in prepositions that should not be come up with - probably for other reasons.
– Edwin Ashworth
Jan 25 '13 at 16:04
@EdwinAshworth I think probably most are covered in what I say about the pre- position being more graceful sometimes, and having a large distance between a preposition and what it relates to being a bad idea.
– Jon Hanna
Jan 25 '13 at 16:06
I knew the general strictures on pedantic junk grammar, but am grateful for the Dryden story, which I didn't know. Myself, I accept split infinitives in others, but I just cannot bring myself to boldly go myself. I just can't; fingernails on the blackboard.
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:06
2
I already +1’ed this ages ago, but I just realised now that there's a bit of inaccuracy in it: prepositions could occasionally come after their objects in Latin, though normally only immediately after them then. The most common example is the preposition cum with personal pronouns, where the result is usually perceived as a single word: mecum, tecum, nobiscum, vobiscum, etc.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Nov 15 '15 at 19:44
1
@SkJohnson by the same reasoning you should never buy a corsage for a date to a prom, because it's illegal to transport dead bodies unless you are a licensed coroner or undertaker.
– Jon Hanna
Dec 23 '16 at 11:57
|
show 2 more comments
In my opinion this is one of those stuffy rules touted by grammarians who probably should have better things to do... When you can avoid it, don't end sentences with prepositions, but if rewriting the sentence will make it grammatically tortured, it's best to break the rule for the sake of clarity.
9
I really do hope this site remains unspoiled by these grammarians you mention. So far, it's good to see many advocating the breaking of rules where it feels sensible and natural.
– David Foster
Aug 5 '10 at 20:48
14
Well actually, this is not even a rule touted by grammarians. This "rule" was a mistaken grammar rule based on imitating Latin grammar, which came into fashion a century and a bit ago and then disappeared.
– ShreevatsaR
Aug 27 '10 at 19:08
And yet it is still often heard!
– Cerberus
Dec 30 '10 at 16:55
Do we have Strunk&White to blame? Just wondering... oh, and "When you can avoid" is slightly perpetuating this. I'd say "write whatever works/feels right". Well, that's what I do, anyway. ;-)
– Jürgen A. Erhard
Feb 11 '11 at 15:25
5
It's not the grammarians you have to blame. Grammarians like Geoff Pullum and Jim McCawley have been complaining about popular ignorance of actual grammar for decades. It's these zombie rules that keep on causing trouble; I prefer to use a shotgun on them.
– John Lawler
Feb 19 '13 at 21:06
add a comment |
A bit similar to [Peter's answer], but with some more history:
Supposedly, the saying originated with Winston Churchill, though it certainly could be apocryphal. The original version was
"This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put."
... maybe. According to an English professor at Washington State University, there are a lot of variations on that theme out there.
Whatever the details of the story, though, the point is that the preposition rule isn't one that needs to be followed in general use. It doesn't increase clarity or provide any other benefit; it just lets some people provide a different tone to their communication. Or, potentially, feel superior to those who don't obey the rule.
2
I was 100% sure that someone would use that Churchill's quote.
– Gurzo
Oct 13 '10 at 17:22
@Gurzo, yeah, it's a good one.
– Pops
Oct 13 '10 at 21:56
The Churchill story: se non è vero è bene trovato.
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:00
add a comment |
Prepositions end up at the end of sentences that are using phrasal verbs, that is a verb plus a preposition where the preposition isn't starting a prepositional phrase. Phrasal verbs are perfectly okay and are very common in Germanic languages, less common in something like Latin.
English has several registers--levels of formality-- and phrasal verbs are not preferred in formal English.
Above link is dead wayback machine to the rescue until they go out of business.
8
It's not just phrasal verbs that cause sentences to end with prepositions. "This is the man I live with" is just as grammatical (and infinitely less fussy-sounding) as "This is the man with whom I live"
– nohat♦
Aug 5 '10 at 20:28
Interesting, looks like the result of topic fronting. Topic fronting causes all sort of weird sentences, e.g. "Now beans, I like."
– MatthewMartin
Aug 5 '10 at 20:39
1
Hitting on the historical, philological aspects of both sides of the argument is way more interesting than the question itself.
– Charlie
Aug 6 '10 at 3:07
Thanks for posting the link. A good read on English formality related to questions like this one.
– Brian Kelly
Aug 8 '10 at 0:11
The link you posted is broken. Pity.
– Mari-Lou A
Dec 18 '13 at 23:46
|
show 2 more comments
As an example, in casual speech and informal writing it is common to say, "Who are you going with?" but in a speech or formal writing you probably want to use the more grammatically accepted correct form "With whom are you going?"
4
If you downvote an answer, it is proper etiquette to explain in a comment with what you don't agree. ;-)
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 21:01
2
The person who downvoted probably disagreed with your prescriptive "you probably want to use the more grammatically accepted correct form".
– nohat♦
Aug 5 '10 at 21:22
1
Hmmm, growing up (1970s Colorado) I remember being corrected by both my father and teachers in casual speech if we would say, "who are you going with?" It was one of those grammatical rules that you learned. I do this in writing even in e-mails today since it sounds more grammatically polished as long as it is not e.g. a three-letter phrasal verb of the up-with-which-I-will-not-put genre of affectedness.
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 21:46
4
Strunk and White teach "the way to know whether to end a sentence with a preposition is to hear how it sounds" and in writing, I think English sounds more polished in many cases if the preposition is taken off the end. I didn't say "you must use", I said, "you probably want to use". This is the advice I give to, say, people writing resumes or essays which should be written in their best English possible, it is a way of making the text "sound better" and less like a casual spoken conversation. Perhaps you are right, it is more style than grammar, interesting.
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 22:55
11
I think this is the best advice on this issue: "...it may still be worth revising your sentences to avoid ending them a preposition whenever possible if you wish to reduce the risk of controversy. Since there are still a number of people who believe ending a sentence with a preposition is incorrect, considering your audience’s thoughts on the issue is a wise idea—particularly when you’re trying to gain a new client or land an important job interview.", from: yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules/…
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 6 '10 at 9:23
|
show 2 more comments
As easily as ending a sentence in a preposition may roll of your tongue in conversation and be comprehended, unfortunately it is not always comprehended as such when read. Often it looks like an unschooled individual is at work here. However, the heart of the matter is that it is a logical distractor, could lead to confusion, and therefore is to be avoided.
You can sometimes cheat by adding "do so" on the end of some cases, I have found. However, it is best to rewrite the material to avoid the logical distractor when necessary.
Now, in an email, depending upon whom you are writing, it is perfectly acceptable in my humble opinion to end in a preposition as long as it is about 90% obvious that the meaning of the sentence will not be lost.
What do you mean by "logical distractor"?
– nohat♦
Sep 25 '10 at 0:07
1
That term means that the phrasing distracts and adds confusion to the sentence. When we write, we wish to express meaning. There are sentences that work, but then again there are sentences that work better, or work best. They work best by being logical in conveying meaning, which means not only good grammar, but good logic and word choice -- not distracting.
– Volomike
Sep 25 '10 at 1:34
Volomike here reminds me of the schooldays joke about the carpenter holding a nail who said to his mate, "When I nod my head, hit it." Is that perhaps an example of a logical distractor?
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:10
add a comment |
Agree on mocking the pedantry of this rule.
Perhaps the rule had its origin in the idea that every preposition should have an object, and as the object normally follows the preposition in English, if a sentence ends with a preposition that often means that it has no object.
Consider, "Send a letter to." This obvously is an imcomplete thought. Send a letter to whom?
The catch is that sometimes the object does NOT immediately follow the preposition. To take Churchill's famous sentence that others have quoted here, the natural wording of the thought is, "That is a rule I can't put up with." "With" is a preposition and ends the sentence, but it is not the case that it has no object. The object is "rule", which occurred earlier in the sentence. You could, of course, write, "I can't put up with that rule." It doesn't change the strict meaning of the sentence. But it does change the emphasis, from "that rule" to "I", and so is not entirely equivalent.
Attempts to follow this rule lead people to all sorts of awkward constructions. Is it really better to say, "That is the girl with whom I want to go" rather than "That's the girl I want to go with"? How is the first sentence better ... other than that it conforms to an arbitrary rule?
Side note: One violation of this rule that I hear all the time and that really grates on me for some reason is, "Where's it at?" The "at" has no object, because it is completely superfluous. What you want to say is, "Where is it?" I suspect that when people contract "where is" to "where's", the sentence becomes "Where's it?", which sounds too abrupt, so they feel a need to add an extra syllable, and rather than expanding the contraction, they add a pointless unnecessary word.
1
Why not use the 'plain-talk rule'? 'I want to go with that girl'.
– user3847
Aug 4 '14 at 5:58
To me, "Where is it?" and "Where is it at?" are two different questions and are not generally interchangeable.
– guifa
Oct 11 '14 at 23:39
@guifa And what is the difference in meaning between the two questions? If someone mentioned, say, the city of York, and you then asked "Where is it?", I would likely reply, "In northern England." If you asked, "Where is it at?", wouldn't the logical reply be the same?
– Jay
Oct 14 '14 at 14:24
@Jay the difference is specificity for me. Where is it? England. Where's it at? About half an hour northeast of Leeds. Or, if I'm waiting on a friend. Where are you? On my way. Where are you at? Just passed exit 54. Could be just a regional difference (I'm Southern AmE).
– guifa
Oct 14 '14 at 15:39
1
A lot of the grammar rules we learn in elementary school are taught because we may not yet be ready to learn all the proper nuances, and so we have a simple blanket rule, to prevent a common learner's mistake (e.g. an omitted object). Another example is "Don't start a sentence with 'and'." And that rule exists because an English novice may place a full stop before a conjunction where they should use a comma instead. But, of course, there is a correct way to start a sentence with 'and'; the novice just isn't ready to learn to differentiate that yet.
– Dan Henderson
May 26 '16 at 15:36
|
show 6 more comments
Yes, it's fine. Even Fowler agrees that the hoary shibboleth forbidding sentences that end in prepositions is hogwash. It came about originally supposedly because such a thing could not happen in Latin, so naturally English must follow suit.
Because all upper-class private schools of the time emphasized, if not required Latin, 'good' grammar was presumed to be grammar that emulated Latin grammar.
But don't take my word for it. Here's what The Oxford Dictionaries has to say:
There’s no necessity to ban prepositions from the end of sentences. Ending a sentence with a preposition is a perfectly natural part of the structure of modern English.
The only time you may wish to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition is when the verb is so far back that its relationship with the preposition becomes unclear.
add a comment |
The same could be said of the word ain't and yet no one insists on its being grammatically correct. Ain't is accepted in conversational English perfectly well but it will be frowned upon when it is put into print.
This is a non sequitur indeed. The placing of a preposition at the end of a sentence has far more linguistic acceptance (and common usage) than ain't has ever had, or ever will. Does anyone even seriously (non-comically, non-ironically) use ain't anywhere? I'm willing to be so advised.
Rules against sentence-ending prepositions are as forgettable as those against the split infinitive.
Just mistaken identification of when a word that looks like a preposition is actually acting like one.
– Sk Johnson
Dec 2 '15 at 19:36
And, yes, plenty of people use it, go to a high-school campus someday and you will hear enough of it.
– Sk Johnson
Dec 4 '15 at 22:01
And cases where words which normally function as prepositions are at the ends of logistically sound sentences, I guarantee you, are not serving the purpose of a preposition in that particular sentence. Most likely they are incorporated as part of a verb+helping verb phrase which, together, are simply a verb (think of the helping verb, or particle, as being an adverb modifying the verb next to it). Either that or they are in the form of a question, and questions are allowed to be incomplete sentences. – Sk Johnson 2 days ago
– Sk Johnson
Dec 4 '15 at 23:20
add a comment |
Okay, sure, it doesn't matter... Unless, of course, you're writing your college thesis and just can't seem to figure out why on earth your lunatic professor only gave your paper a C after all the hard work you put in to it. Hmm... well, maybe it matters just a little, don't you think? I mean, even if you disagree with the convention, try convincing the dean of the university's Linguistics Department how it 'must be correct because so many people use it so often' and see if that gets you anywhere. The same could be said of the word ain't and yet no one insists on its being grammatically correct. Ain't is accepted in conversational English perfectly well but it will be frowned upon when it is put into print. So why don't people just accept the same to be true for prepositional phrase words at the ends of sentences?
See here for the explanation of a prepositional phrase. Particularly, notice the statements "Prepositions are indeclinable words that introduce the object of a prepositional phrase." and "The noun phrase or pronoun that follows the preposition is called the subject of the preposition." these two descriptions make it fairly clear why prepositions don't belong at the end. It's like saying "I'd like to introduce." and then ending the statement there without specifying who you are introducing.
Obviously, if the author is one of literature or prose, or a lyricist, there's good reason why they might want to use improper grammar. Style is often a big part of what draws readers to the content of a piece of work. But that seems to me only to qualify the use of incorrect grammar, not to qualify incorrect grammar as actually being correct.
To be perfectly clear, some words typically used as prepositions are NOT always prepositions! Mistaken identity of the parts of speech is the culprit of every example given in the comments and answers on this page. As the following distinction explains:
- A word that looks like a preposition but is actually part of a verb is called a particle. Held up is a verb meaning “to rob.” Therefore, up is not a preposition, and bank is not the object of a preposition. Instead, bank is the direct object of the verb held up.
- Is it a particle or a preposition? To avoid confusing prepositions with particles, test by moving the word (up) and words following it to the front of the sentence: Up the bank four armed men held. If the resulting sentence does not make sense, then the word belongs with the verb and is a particle, not a preposition.
Look, whether or not it should or shouldn't be is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the majority of people who are in positions of power in society and industry today, are of the generation of people who were all taught that ending a sentence with a preposition is bad grammar and that generation of people are likely to make a judgement call about people who do so as being, to some degree, uneducated people. So if you really want to be sure to cross your t's and dot i's in any given particular instance, you'd better your chances of making a good impression if you would also avoid the preposition-ending sentences. When the millennials become the majority of people in positions of power in society, then it will become sound advice to encourage neglect of that 'rule'.
2
try convincing the dean of the university's Linguistics Department how it 'must be correct because so many people use it so often' and see if that gets you anywhere – Actually, linguists tend to be descriptivists instead of prescriptivists nowadays.
– Wrzlprmft
Oct 28 '15 at 13:20
"I'd like to." Clearly this is not a full sentence. Certain prepositions in certain contexts require some other word to follow them. What no one seems to be aware of, here, is that in the vast majority of cases where one does end a sentence with a preposition, the preposition can just be entirely omitted without changing the meaning of the sentence. Yes, there are always exceptions... that is a given in English. Regardless of the analysis of conversational English... comprehensive understanding of sentence structure is still a vitally important aspect of language.
– Sk Johnson
Nov 15 '15 at 18:57
This answer was stitched from three other answers, where two ought have been edits. Here is some commentary on one of those.
– Kit Z. Fox♦
Dec 7 '15 at 13:18
add a comment |
protected by RegDwigнt♦ Apr 11 '11 at 8:09
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
12 Answers
12
active
oldest
votes
12 Answers
12
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
A preposition is a perfectly reasonable word to end a sentence with. Admonitions against doing so are not something anyone needs pay heed to. It's the kind of made-up rule that is not based on the reality of the language and anguish over doing it is something no writer need suffer from. And if you don't believe me, look it up.
3
Agreed. Though I am in no way unsympathetic to prescriptivist rules, this one is indeed too far from reality and too weakly motivated by aesthetics to warrant such lack of a sense of reality.
– Cerberus
Dec 30 '10 at 16:54
8
+1 (mieux vaut tard que jamais) This is the kind of witty answer that make this forum so entertaining (did I say addictive ?).
– Alain Pannetier Φ
Apr 2 '11 at 15:52
1
Slate has a great podcast episode that goes into detail how and why ending sentences with a preposition is considered bad grammar. goo.gl/vGbVO
– RHPT
Feb 9 '12 at 16:55
3
@Stat-R and sometimes it's just plain ungrammatical if a preposition is what you end an sentence with.
– nohat♦
Jul 30 '12 at 1:02
15
@AAT: No, not Winston Churchill. That's a misattribution no longer to be put up with.
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 21 '12 at 13:48
|
show 1 more comment
A preposition is a perfectly reasonable word to end a sentence with. Admonitions against doing so are not something anyone needs pay heed to. It's the kind of made-up rule that is not based on the reality of the language and anguish over doing it is something no writer need suffer from. And if you don't believe me, look it up.
3
Agreed. Though I am in no way unsympathetic to prescriptivist rules, this one is indeed too far from reality and too weakly motivated by aesthetics to warrant such lack of a sense of reality.
– Cerberus
Dec 30 '10 at 16:54
8
+1 (mieux vaut tard que jamais) This is the kind of witty answer that make this forum so entertaining (did I say addictive ?).
– Alain Pannetier Φ
Apr 2 '11 at 15:52
1
Slate has a great podcast episode that goes into detail how and why ending sentences with a preposition is considered bad grammar. goo.gl/vGbVO
– RHPT
Feb 9 '12 at 16:55
3
@Stat-R and sometimes it's just plain ungrammatical if a preposition is what you end an sentence with.
– nohat♦
Jul 30 '12 at 1:02
15
@AAT: No, not Winston Churchill. That's a misattribution no longer to be put up with.
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 21 '12 at 13:48
|
show 1 more comment
A preposition is a perfectly reasonable word to end a sentence with. Admonitions against doing so are not something anyone needs pay heed to. It's the kind of made-up rule that is not based on the reality of the language and anguish over doing it is something no writer need suffer from. And if you don't believe me, look it up.
A preposition is a perfectly reasonable word to end a sentence with. Admonitions against doing so are not something anyone needs pay heed to. It's the kind of made-up rule that is not based on the reality of the language and anguish over doing it is something no writer need suffer from. And if you don't believe me, look it up.
answered Aug 5 '10 at 20:44
nohat♦nohat
59.9k12169236
59.9k12169236
3
Agreed. Though I am in no way unsympathetic to prescriptivist rules, this one is indeed too far from reality and too weakly motivated by aesthetics to warrant such lack of a sense of reality.
– Cerberus
Dec 30 '10 at 16:54
8
+1 (mieux vaut tard que jamais) This is the kind of witty answer that make this forum so entertaining (did I say addictive ?).
– Alain Pannetier Φ
Apr 2 '11 at 15:52
1
Slate has a great podcast episode that goes into detail how and why ending sentences with a preposition is considered bad grammar. goo.gl/vGbVO
– RHPT
Feb 9 '12 at 16:55
3
@Stat-R and sometimes it's just plain ungrammatical if a preposition is what you end an sentence with.
– nohat♦
Jul 30 '12 at 1:02
15
@AAT: No, not Winston Churchill. That's a misattribution no longer to be put up with.
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 21 '12 at 13:48
|
show 1 more comment
3
Agreed. Though I am in no way unsympathetic to prescriptivist rules, this one is indeed too far from reality and too weakly motivated by aesthetics to warrant such lack of a sense of reality.
– Cerberus
Dec 30 '10 at 16:54
8
+1 (mieux vaut tard que jamais) This is the kind of witty answer that make this forum so entertaining (did I say addictive ?).
– Alain Pannetier Φ
Apr 2 '11 at 15:52
1
Slate has a great podcast episode that goes into detail how and why ending sentences with a preposition is considered bad grammar. goo.gl/vGbVO
– RHPT
Feb 9 '12 at 16:55
3
@Stat-R and sometimes it's just plain ungrammatical if a preposition is what you end an sentence with.
– nohat♦
Jul 30 '12 at 1:02
15
@AAT: No, not Winston Churchill. That's a misattribution no longer to be put up with.
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 21 '12 at 13:48
3
3
Agreed. Though I am in no way unsympathetic to prescriptivist rules, this one is indeed too far from reality and too weakly motivated by aesthetics to warrant such lack of a sense of reality.
– Cerberus
Dec 30 '10 at 16:54
Agreed. Though I am in no way unsympathetic to prescriptivist rules, this one is indeed too far from reality and too weakly motivated by aesthetics to warrant such lack of a sense of reality.
– Cerberus
Dec 30 '10 at 16:54
8
8
+1 (mieux vaut tard que jamais) This is the kind of witty answer that make this forum so entertaining (did I say addictive ?).
– Alain Pannetier Φ
Apr 2 '11 at 15:52
+1 (mieux vaut tard que jamais) This is the kind of witty answer that make this forum so entertaining (did I say addictive ?).
– Alain Pannetier Φ
Apr 2 '11 at 15:52
1
1
Slate has a great podcast episode that goes into detail how and why ending sentences with a preposition is considered bad grammar. goo.gl/vGbVO
– RHPT
Feb 9 '12 at 16:55
Slate has a great podcast episode that goes into detail how and why ending sentences with a preposition is considered bad grammar. goo.gl/vGbVO
– RHPT
Feb 9 '12 at 16:55
3
3
@Stat-R and sometimes it's just plain ungrammatical if a preposition is what you end an sentence with.
– nohat♦
Jul 30 '12 at 1:02
@Stat-R and sometimes it's just plain ungrammatical if a preposition is what you end an sentence with.
– nohat♦
Jul 30 '12 at 1:02
15
15
@AAT: No, not Winston Churchill. That's a misattribution no longer to be put up with.
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 21 '12 at 13:48
@AAT: No, not Winston Churchill. That's a misattribution no longer to be put up with.
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 21 '12 at 13:48
|
show 1 more comment
When is it okay to end a sentence in a preposition?
Any time you please. The "rule" against ending sentences with a preposition is pseudo-Latin piffle with no relevance to modern English in any register.
1
Of course, there's the guideline against twisting your sentences just to find a place for which end a sentence a preposition can be used to.
– Joe Z.
Feb 21 '13 at 16:07
add a comment |
When is it okay to end a sentence in a preposition?
Any time you please. The "rule" against ending sentences with a preposition is pseudo-Latin piffle with no relevance to modern English in any register.
1
Of course, there's the guideline against twisting your sentences just to find a place for which end a sentence a preposition can be used to.
– Joe Z.
Feb 21 '13 at 16:07
add a comment |
When is it okay to end a sentence in a preposition?
Any time you please. The "rule" against ending sentences with a preposition is pseudo-Latin piffle with no relevance to modern English in any register.
When is it okay to end a sentence in a preposition?
Any time you please. The "rule" against ending sentences with a preposition is pseudo-Latin piffle with no relevance to modern English in any register.
answered Aug 5 '10 at 20:32
JSBձոգչJSBձոգչ
48.1k13141199
48.1k13141199
1
Of course, there's the guideline against twisting your sentences just to find a place for which end a sentence a preposition can be used to.
– Joe Z.
Feb 21 '13 at 16:07
add a comment |
1
Of course, there's the guideline against twisting your sentences just to find a place for which end a sentence a preposition can be used to.
– Joe Z.
Feb 21 '13 at 16:07
1
1
Of course, there's the guideline against twisting your sentences just to find a place for which end a sentence a preposition can be used to.
– Joe Z.
Feb 21 '13 at 16:07
Of course, there's the guideline against twisting your sentences just to find a place for which end a sentence a preposition can be used to.
– Joe Z.
Feb 21 '13 at 16:07
add a comment |
There is just simply no such rule in English.
Now, in the seventeenth century, Dryden complained about it, because he wanted to write a bit about how he was a much better writer than Shakespeare and Johnson, and the best he could come up with is that Shakespeare and Johnson hadn't followed a rule about preposition position that existed in Latin, but had never existed in English.
On the one hand, that at least is a bit better than the nonsense about split infinitives — where people prohibit something in English not because it's forbidden in Latin but because it's actually impossible in it. On the other hand, it's still pretty stupid.
Ironically, English is overall a much stricter language than Latin about word order, and it's precisely because of this that in Latin a preposition not only can't appear at the end of a sentence, but can not appear after its object (that is indeed the etymology of the word — pre- + position). The idea that this means anything in English only follows if we allow that "means the idea in English anything" is a well-written clause (hey, the preposition's in the right place!).
Following Dryden, some more people followed suit. Now, some would say that it is often more graceful to place the preposition before the object, or that it's a good idea to make sure that the preposition isn't so separated from the words it most closely relates to as to cause confusion. I'll agree with the latter and allow the former as true much of the time, though it can be the graceless option other times.
But some went further and said that there was some magical rule against prepositions.
You might think that today we could easily counter such foolishness by pointing out Shakespeare and the King James Bible use it, and you don't have to believe in biblical infallibility — or indeed believe any of it to any degree — to believe the King James is as infallible as can be when it comes to grammar, with Shakespeare as grammar made flesh. (And Shakespeare clearly isn't infallible in other ways — his geography is hilariously bad and his history allowed clocks to chime in Ancient Rome, but it's bad geography and history, beautifully expressed).
But that was a different era, and such ramblers actually cited Shakespeare as an example of bad English, much as people today may complain that an MTV host saying "yo! We gonna pimp yo' ride sweeeeet!" is a bad example to children learning English today.
Thankfully, Shakespeare won the popularity contest, and we can enjoy his plays in any city in the world, and only rarely are such pontificators of invented grammar rules something we have to put up with.
2
Though I'm sure there are some expressions ending in prepositions that should not be come up with - probably for other reasons.
– Edwin Ashworth
Jan 25 '13 at 16:04
@EdwinAshworth I think probably most are covered in what I say about the pre- position being more graceful sometimes, and having a large distance between a preposition and what it relates to being a bad idea.
– Jon Hanna
Jan 25 '13 at 16:06
I knew the general strictures on pedantic junk grammar, but am grateful for the Dryden story, which I didn't know. Myself, I accept split infinitives in others, but I just cannot bring myself to boldly go myself. I just can't; fingernails on the blackboard.
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:06
2
I already +1’ed this ages ago, but I just realised now that there's a bit of inaccuracy in it: prepositions could occasionally come after their objects in Latin, though normally only immediately after them then. The most common example is the preposition cum with personal pronouns, where the result is usually perceived as a single word: mecum, tecum, nobiscum, vobiscum, etc.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Nov 15 '15 at 19:44
1
@SkJohnson by the same reasoning you should never buy a corsage for a date to a prom, because it's illegal to transport dead bodies unless you are a licensed coroner or undertaker.
– Jon Hanna
Dec 23 '16 at 11:57
|
show 2 more comments
There is just simply no such rule in English.
Now, in the seventeenth century, Dryden complained about it, because he wanted to write a bit about how he was a much better writer than Shakespeare and Johnson, and the best he could come up with is that Shakespeare and Johnson hadn't followed a rule about preposition position that existed in Latin, but had never existed in English.
On the one hand, that at least is a bit better than the nonsense about split infinitives — where people prohibit something in English not because it's forbidden in Latin but because it's actually impossible in it. On the other hand, it's still pretty stupid.
Ironically, English is overall a much stricter language than Latin about word order, and it's precisely because of this that in Latin a preposition not only can't appear at the end of a sentence, but can not appear after its object (that is indeed the etymology of the word — pre- + position). The idea that this means anything in English only follows if we allow that "means the idea in English anything" is a well-written clause (hey, the preposition's in the right place!).
Following Dryden, some more people followed suit. Now, some would say that it is often more graceful to place the preposition before the object, or that it's a good idea to make sure that the preposition isn't so separated from the words it most closely relates to as to cause confusion. I'll agree with the latter and allow the former as true much of the time, though it can be the graceless option other times.
But some went further and said that there was some magical rule against prepositions.
You might think that today we could easily counter such foolishness by pointing out Shakespeare and the King James Bible use it, and you don't have to believe in biblical infallibility — or indeed believe any of it to any degree — to believe the King James is as infallible as can be when it comes to grammar, with Shakespeare as grammar made flesh. (And Shakespeare clearly isn't infallible in other ways — his geography is hilariously bad and his history allowed clocks to chime in Ancient Rome, but it's bad geography and history, beautifully expressed).
But that was a different era, and such ramblers actually cited Shakespeare as an example of bad English, much as people today may complain that an MTV host saying "yo! We gonna pimp yo' ride sweeeeet!" is a bad example to children learning English today.
Thankfully, Shakespeare won the popularity contest, and we can enjoy his plays in any city in the world, and only rarely are such pontificators of invented grammar rules something we have to put up with.
2
Though I'm sure there are some expressions ending in prepositions that should not be come up with - probably for other reasons.
– Edwin Ashworth
Jan 25 '13 at 16:04
@EdwinAshworth I think probably most are covered in what I say about the pre- position being more graceful sometimes, and having a large distance between a preposition and what it relates to being a bad idea.
– Jon Hanna
Jan 25 '13 at 16:06
I knew the general strictures on pedantic junk grammar, but am grateful for the Dryden story, which I didn't know. Myself, I accept split infinitives in others, but I just cannot bring myself to boldly go myself. I just can't; fingernails on the blackboard.
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:06
2
I already +1’ed this ages ago, but I just realised now that there's a bit of inaccuracy in it: prepositions could occasionally come after their objects in Latin, though normally only immediately after them then. The most common example is the preposition cum with personal pronouns, where the result is usually perceived as a single word: mecum, tecum, nobiscum, vobiscum, etc.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Nov 15 '15 at 19:44
1
@SkJohnson by the same reasoning you should never buy a corsage for a date to a prom, because it's illegal to transport dead bodies unless you are a licensed coroner or undertaker.
– Jon Hanna
Dec 23 '16 at 11:57
|
show 2 more comments
There is just simply no such rule in English.
Now, in the seventeenth century, Dryden complained about it, because he wanted to write a bit about how he was a much better writer than Shakespeare and Johnson, and the best he could come up with is that Shakespeare and Johnson hadn't followed a rule about preposition position that existed in Latin, but had never existed in English.
On the one hand, that at least is a bit better than the nonsense about split infinitives — where people prohibit something in English not because it's forbidden in Latin but because it's actually impossible in it. On the other hand, it's still pretty stupid.
Ironically, English is overall a much stricter language than Latin about word order, and it's precisely because of this that in Latin a preposition not only can't appear at the end of a sentence, but can not appear after its object (that is indeed the etymology of the word — pre- + position). The idea that this means anything in English only follows if we allow that "means the idea in English anything" is a well-written clause (hey, the preposition's in the right place!).
Following Dryden, some more people followed suit. Now, some would say that it is often more graceful to place the preposition before the object, or that it's a good idea to make sure that the preposition isn't so separated from the words it most closely relates to as to cause confusion. I'll agree with the latter and allow the former as true much of the time, though it can be the graceless option other times.
But some went further and said that there was some magical rule against prepositions.
You might think that today we could easily counter such foolishness by pointing out Shakespeare and the King James Bible use it, and you don't have to believe in biblical infallibility — or indeed believe any of it to any degree — to believe the King James is as infallible as can be when it comes to grammar, with Shakespeare as grammar made flesh. (And Shakespeare clearly isn't infallible in other ways — his geography is hilariously bad and his history allowed clocks to chime in Ancient Rome, but it's bad geography and history, beautifully expressed).
But that was a different era, and such ramblers actually cited Shakespeare as an example of bad English, much as people today may complain that an MTV host saying "yo! We gonna pimp yo' ride sweeeeet!" is a bad example to children learning English today.
Thankfully, Shakespeare won the popularity contest, and we can enjoy his plays in any city in the world, and only rarely are such pontificators of invented grammar rules something we have to put up with.
There is just simply no such rule in English.
Now, in the seventeenth century, Dryden complained about it, because he wanted to write a bit about how he was a much better writer than Shakespeare and Johnson, and the best he could come up with is that Shakespeare and Johnson hadn't followed a rule about preposition position that existed in Latin, but had never existed in English.
On the one hand, that at least is a bit better than the nonsense about split infinitives — where people prohibit something in English not because it's forbidden in Latin but because it's actually impossible in it. On the other hand, it's still pretty stupid.
Ironically, English is overall a much stricter language than Latin about word order, and it's precisely because of this that in Latin a preposition not only can't appear at the end of a sentence, but can not appear after its object (that is indeed the etymology of the word — pre- + position). The idea that this means anything in English only follows if we allow that "means the idea in English anything" is a well-written clause (hey, the preposition's in the right place!).
Following Dryden, some more people followed suit. Now, some would say that it is often more graceful to place the preposition before the object, or that it's a good idea to make sure that the preposition isn't so separated from the words it most closely relates to as to cause confusion. I'll agree with the latter and allow the former as true much of the time, though it can be the graceless option other times.
But some went further and said that there was some magical rule against prepositions.
You might think that today we could easily counter such foolishness by pointing out Shakespeare and the King James Bible use it, and you don't have to believe in biblical infallibility — or indeed believe any of it to any degree — to believe the King James is as infallible as can be when it comes to grammar, with Shakespeare as grammar made flesh. (And Shakespeare clearly isn't infallible in other ways — his geography is hilariously bad and his history allowed clocks to chime in Ancient Rome, but it's bad geography and history, beautifully expressed).
But that was a different era, and such ramblers actually cited Shakespeare as an example of bad English, much as people today may complain that an MTV host saying "yo! We gonna pimp yo' ride sweeeeet!" is a bad example to children learning English today.
Thankfully, Shakespeare won the popularity contest, and we can enjoy his plays in any city in the world, and only rarely are such pontificators of invented grammar rules something we have to put up with.
edited Dec 18 '13 at 20:04
Community♦
1
1
answered Jan 25 '13 at 15:51
Jon HannaJon Hanna
47.7k193176
47.7k193176
2
Though I'm sure there are some expressions ending in prepositions that should not be come up with - probably for other reasons.
– Edwin Ashworth
Jan 25 '13 at 16:04
@EdwinAshworth I think probably most are covered in what I say about the pre- position being more graceful sometimes, and having a large distance between a preposition and what it relates to being a bad idea.
– Jon Hanna
Jan 25 '13 at 16:06
I knew the general strictures on pedantic junk grammar, but am grateful for the Dryden story, which I didn't know. Myself, I accept split infinitives in others, but I just cannot bring myself to boldly go myself. I just can't; fingernails on the blackboard.
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:06
2
I already +1’ed this ages ago, but I just realised now that there's a bit of inaccuracy in it: prepositions could occasionally come after their objects in Latin, though normally only immediately after them then. The most common example is the preposition cum with personal pronouns, where the result is usually perceived as a single word: mecum, tecum, nobiscum, vobiscum, etc.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Nov 15 '15 at 19:44
1
@SkJohnson by the same reasoning you should never buy a corsage for a date to a prom, because it's illegal to transport dead bodies unless you are a licensed coroner or undertaker.
– Jon Hanna
Dec 23 '16 at 11:57
|
show 2 more comments
2
Though I'm sure there are some expressions ending in prepositions that should not be come up with - probably for other reasons.
– Edwin Ashworth
Jan 25 '13 at 16:04
@EdwinAshworth I think probably most are covered in what I say about the pre- position being more graceful sometimes, and having a large distance between a preposition and what it relates to being a bad idea.
– Jon Hanna
Jan 25 '13 at 16:06
I knew the general strictures on pedantic junk grammar, but am grateful for the Dryden story, which I didn't know. Myself, I accept split infinitives in others, but I just cannot bring myself to boldly go myself. I just can't; fingernails on the blackboard.
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:06
2
I already +1’ed this ages ago, but I just realised now that there's a bit of inaccuracy in it: prepositions could occasionally come after their objects in Latin, though normally only immediately after them then. The most common example is the preposition cum with personal pronouns, where the result is usually perceived as a single word: mecum, tecum, nobiscum, vobiscum, etc.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Nov 15 '15 at 19:44
1
@SkJohnson by the same reasoning you should never buy a corsage for a date to a prom, because it's illegal to transport dead bodies unless you are a licensed coroner or undertaker.
– Jon Hanna
Dec 23 '16 at 11:57
2
2
Though I'm sure there are some expressions ending in prepositions that should not be come up with - probably for other reasons.
– Edwin Ashworth
Jan 25 '13 at 16:04
Though I'm sure there are some expressions ending in prepositions that should not be come up with - probably for other reasons.
– Edwin Ashworth
Jan 25 '13 at 16:04
@EdwinAshworth I think probably most are covered in what I say about the pre- position being more graceful sometimes, and having a large distance between a preposition and what it relates to being a bad idea.
– Jon Hanna
Jan 25 '13 at 16:06
@EdwinAshworth I think probably most are covered in what I say about the pre- position being more graceful sometimes, and having a large distance between a preposition and what it relates to being a bad idea.
– Jon Hanna
Jan 25 '13 at 16:06
I knew the general strictures on pedantic junk grammar, but am grateful for the Dryden story, which I didn't know. Myself, I accept split infinitives in others, but I just cannot bring myself to boldly go myself. I just can't; fingernails on the blackboard.
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:06
I knew the general strictures on pedantic junk grammar, but am grateful for the Dryden story, which I didn't know. Myself, I accept split infinitives in others, but I just cannot bring myself to boldly go myself. I just can't; fingernails on the blackboard.
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:06
2
2
I already +1’ed this ages ago, but I just realised now that there's a bit of inaccuracy in it: prepositions could occasionally come after their objects in Latin, though normally only immediately after them then. The most common example is the preposition cum with personal pronouns, where the result is usually perceived as a single word: mecum, tecum, nobiscum, vobiscum, etc.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Nov 15 '15 at 19:44
I already +1’ed this ages ago, but I just realised now that there's a bit of inaccuracy in it: prepositions could occasionally come after their objects in Latin, though normally only immediately after them then. The most common example is the preposition cum with personal pronouns, where the result is usually perceived as a single word: mecum, tecum, nobiscum, vobiscum, etc.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Nov 15 '15 at 19:44
1
1
@SkJohnson by the same reasoning you should never buy a corsage for a date to a prom, because it's illegal to transport dead bodies unless you are a licensed coroner or undertaker.
– Jon Hanna
Dec 23 '16 at 11:57
@SkJohnson by the same reasoning you should never buy a corsage for a date to a prom, because it's illegal to transport dead bodies unless you are a licensed coroner or undertaker.
– Jon Hanna
Dec 23 '16 at 11:57
|
show 2 more comments
In my opinion this is one of those stuffy rules touted by grammarians who probably should have better things to do... When you can avoid it, don't end sentences with prepositions, but if rewriting the sentence will make it grammatically tortured, it's best to break the rule for the sake of clarity.
9
I really do hope this site remains unspoiled by these grammarians you mention. So far, it's good to see many advocating the breaking of rules where it feels sensible and natural.
– David Foster
Aug 5 '10 at 20:48
14
Well actually, this is not even a rule touted by grammarians. This "rule" was a mistaken grammar rule based on imitating Latin grammar, which came into fashion a century and a bit ago and then disappeared.
– ShreevatsaR
Aug 27 '10 at 19:08
And yet it is still often heard!
– Cerberus
Dec 30 '10 at 16:55
Do we have Strunk&White to blame? Just wondering... oh, and "When you can avoid" is slightly perpetuating this. I'd say "write whatever works/feels right". Well, that's what I do, anyway. ;-)
– Jürgen A. Erhard
Feb 11 '11 at 15:25
5
It's not the grammarians you have to blame. Grammarians like Geoff Pullum and Jim McCawley have been complaining about popular ignorance of actual grammar for decades. It's these zombie rules that keep on causing trouble; I prefer to use a shotgun on them.
– John Lawler
Feb 19 '13 at 21:06
add a comment |
In my opinion this is one of those stuffy rules touted by grammarians who probably should have better things to do... When you can avoid it, don't end sentences with prepositions, but if rewriting the sentence will make it grammatically tortured, it's best to break the rule for the sake of clarity.
9
I really do hope this site remains unspoiled by these grammarians you mention. So far, it's good to see many advocating the breaking of rules where it feels sensible and natural.
– David Foster
Aug 5 '10 at 20:48
14
Well actually, this is not even a rule touted by grammarians. This "rule" was a mistaken grammar rule based on imitating Latin grammar, which came into fashion a century and a bit ago and then disappeared.
– ShreevatsaR
Aug 27 '10 at 19:08
And yet it is still often heard!
– Cerberus
Dec 30 '10 at 16:55
Do we have Strunk&White to blame? Just wondering... oh, and "When you can avoid" is slightly perpetuating this. I'd say "write whatever works/feels right". Well, that's what I do, anyway. ;-)
– Jürgen A. Erhard
Feb 11 '11 at 15:25
5
It's not the grammarians you have to blame. Grammarians like Geoff Pullum and Jim McCawley have been complaining about popular ignorance of actual grammar for decades. It's these zombie rules that keep on causing trouble; I prefer to use a shotgun on them.
– John Lawler
Feb 19 '13 at 21:06
add a comment |
In my opinion this is one of those stuffy rules touted by grammarians who probably should have better things to do... When you can avoid it, don't end sentences with prepositions, but if rewriting the sentence will make it grammatically tortured, it's best to break the rule for the sake of clarity.
In my opinion this is one of those stuffy rules touted by grammarians who probably should have better things to do... When you can avoid it, don't end sentences with prepositions, but if rewriting the sentence will make it grammatically tortured, it's best to break the rule for the sake of clarity.
answered Aug 5 '10 at 20:22
Brendan BergBrendan Berg
1,37421114
1,37421114
9
I really do hope this site remains unspoiled by these grammarians you mention. So far, it's good to see many advocating the breaking of rules where it feels sensible and natural.
– David Foster
Aug 5 '10 at 20:48
14
Well actually, this is not even a rule touted by grammarians. This "rule" was a mistaken grammar rule based on imitating Latin grammar, which came into fashion a century and a bit ago and then disappeared.
– ShreevatsaR
Aug 27 '10 at 19:08
And yet it is still often heard!
– Cerberus
Dec 30 '10 at 16:55
Do we have Strunk&White to blame? Just wondering... oh, and "When you can avoid" is slightly perpetuating this. I'd say "write whatever works/feels right". Well, that's what I do, anyway. ;-)
– Jürgen A. Erhard
Feb 11 '11 at 15:25
5
It's not the grammarians you have to blame. Grammarians like Geoff Pullum and Jim McCawley have been complaining about popular ignorance of actual grammar for decades. It's these zombie rules that keep on causing trouble; I prefer to use a shotgun on them.
– John Lawler
Feb 19 '13 at 21:06
add a comment |
9
I really do hope this site remains unspoiled by these grammarians you mention. So far, it's good to see many advocating the breaking of rules where it feels sensible and natural.
– David Foster
Aug 5 '10 at 20:48
14
Well actually, this is not even a rule touted by grammarians. This "rule" was a mistaken grammar rule based on imitating Latin grammar, which came into fashion a century and a bit ago and then disappeared.
– ShreevatsaR
Aug 27 '10 at 19:08
And yet it is still often heard!
– Cerberus
Dec 30 '10 at 16:55
Do we have Strunk&White to blame? Just wondering... oh, and "When you can avoid" is slightly perpetuating this. I'd say "write whatever works/feels right". Well, that's what I do, anyway. ;-)
– Jürgen A. Erhard
Feb 11 '11 at 15:25
5
It's not the grammarians you have to blame. Grammarians like Geoff Pullum and Jim McCawley have been complaining about popular ignorance of actual grammar for decades. It's these zombie rules that keep on causing trouble; I prefer to use a shotgun on them.
– John Lawler
Feb 19 '13 at 21:06
9
9
I really do hope this site remains unspoiled by these grammarians you mention. So far, it's good to see many advocating the breaking of rules where it feels sensible and natural.
– David Foster
Aug 5 '10 at 20:48
I really do hope this site remains unspoiled by these grammarians you mention. So far, it's good to see many advocating the breaking of rules where it feels sensible and natural.
– David Foster
Aug 5 '10 at 20:48
14
14
Well actually, this is not even a rule touted by grammarians. This "rule" was a mistaken grammar rule based on imitating Latin grammar, which came into fashion a century and a bit ago and then disappeared.
– ShreevatsaR
Aug 27 '10 at 19:08
Well actually, this is not even a rule touted by grammarians. This "rule" was a mistaken grammar rule based on imitating Latin grammar, which came into fashion a century and a bit ago and then disappeared.
– ShreevatsaR
Aug 27 '10 at 19:08
And yet it is still often heard!
– Cerberus
Dec 30 '10 at 16:55
And yet it is still often heard!
– Cerberus
Dec 30 '10 at 16:55
Do we have Strunk&White to blame? Just wondering... oh, and "When you can avoid" is slightly perpetuating this. I'd say "write whatever works/feels right". Well, that's what I do, anyway. ;-)
– Jürgen A. Erhard
Feb 11 '11 at 15:25
Do we have Strunk&White to blame? Just wondering... oh, and "When you can avoid" is slightly perpetuating this. I'd say "write whatever works/feels right". Well, that's what I do, anyway. ;-)
– Jürgen A. Erhard
Feb 11 '11 at 15:25
5
5
It's not the grammarians you have to blame. Grammarians like Geoff Pullum and Jim McCawley have been complaining about popular ignorance of actual grammar for decades. It's these zombie rules that keep on causing trouble; I prefer to use a shotgun on them.
– John Lawler
Feb 19 '13 at 21:06
It's not the grammarians you have to blame. Grammarians like Geoff Pullum and Jim McCawley have been complaining about popular ignorance of actual grammar for decades. It's these zombie rules that keep on causing trouble; I prefer to use a shotgun on them.
– John Lawler
Feb 19 '13 at 21:06
add a comment |
A bit similar to [Peter's answer], but with some more history:
Supposedly, the saying originated with Winston Churchill, though it certainly could be apocryphal. The original version was
"This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put."
... maybe. According to an English professor at Washington State University, there are a lot of variations on that theme out there.
Whatever the details of the story, though, the point is that the preposition rule isn't one that needs to be followed in general use. It doesn't increase clarity or provide any other benefit; it just lets some people provide a different tone to their communication. Or, potentially, feel superior to those who don't obey the rule.
2
I was 100% sure that someone would use that Churchill's quote.
– Gurzo
Oct 13 '10 at 17:22
@Gurzo, yeah, it's a good one.
– Pops
Oct 13 '10 at 21:56
The Churchill story: se non è vero è bene trovato.
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:00
add a comment |
A bit similar to [Peter's answer], but with some more history:
Supposedly, the saying originated with Winston Churchill, though it certainly could be apocryphal. The original version was
"This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put."
... maybe. According to an English professor at Washington State University, there are a lot of variations on that theme out there.
Whatever the details of the story, though, the point is that the preposition rule isn't one that needs to be followed in general use. It doesn't increase clarity or provide any other benefit; it just lets some people provide a different tone to their communication. Or, potentially, feel superior to those who don't obey the rule.
2
I was 100% sure that someone would use that Churchill's quote.
– Gurzo
Oct 13 '10 at 17:22
@Gurzo, yeah, it's a good one.
– Pops
Oct 13 '10 at 21:56
The Churchill story: se non è vero è bene trovato.
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:00
add a comment |
A bit similar to [Peter's answer], but with some more history:
Supposedly, the saying originated with Winston Churchill, though it certainly could be apocryphal. The original version was
"This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put."
... maybe. According to an English professor at Washington State University, there are a lot of variations on that theme out there.
Whatever the details of the story, though, the point is that the preposition rule isn't one that needs to be followed in general use. It doesn't increase clarity or provide any other benefit; it just lets some people provide a different tone to their communication. Or, potentially, feel superior to those who don't obey the rule.
A bit similar to [Peter's answer], but with some more history:
Supposedly, the saying originated with Winston Churchill, though it certainly could be apocryphal. The original version was
"This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put."
... maybe. According to an English professor at Washington State University, there are a lot of variations on that theme out there.
Whatever the details of the story, though, the point is that the preposition rule isn't one that needs to be followed in general use. It doesn't increase clarity or provide any other benefit; it just lets some people provide a different tone to their communication. Or, potentially, feel superior to those who don't obey the rule.
answered Aug 6 '10 at 2:58
PopsPops
2,97272739
2,97272739
2
I was 100% sure that someone would use that Churchill's quote.
– Gurzo
Oct 13 '10 at 17:22
@Gurzo, yeah, it's a good one.
– Pops
Oct 13 '10 at 21:56
The Churchill story: se non è vero è bene trovato.
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:00
add a comment |
2
I was 100% sure that someone would use that Churchill's quote.
– Gurzo
Oct 13 '10 at 17:22
@Gurzo, yeah, it's a good one.
– Pops
Oct 13 '10 at 21:56
The Churchill story: se non è vero è bene trovato.
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:00
2
2
I was 100% sure that someone would use that Churchill's quote.
– Gurzo
Oct 13 '10 at 17:22
I was 100% sure that someone would use that Churchill's quote.
– Gurzo
Oct 13 '10 at 17:22
@Gurzo, yeah, it's a good one.
– Pops
Oct 13 '10 at 21:56
@Gurzo, yeah, it's a good one.
– Pops
Oct 13 '10 at 21:56
The Churchill story: se non è vero è bene trovato.
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:00
The Churchill story: se non è vero è bene trovato.
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:00
add a comment |
Prepositions end up at the end of sentences that are using phrasal verbs, that is a verb plus a preposition where the preposition isn't starting a prepositional phrase. Phrasal verbs are perfectly okay and are very common in Germanic languages, less common in something like Latin.
English has several registers--levels of formality-- and phrasal verbs are not preferred in formal English.
Above link is dead wayback machine to the rescue until they go out of business.
8
It's not just phrasal verbs that cause sentences to end with prepositions. "This is the man I live with" is just as grammatical (and infinitely less fussy-sounding) as "This is the man with whom I live"
– nohat♦
Aug 5 '10 at 20:28
Interesting, looks like the result of topic fronting. Topic fronting causes all sort of weird sentences, e.g. "Now beans, I like."
– MatthewMartin
Aug 5 '10 at 20:39
1
Hitting on the historical, philological aspects of both sides of the argument is way more interesting than the question itself.
– Charlie
Aug 6 '10 at 3:07
Thanks for posting the link. A good read on English formality related to questions like this one.
– Brian Kelly
Aug 8 '10 at 0:11
The link you posted is broken. Pity.
– Mari-Lou A
Dec 18 '13 at 23:46
|
show 2 more comments
Prepositions end up at the end of sentences that are using phrasal verbs, that is a verb plus a preposition where the preposition isn't starting a prepositional phrase. Phrasal verbs are perfectly okay and are very common in Germanic languages, less common in something like Latin.
English has several registers--levels of formality-- and phrasal verbs are not preferred in formal English.
Above link is dead wayback machine to the rescue until they go out of business.
8
It's not just phrasal verbs that cause sentences to end with prepositions. "This is the man I live with" is just as grammatical (and infinitely less fussy-sounding) as "This is the man with whom I live"
– nohat♦
Aug 5 '10 at 20:28
Interesting, looks like the result of topic fronting. Topic fronting causes all sort of weird sentences, e.g. "Now beans, I like."
– MatthewMartin
Aug 5 '10 at 20:39
1
Hitting on the historical, philological aspects of both sides of the argument is way more interesting than the question itself.
– Charlie
Aug 6 '10 at 3:07
Thanks for posting the link. A good read on English formality related to questions like this one.
– Brian Kelly
Aug 8 '10 at 0:11
The link you posted is broken. Pity.
– Mari-Lou A
Dec 18 '13 at 23:46
|
show 2 more comments
Prepositions end up at the end of sentences that are using phrasal verbs, that is a verb plus a preposition where the preposition isn't starting a prepositional phrase. Phrasal verbs are perfectly okay and are very common in Germanic languages, less common in something like Latin.
English has several registers--levels of formality-- and phrasal verbs are not preferred in formal English.
Above link is dead wayback machine to the rescue until they go out of business.
Prepositions end up at the end of sentences that are using phrasal verbs, that is a verb plus a preposition where the preposition isn't starting a prepositional phrase. Phrasal verbs are perfectly okay and are very common in Germanic languages, less common in something like Latin.
English has several registers--levels of formality-- and phrasal verbs are not preferred in formal English.
Above link is dead wayback machine to the rescue until they go out of business.
edited Dec 19 '13 at 16:12
answered Aug 5 '10 at 20:22
MatthewMartinMatthewMartin
1,65921526
1,65921526
8
It's not just phrasal verbs that cause sentences to end with prepositions. "This is the man I live with" is just as grammatical (and infinitely less fussy-sounding) as "This is the man with whom I live"
– nohat♦
Aug 5 '10 at 20:28
Interesting, looks like the result of topic fronting. Topic fronting causes all sort of weird sentences, e.g. "Now beans, I like."
– MatthewMartin
Aug 5 '10 at 20:39
1
Hitting on the historical, philological aspects of both sides of the argument is way more interesting than the question itself.
– Charlie
Aug 6 '10 at 3:07
Thanks for posting the link. A good read on English formality related to questions like this one.
– Brian Kelly
Aug 8 '10 at 0:11
The link you posted is broken. Pity.
– Mari-Lou A
Dec 18 '13 at 23:46
|
show 2 more comments
8
It's not just phrasal verbs that cause sentences to end with prepositions. "This is the man I live with" is just as grammatical (and infinitely less fussy-sounding) as "This is the man with whom I live"
– nohat♦
Aug 5 '10 at 20:28
Interesting, looks like the result of topic fronting. Topic fronting causes all sort of weird sentences, e.g. "Now beans, I like."
– MatthewMartin
Aug 5 '10 at 20:39
1
Hitting on the historical, philological aspects of both sides of the argument is way more interesting than the question itself.
– Charlie
Aug 6 '10 at 3:07
Thanks for posting the link. A good read on English formality related to questions like this one.
– Brian Kelly
Aug 8 '10 at 0:11
The link you posted is broken. Pity.
– Mari-Lou A
Dec 18 '13 at 23:46
8
8
It's not just phrasal verbs that cause sentences to end with prepositions. "This is the man I live with" is just as grammatical (and infinitely less fussy-sounding) as "This is the man with whom I live"
– nohat♦
Aug 5 '10 at 20:28
It's not just phrasal verbs that cause sentences to end with prepositions. "This is the man I live with" is just as grammatical (and infinitely less fussy-sounding) as "This is the man with whom I live"
– nohat♦
Aug 5 '10 at 20:28
Interesting, looks like the result of topic fronting. Topic fronting causes all sort of weird sentences, e.g. "Now beans, I like."
– MatthewMartin
Aug 5 '10 at 20:39
Interesting, looks like the result of topic fronting. Topic fronting causes all sort of weird sentences, e.g. "Now beans, I like."
– MatthewMartin
Aug 5 '10 at 20:39
1
1
Hitting on the historical, philological aspects of both sides of the argument is way more interesting than the question itself.
– Charlie
Aug 6 '10 at 3:07
Hitting on the historical, philological aspects of both sides of the argument is way more interesting than the question itself.
– Charlie
Aug 6 '10 at 3:07
Thanks for posting the link. A good read on English formality related to questions like this one.
– Brian Kelly
Aug 8 '10 at 0:11
Thanks for posting the link. A good read on English formality related to questions like this one.
– Brian Kelly
Aug 8 '10 at 0:11
The link you posted is broken. Pity.
– Mari-Lou A
Dec 18 '13 at 23:46
The link you posted is broken. Pity.
– Mari-Lou A
Dec 18 '13 at 23:46
|
show 2 more comments
As an example, in casual speech and informal writing it is common to say, "Who are you going with?" but in a speech or formal writing you probably want to use the more grammatically accepted correct form "With whom are you going?"
4
If you downvote an answer, it is proper etiquette to explain in a comment with what you don't agree. ;-)
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 21:01
2
The person who downvoted probably disagreed with your prescriptive "you probably want to use the more grammatically accepted correct form".
– nohat♦
Aug 5 '10 at 21:22
1
Hmmm, growing up (1970s Colorado) I remember being corrected by both my father and teachers in casual speech if we would say, "who are you going with?" It was one of those grammatical rules that you learned. I do this in writing even in e-mails today since it sounds more grammatically polished as long as it is not e.g. a three-letter phrasal verb of the up-with-which-I-will-not-put genre of affectedness.
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 21:46
4
Strunk and White teach "the way to know whether to end a sentence with a preposition is to hear how it sounds" and in writing, I think English sounds more polished in many cases if the preposition is taken off the end. I didn't say "you must use", I said, "you probably want to use". This is the advice I give to, say, people writing resumes or essays which should be written in their best English possible, it is a way of making the text "sound better" and less like a casual spoken conversation. Perhaps you are right, it is more style than grammar, interesting.
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 22:55
11
I think this is the best advice on this issue: "...it may still be worth revising your sentences to avoid ending them a preposition whenever possible if you wish to reduce the risk of controversy. Since there are still a number of people who believe ending a sentence with a preposition is incorrect, considering your audience’s thoughts on the issue is a wise idea—particularly when you’re trying to gain a new client or land an important job interview.", from: yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules/…
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 6 '10 at 9:23
|
show 2 more comments
As an example, in casual speech and informal writing it is common to say, "Who are you going with?" but in a speech or formal writing you probably want to use the more grammatically accepted correct form "With whom are you going?"
4
If you downvote an answer, it is proper etiquette to explain in a comment with what you don't agree. ;-)
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 21:01
2
The person who downvoted probably disagreed with your prescriptive "you probably want to use the more grammatically accepted correct form".
– nohat♦
Aug 5 '10 at 21:22
1
Hmmm, growing up (1970s Colorado) I remember being corrected by both my father and teachers in casual speech if we would say, "who are you going with?" It was one of those grammatical rules that you learned. I do this in writing even in e-mails today since it sounds more grammatically polished as long as it is not e.g. a three-letter phrasal verb of the up-with-which-I-will-not-put genre of affectedness.
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 21:46
4
Strunk and White teach "the way to know whether to end a sentence with a preposition is to hear how it sounds" and in writing, I think English sounds more polished in many cases if the preposition is taken off the end. I didn't say "you must use", I said, "you probably want to use". This is the advice I give to, say, people writing resumes or essays which should be written in their best English possible, it is a way of making the text "sound better" and less like a casual spoken conversation. Perhaps you are right, it is more style than grammar, interesting.
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 22:55
11
I think this is the best advice on this issue: "...it may still be worth revising your sentences to avoid ending them a preposition whenever possible if you wish to reduce the risk of controversy. Since there are still a number of people who believe ending a sentence with a preposition is incorrect, considering your audience’s thoughts on the issue is a wise idea—particularly when you’re trying to gain a new client or land an important job interview.", from: yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules/…
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 6 '10 at 9:23
|
show 2 more comments
As an example, in casual speech and informal writing it is common to say, "Who are you going with?" but in a speech or formal writing you probably want to use the more grammatically accepted correct form "With whom are you going?"
As an example, in casual speech and informal writing it is common to say, "Who are you going with?" but in a speech or formal writing you probably want to use the more grammatically accepted correct form "With whom are you going?"
edited Aug 5 '10 at 20:43
answered Aug 5 '10 at 20:30
Edward TanguayEdward Tanguay
10.7k165363
10.7k165363
4
If you downvote an answer, it is proper etiquette to explain in a comment with what you don't agree. ;-)
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 21:01
2
The person who downvoted probably disagreed with your prescriptive "you probably want to use the more grammatically accepted correct form".
– nohat♦
Aug 5 '10 at 21:22
1
Hmmm, growing up (1970s Colorado) I remember being corrected by both my father and teachers in casual speech if we would say, "who are you going with?" It was one of those grammatical rules that you learned. I do this in writing even in e-mails today since it sounds more grammatically polished as long as it is not e.g. a three-letter phrasal verb of the up-with-which-I-will-not-put genre of affectedness.
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 21:46
4
Strunk and White teach "the way to know whether to end a sentence with a preposition is to hear how it sounds" and in writing, I think English sounds more polished in many cases if the preposition is taken off the end. I didn't say "you must use", I said, "you probably want to use". This is the advice I give to, say, people writing resumes or essays which should be written in their best English possible, it is a way of making the text "sound better" and less like a casual spoken conversation. Perhaps you are right, it is more style than grammar, interesting.
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 22:55
11
I think this is the best advice on this issue: "...it may still be worth revising your sentences to avoid ending them a preposition whenever possible if you wish to reduce the risk of controversy. Since there are still a number of people who believe ending a sentence with a preposition is incorrect, considering your audience’s thoughts on the issue is a wise idea—particularly when you’re trying to gain a new client or land an important job interview.", from: yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules/…
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 6 '10 at 9:23
|
show 2 more comments
4
If you downvote an answer, it is proper etiquette to explain in a comment with what you don't agree. ;-)
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 21:01
2
The person who downvoted probably disagreed with your prescriptive "you probably want to use the more grammatically accepted correct form".
– nohat♦
Aug 5 '10 at 21:22
1
Hmmm, growing up (1970s Colorado) I remember being corrected by both my father and teachers in casual speech if we would say, "who are you going with?" It was one of those grammatical rules that you learned. I do this in writing even in e-mails today since it sounds more grammatically polished as long as it is not e.g. a three-letter phrasal verb of the up-with-which-I-will-not-put genre of affectedness.
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 21:46
4
Strunk and White teach "the way to know whether to end a sentence with a preposition is to hear how it sounds" and in writing, I think English sounds more polished in many cases if the preposition is taken off the end. I didn't say "you must use", I said, "you probably want to use". This is the advice I give to, say, people writing resumes or essays which should be written in their best English possible, it is a way of making the text "sound better" and less like a casual spoken conversation. Perhaps you are right, it is more style than grammar, interesting.
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 22:55
11
I think this is the best advice on this issue: "...it may still be worth revising your sentences to avoid ending them a preposition whenever possible if you wish to reduce the risk of controversy. Since there are still a number of people who believe ending a sentence with a preposition is incorrect, considering your audience’s thoughts on the issue is a wise idea—particularly when you’re trying to gain a new client or land an important job interview.", from: yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules/…
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 6 '10 at 9:23
4
4
If you downvote an answer, it is proper etiquette to explain in a comment with what you don't agree. ;-)
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 21:01
If you downvote an answer, it is proper etiquette to explain in a comment with what you don't agree. ;-)
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 21:01
2
2
The person who downvoted probably disagreed with your prescriptive "you probably want to use the more grammatically accepted correct form".
– nohat♦
Aug 5 '10 at 21:22
The person who downvoted probably disagreed with your prescriptive "you probably want to use the more grammatically accepted correct form".
– nohat♦
Aug 5 '10 at 21:22
1
1
Hmmm, growing up (1970s Colorado) I remember being corrected by both my father and teachers in casual speech if we would say, "who are you going with?" It was one of those grammatical rules that you learned. I do this in writing even in e-mails today since it sounds more grammatically polished as long as it is not e.g. a three-letter phrasal verb of the up-with-which-I-will-not-put genre of affectedness.
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 21:46
Hmmm, growing up (1970s Colorado) I remember being corrected by both my father and teachers in casual speech if we would say, "who are you going with?" It was one of those grammatical rules that you learned. I do this in writing even in e-mails today since it sounds more grammatically polished as long as it is not e.g. a three-letter phrasal verb of the up-with-which-I-will-not-put genre of affectedness.
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 21:46
4
4
Strunk and White teach "the way to know whether to end a sentence with a preposition is to hear how it sounds" and in writing, I think English sounds more polished in many cases if the preposition is taken off the end. I didn't say "you must use", I said, "you probably want to use". This is the advice I give to, say, people writing resumes or essays which should be written in their best English possible, it is a way of making the text "sound better" and less like a casual spoken conversation. Perhaps you are right, it is more style than grammar, interesting.
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 22:55
Strunk and White teach "the way to know whether to end a sentence with a preposition is to hear how it sounds" and in writing, I think English sounds more polished in many cases if the preposition is taken off the end. I didn't say "you must use", I said, "you probably want to use". This is the advice I give to, say, people writing resumes or essays which should be written in their best English possible, it is a way of making the text "sound better" and less like a casual spoken conversation. Perhaps you are right, it is more style than grammar, interesting.
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 5 '10 at 22:55
11
11
I think this is the best advice on this issue: "...it may still be worth revising your sentences to avoid ending them a preposition whenever possible if you wish to reduce the risk of controversy. Since there are still a number of people who believe ending a sentence with a preposition is incorrect, considering your audience’s thoughts on the issue is a wise idea—particularly when you’re trying to gain a new client or land an important job interview.", from: yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules/…
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 6 '10 at 9:23
I think this is the best advice on this issue: "...it may still be worth revising your sentences to avoid ending them a preposition whenever possible if you wish to reduce the risk of controversy. Since there are still a number of people who believe ending a sentence with a preposition is incorrect, considering your audience’s thoughts on the issue is a wise idea—particularly when you’re trying to gain a new client or land an important job interview.", from: yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules/…
– Edward Tanguay
Aug 6 '10 at 9:23
|
show 2 more comments
As easily as ending a sentence in a preposition may roll of your tongue in conversation and be comprehended, unfortunately it is not always comprehended as such when read. Often it looks like an unschooled individual is at work here. However, the heart of the matter is that it is a logical distractor, could lead to confusion, and therefore is to be avoided.
You can sometimes cheat by adding "do so" on the end of some cases, I have found. However, it is best to rewrite the material to avoid the logical distractor when necessary.
Now, in an email, depending upon whom you are writing, it is perfectly acceptable in my humble opinion to end in a preposition as long as it is about 90% obvious that the meaning of the sentence will not be lost.
What do you mean by "logical distractor"?
– nohat♦
Sep 25 '10 at 0:07
1
That term means that the phrasing distracts and adds confusion to the sentence. When we write, we wish to express meaning. There are sentences that work, but then again there are sentences that work better, or work best. They work best by being logical in conveying meaning, which means not only good grammar, but good logic and word choice -- not distracting.
– Volomike
Sep 25 '10 at 1:34
Volomike here reminds me of the schooldays joke about the carpenter holding a nail who said to his mate, "When I nod my head, hit it." Is that perhaps an example of a logical distractor?
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:10
add a comment |
As easily as ending a sentence in a preposition may roll of your tongue in conversation and be comprehended, unfortunately it is not always comprehended as such when read. Often it looks like an unschooled individual is at work here. However, the heart of the matter is that it is a logical distractor, could lead to confusion, and therefore is to be avoided.
You can sometimes cheat by adding "do so" on the end of some cases, I have found. However, it is best to rewrite the material to avoid the logical distractor when necessary.
Now, in an email, depending upon whom you are writing, it is perfectly acceptable in my humble opinion to end in a preposition as long as it is about 90% obvious that the meaning of the sentence will not be lost.
What do you mean by "logical distractor"?
– nohat♦
Sep 25 '10 at 0:07
1
That term means that the phrasing distracts and adds confusion to the sentence. When we write, we wish to express meaning. There are sentences that work, but then again there are sentences that work better, or work best. They work best by being logical in conveying meaning, which means not only good grammar, but good logic and word choice -- not distracting.
– Volomike
Sep 25 '10 at 1:34
Volomike here reminds me of the schooldays joke about the carpenter holding a nail who said to his mate, "When I nod my head, hit it." Is that perhaps an example of a logical distractor?
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:10
add a comment |
As easily as ending a sentence in a preposition may roll of your tongue in conversation and be comprehended, unfortunately it is not always comprehended as such when read. Often it looks like an unschooled individual is at work here. However, the heart of the matter is that it is a logical distractor, could lead to confusion, and therefore is to be avoided.
You can sometimes cheat by adding "do so" on the end of some cases, I have found. However, it is best to rewrite the material to avoid the logical distractor when necessary.
Now, in an email, depending upon whom you are writing, it is perfectly acceptable in my humble opinion to end in a preposition as long as it is about 90% obvious that the meaning of the sentence will not be lost.
As easily as ending a sentence in a preposition may roll of your tongue in conversation and be comprehended, unfortunately it is not always comprehended as such when read. Often it looks like an unschooled individual is at work here. However, the heart of the matter is that it is a logical distractor, could lead to confusion, and therefore is to be avoided.
You can sometimes cheat by adding "do so" on the end of some cases, I have found. However, it is best to rewrite the material to avoid the logical distractor when necessary.
Now, in an email, depending upon whom you are writing, it is perfectly acceptable in my humble opinion to end in a preposition as long as it is about 90% obvious that the meaning of the sentence will not be lost.
answered Sep 24 '10 at 18:24
VolomikeVolomike
6503814
6503814
What do you mean by "logical distractor"?
– nohat♦
Sep 25 '10 at 0:07
1
That term means that the phrasing distracts and adds confusion to the sentence. When we write, we wish to express meaning. There are sentences that work, but then again there are sentences that work better, or work best. They work best by being logical in conveying meaning, which means not only good grammar, but good logic and word choice -- not distracting.
– Volomike
Sep 25 '10 at 1:34
Volomike here reminds me of the schooldays joke about the carpenter holding a nail who said to his mate, "When I nod my head, hit it." Is that perhaps an example of a logical distractor?
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:10
add a comment |
What do you mean by "logical distractor"?
– nohat♦
Sep 25 '10 at 0:07
1
That term means that the phrasing distracts and adds confusion to the sentence. When we write, we wish to express meaning. There are sentences that work, but then again there are sentences that work better, or work best. They work best by being logical in conveying meaning, which means not only good grammar, but good logic and word choice -- not distracting.
– Volomike
Sep 25 '10 at 1:34
Volomike here reminds me of the schooldays joke about the carpenter holding a nail who said to his mate, "When I nod my head, hit it." Is that perhaps an example of a logical distractor?
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:10
What do you mean by "logical distractor"?
– nohat♦
Sep 25 '10 at 0:07
What do you mean by "logical distractor"?
– nohat♦
Sep 25 '10 at 0:07
1
1
That term means that the phrasing distracts and adds confusion to the sentence. When we write, we wish to express meaning. There are sentences that work, but then again there are sentences that work better, or work best. They work best by being logical in conveying meaning, which means not only good grammar, but good logic and word choice -- not distracting.
– Volomike
Sep 25 '10 at 1:34
That term means that the phrasing distracts and adds confusion to the sentence. When we write, we wish to express meaning. There are sentences that work, but then again there are sentences that work better, or work best. They work best by being logical in conveying meaning, which means not only good grammar, but good logic and word choice -- not distracting.
– Volomike
Sep 25 '10 at 1:34
Volomike here reminds me of the schooldays joke about the carpenter holding a nail who said to his mate, "When I nod my head, hit it." Is that perhaps an example of a logical distractor?
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:10
Volomike here reminds me of the schooldays joke about the carpenter holding a nail who said to his mate, "When I nod my head, hit it." Is that perhaps an example of a logical distractor?
– David Pugh
May 1 '15 at 12:10
add a comment |
Agree on mocking the pedantry of this rule.
Perhaps the rule had its origin in the idea that every preposition should have an object, and as the object normally follows the preposition in English, if a sentence ends with a preposition that often means that it has no object.
Consider, "Send a letter to." This obvously is an imcomplete thought. Send a letter to whom?
The catch is that sometimes the object does NOT immediately follow the preposition. To take Churchill's famous sentence that others have quoted here, the natural wording of the thought is, "That is a rule I can't put up with." "With" is a preposition and ends the sentence, but it is not the case that it has no object. The object is "rule", which occurred earlier in the sentence. You could, of course, write, "I can't put up with that rule." It doesn't change the strict meaning of the sentence. But it does change the emphasis, from "that rule" to "I", and so is not entirely equivalent.
Attempts to follow this rule lead people to all sorts of awkward constructions. Is it really better to say, "That is the girl with whom I want to go" rather than "That's the girl I want to go with"? How is the first sentence better ... other than that it conforms to an arbitrary rule?
Side note: One violation of this rule that I hear all the time and that really grates on me for some reason is, "Where's it at?" The "at" has no object, because it is completely superfluous. What you want to say is, "Where is it?" I suspect that when people contract "where is" to "where's", the sentence becomes "Where's it?", which sounds too abrupt, so they feel a need to add an extra syllable, and rather than expanding the contraction, they add a pointless unnecessary word.
1
Why not use the 'plain-talk rule'? 'I want to go with that girl'.
– user3847
Aug 4 '14 at 5:58
To me, "Where is it?" and "Where is it at?" are two different questions and are not generally interchangeable.
– guifa
Oct 11 '14 at 23:39
@guifa And what is the difference in meaning between the two questions? If someone mentioned, say, the city of York, and you then asked "Where is it?", I would likely reply, "In northern England." If you asked, "Where is it at?", wouldn't the logical reply be the same?
– Jay
Oct 14 '14 at 14:24
@Jay the difference is specificity for me. Where is it? England. Where's it at? About half an hour northeast of Leeds. Or, if I'm waiting on a friend. Where are you? On my way. Where are you at? Just passed exit 54. Could be just a regional difference (I'm Southern AmE).
– guifa
Oct 14 '14 at 15:39
1
A lot of the grammar rules we learn in elementary school are taught because we may not yet be ready to learn all the proper nuances, and so we have a simple blanket rule, to prevent a common learner's mistake (e.g. an omitted object). Another example is "Don't start a sentence with 'and'." And that rule exists because an English novice may place a full stop before a conjunction where they should use a comma instead. But, of course, there is a correct way to start a sentence with 'and'; the novice just isn't ready to learn to differentiate that yet.
– Dan Henderson
May 26 '16 at 15:36
|
show 6 more comments
Agree on mocking the pedantry of this rule.
Perhaps the rule had its origin in the idea that every preposition should have an object, and as the object normally follows the preposition in English, if a sentence ends with a preposition that often means that it has no object.
Consider, "Send a letter to." This obvously is an imcomplete thought. Send a letter to whom?
The catch is that sometimes the object does NOT immediately follow the preposition. To take Churchill's famous sentence that others have quoted here, the natural wording of the thought is, "That is a rule I can't put up with." "With" is a preposition and ends the sentence, but it is not the case that it has no object. The object is "rule", which occurred earlier in the sentence. You could, of course, write, "I can't put up with that rule." It doesn't change the strict meaning of the sentence. But it does change the emphasis, from "that rule" to "I", and so is not entirely equivalent.
Attempts to follow this rule lead people to all sorts of awkward constructions. Is it really better to say, "That is the girl with whom I want to go" rather than "That's the girl I want to go with"? How is the first sentence better ... other than that it conforms to an arbitrary rule?
Side note: One violation of this rule that I hear all the time and that really grates on me for some reason is, "Where's it at?" The "at" has no object, because it is completely superfluous. What you want to say is, "Where is it?" I suspect that when people contract "where is" to "where's", the sentence becomes "Where's it?", which sounds too abrupt, so they feel a need to add an extra syllable, and rather than expanding the contraction, they add a pointless unnecessary word.
1
Why not use the 'plain-talk rule'? 'I want to go with that girl'.
– user3847
Aug 4 '14 at 5:58
To me, "Where is it?" and "Where is it at?" are two different questions and are not generally interchangeable.
– guifa
Oct 11 '14 at 23:39
@guifa And what is the difference in meaning between the two questions? If someone mentioned, say, the city of York, and you then asked "Where is it?", I would likely reply, "In northern England." If you asked, "Where is it at?", wouldn't the logical reply be the same?
– Jay
Oct 14 '14 at 14:24
@Jay the difference is specificity for me. Where is it? England. Where's it at? About half an hour northeast of Leeds. Or, if I'm waiting on a friend. Where are you? On my way. Where are you at? Just passed exit 54. Could be just a regional difference (I'm Southern AmE).
– guifa
Oct 14 '14 at 15:39
1
A lot of the grammar rules we learn in elementary school are taught because we may not yet be ready to learn all the proper nuances, and so we have a simple blanket rule, to prevent a common learner's mistake (e.g. an omitted object). Another example is "Don't start a sentence with 'and'." And that rule exists because an English novice may place a full stop before a conjunction where they should use a comma instead. But, of course, there is a correct way to start a sentence with 'and'; the novice just isn't ready to learn to differentiate that yet.
– Dan Henderson
May 26 '16 at 15:36
|
show 6 more comments
Agree on mocking the pedantry of this rule.
Perhaps the rule had its origin in the idea that every preposition should have an object, and as the object normally follows the preposition in English, if a sentence ends with a preposition that often means that it has no object.
Consider, "Send a letter to." This obvously is an imcomplete thought. Send a letter to whom?
The catch is that sometimes the object does NOT immediately follow the preposition. To take Churchill's famous sentence that others have quoted here, the natural wording of the thought is, "That is a rule I can't put up with." "With" is a preposition and ends the sentence, but it is not the case that it has no object. The object is "rule", which occurred earlier in the sentence. You could, of course, write, "I can't put up with that rule." It doesn't change the strict meaning of the sentence. But it does change the emphasis, from "that rule" to "I", and so is not entirely equivalent.
Attempts to follow this rule lead people to all sorts of awkward constructions. Is it really better to say, "That is the girl with whom I want to go" rather than "That's the girl I want to go with"? How is the first sentence better ... other than that it conforms to an arbitrary rule?
Side note: One violation of this rule that I hear all the time and that really grates on me for some reason is, "Where's it at?" The "at" has no object, because it is completely superfluous. What you want to say is, "Where is it?" I suspect that when people contract "where is" to "where's", the sentence becomes "Where's it?", which sounds too abrupt, so they feel a need to add an extra syllable, and rather than expanding the contraction, they add a pointless unnecessary word.
Agree on mocking the pedantry of this rule.
Perhaps the rule had its origin in the idea that every preposition should have an object, and as the object normally follows the preposition in English, if a sentence ends with a preposition that often means that it has no object.
Consider, "Send a letter to." This obvously is an imcomplete thought. Send a letter to whom?
The catch is that sometimes the object does NOT immediately follow the preposition. To take Churchill's famous sentence that others have quoted here, the natural wording of the thought is, "That is a rule I can't put up with." "With" is a preposition and ends the sentence, but it is not the case that it has no object. The object is "rule", which occurred earlier in the sentence. You could, of course, write, "I can't put up with that rule." It doesn't change the strict meaning of the sentence. But it does change the emphasis, from "that rule" to "I", and so is not entirely equivalent.
Attempts to follow this rule lead people to all sorts of awkward constructions. Is it really better to say, "That is the girl with whom I want to go" rather than "That's the girl I want to go with"? How is the first sentence better ... other than that it conforms to an arbitrary rule?
Side note: One violation of this rule that I hear all the time and that really grates on me for some reason is, "Where's it at?" The "at" has no object, because it is completely superfluous. What you want to say is, "Where is it?" I suspect that when people contract "where is" to "where's", the sentence becomes "Where's it?", which sounds too abrupt, so they feel a need to add an extra syllable, and rather than expanding the contraction, they add a pointless unnecessary word.
edited Jan 20 '12 at 23:44
Daniel
47.1k59230353
47.1k59230353
answered Jan 20 '12 at 20:13
JayJay
31.3k34691
31.3k34691
1
Why not use the 'plain-talk rule'? 'I want to go with that girl'.
– user3847
Aug 4 '14 at 5:58
To me, "Where is it?" and "Where is it at?" are two different questions and are not generally interchangeable.
– guifa
Oct 11 '14 at 23:39
@guifa And what is the difference in meaning between the two questions? If someone mentioned, say, the city of York, and you then asked "Where is it?", I would likely reply, "In northern England." If you asked, "Where is it at?", wouldn't the logical reply be the same?
– Jay
Oct 14 '14 at 14:24
@Jay the difference is specificity for me. Where is it? England. Where's it at? About half an hour northeast of Leeds. Or, if I'm waiting on a friend. Where are you? On my way. Where are you at? Just passed exit 54. Could be just a regional difference (I'm Southern AmE).
– guifa
Oct 14 '14 at 15:39
1
A lot of the grammar rules we learn in elementary school are taught because we may not yet be ready to learn all the proper nuances, and so we have a simple blanket rule, to prevent a common learner's mistake (e.g. an omitted object). Another example is "Don't start a sentence with 'and'." And that rule exists because an English novice may place a full stop before a conjunction where they should use a comma instead. But, of course, there is a correct way to start a sentence with 'and'; the novice just isn't ready to learn to differentiate that yet.
– Dan Henderson
May 26 '16 at 15:36
|
show 6 more comments
1
Why not use the 'plain-talk rule'? 'I want to go with that girl'.
– user3847
Aug 4 '14 at 5:58
To me, "Where is it?" and "Where is it at?" are two different questions and are not generally interchangeable.
– guifa
Oct 11 '14 at 23:39
@guifa And what is the difference in meaning between the two questions? If someone mentioned, say, the city of York, and you then asked "Where is it?", I would likely reply, "In northern England." If you asked, "Where is it at?", wouldn't the logical reply be the same?
– Jay
Oct 14 '14 at 14:24
@Jay the difference is specificity for me. Where is it? England. Where's it at? About half an hour northeast of Leeds. Or, if I'm waiting on a friend. Where are you? On my way. Where are you at? Just passed exit 54. Could be just a regional difference (I'm Southern AmE).
– guifa
Oct 14 '14 at 15:39
1
A lot of the grammar rules we learn in elementary school are taught because we may not yet be ready to learn all the proper nuances, and so we have a simple blanket rule, to prevent a common learner's mistake (e.g. an omitted object). Another example is "Don't start a sentence with 'and'." And that rule exists because an English novice may place a full stop before a conjunction where they should use a comma instead. But, of course, there is a correct way to start a sentence with 'and'; the novice just isn't ready to learn to differentiate that yet.
– Dan Henderson
May 26 '16 at 15:36
1
1
Why not use the 'plain-talk rule'? 'I want to go with that girl'.
– user3847
Aug 4 '14 at 5:58
Why not use the 'plain-talk rule'? 'I want to go with that girl'.
– user3847
Aug 4 '14 at 5:58
To me, "Where is it?" and "Where is it at?" are two different questions and are not generally interchangeable.
– guifa
Oct 11 '14 at 23:39
To me, "Where is it?" and "Where is it at?" are two different questions and are not generally interchangeable.
– guifa
Oct 11 '14 at 23:39
@guifa And what is the difference in meaning between the two questions? If someone mentioned, say, the city of York, and you then asked "Where is it?", I would likely reply, "In northern England." If you asked, "Where is it at?", wouldn't the logical reply be the same?
– Jay
Oct 14 '14 at 14:24
@guifa And what is the difference in meaning between the two questions? If someone mentioned, say, the city of York, and you then asked "Where is it?", I would likely reply, "In northern England." If you asked, "Where is it at?", wouldn't the logical reply be the same?
– Jay
Oct 14 '14 at 14:24
@Jay the difference is specificity for me. Where is it? England. Where's it at? About half an hour northeast of Leeds. Or, if I'm waiting on a friend. Where are you? On my way. Where are you at? Just passed exit 54. Could be just a regional difference (I'm Southern AmE).
– guifa
Oct 14 '14 at 15:39
@Jay the difference is specificity for me. Where is it? England. Where's it at? About half an hour northeast of Leeds. Or, if I'm waiting on a friend. Where are you? On my way. Where are you at? Just passed exit 54. Could be just a regional difference (I'm Southern AmE).
– guifa
Oct 14 '14 at 15:39
1
1
A lot of the grammar rules we learn in elementary school are taught because we may not yet be ready to learn all the proper nuances, and so we have a simple blanket rule, to prevent a common learner's mistake (e.g. an omitted object). Another example is "Don't start a sentence with 'and'." And that rule exists because an English novice may place a full stop before a conjunction where they should use a comma instead. But, of course, there is a correct way to start a sentence with 'and'; the novice just isn't ready to learn to differentiate that yet.
– Dan Henderson
May 26 '16 at 15:36
A lot of the grammar rules we learn in elementary school are taught because we may not yet be ready to learn all the proper nuances, and so we have a simple blanket rule, to prevent a common learner's mistake (e.g. an omitted object). Another example is "Don't start a sentence with 'and'." And that rule exists because an English novice may place a full stop before a conjunction where they should use a comma instead. But, of course, there is a correct way to start a sentence with 'and'; the novice just isn't ready to learn to differentiate that yet.
– Dan Henderson
May 26 '16 at 15:36
|
show 6 more comments
Yes, it's fine. Even Fowler agrees that the hoary shibboleth forbidding sentences that end in prepositions is hogwash. It came about originally supposedly because such a thing could not happen in Latin, so naturally English must follow suit.
Because all upper-class private schools of the time emphasized, if not required Latin, 'good' grammar was presumed to be grammar that emulated Latin grammar.
But don't take my word for it. Here's what The Oxford Dictionaries has to say:
There’s no necessity to ban prepositions from the end of sentences. Ending a sentence with a preposition is a perfectly natural part of the structure of modern English.
The only time you may wish to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition is when the verb is so far back that its relationship with the preposition becomes unclear.
add a comment |
Yes, it's fine. Even Fowler agrees that the hoary shibboleth forbidding sentences that end in prepositions is hogwash. It came about originally supposedly because such a thing could not happen in Latin, so naturally English must follow suit.
Because all upper-class private schools of the time emphasized, if not required Latin, 'good' grammar was presumed to be grammar that emulated Latin grammar.
But don't take my word for it. Here's what The Oxford Dictionaries has to say:
There’s no necessity to ban prepositions from the end of sentences. Ending a sentence with a preposition is a perfectly natural part of the structure of modern English.
The only time you may wish to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition is when the verb is so far back that its relationship with the preposition becomes unclear.
add a comment |
Yes, it's fine. Even Fowler agrees that the hoary shibboleth forbidding sentences that end in prepositions is hogwash. It came about originally supposedly because such a thing could not happen in Latin, so naturally English must follow suit.
Because all upper-class private schools of the time emphasized, if not required Latin, 'good' grammar was presumed to be grammar that emulated Latin grammar.
But don't take my word for it. Here's what The Oxford Dictionaries has to say:
There’s no necessity to ban prepositions from the end of sentences. Ending a sentence with a preposition is a perfectly natural part of the structure of modern English.
The only time you may wish to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition is when the verb is so far back that its relationship with the preposition becomes unclear.
Yes, it's fine. Even Fowler agrees that the hoary shibboleth forbidding sentences that end in prepositions is hogwash. It came about originally supposedly because such a thing could not happen in Latin, so naturally English must follow suit.
Because all upper-class private schools of the time emphasized, if not required Latin, 'good' grammar was presumed to be grammar that emulated Latin grammar.
But don't take my word for it. Here's what The Oxford Dictionaries has to say:
There’s no necessity to ban prepositions from the end of sentences. Ending a sentence with a preposition is a perfectly natural part of the structure of modern English.
The only time you may wish to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition is when the verb is so far back that its relationship with the preposition becomes unclear.
answered Sep 4 '12 at 1:44
RobustoRobusto
128k28303514
128k28303514
add a comment |
add a comment |
The same could be said of the word ain't and yet no one insists on its being grammatically correct. Ain't is accepted in conversational English perfectly well but it will be frowned upon when it is put into print.
This is a non sequitur indeed. The placing of a preposition at the end of a sentence has far more linguistic acceptance (and common usage) than ain't has ever had, or ever will. Does anyone even seriously (non-comically, non-ironically) use ain't anywhere? I'm willing to be so advised.
Rules against sentence-ending prepositions are as forgettable as those against the split infinitive.
Just mistaken identification of when a word that looks like a preposition is actually acting like one.
– Sk Johnson
Dec 2 '15 at 19:36
And, yes, plenty of people use it, go to a high-school campus someday and you will hear enough of it.
– Sk Johnson
Dec 4 '15 at 22:01
And cases where words which normally function as prepositions are at the ends of logistically sound sentences, I guarantee you, are not serving the purpose of a preposition in that particular sentence. Most likely they are incorporated as part of a verb+helping verb phrase which, together, are simply a verb (think of the helping verb, or particle, as being an adverb modifying the verb next to it). Either that or they are in the form of a question, and questions are allowed to be incomplete sentences. – Sk Johnson 2 days ago
– Sk Johnson
Dec 4 '15 at 23:20
add a comment |
The same could be said of the word ain't and yet no one insists on its being grammatically correct. Ain't is accepted in conversational English perfectly well but it will be frowned upon when it is put into print.
This is a non sequitur indeed. The placing of a preposition at the end of a sentence has far more linguistic acceptance (and common usage) than ain't has ever had, or ever will. Does anyone even seriously (non-comically, non-ironically) use ain't anywhere? I'm willing to be so advised.
Rules against sentence-ending prepositions are as forgettable as those against the split infinitive.
Just mistaken identification of when a word that looks like a preposition is actually acting like one.
– Sk Johnson
Dec 2 '15 at 19:36
And, yes, plenty of people use it, go to a high-school campus someday and you will hear enough of it.
– Sk Johnson
Dec 4 '15 at 22:01
And cases where words which normally function as prepositions are at the ends of logistically sound sentences, I guarantee you, are not serving the purpose of a preposition in that particular sentence. Most likely they are incorporated as part of a verb+helping verb phrase which, together, are simply a verb (think of the helping verb, or particle, as being an adverb modifying the verb next to it). Either that or they are in the form of a question, and questions are allowed to be incomplete sentences. – Sk Johnson 2 days ago
– Sk Johnson
Dec 4 '15 at 23:20
add a comment |
The same could be said of the word ain't and yet no one insists on its being grammatically correct. Ain't is accepted in conversational English perfectly well but it will be frowned upon when it is put into print.
This is a non sequitur indeed. The placing of a preposition at the end of a sentence has far more linguistic acceptance (and common usage) than ain't has ever had, or ever will. Does anyone even seriously (non-comically, non-ironically) use ain't anywhere? I'm willing to be so advised.
Rules against sentence-ending prepositions are as forgettable as those against the split infinitive.
The same could be said of the word ain't and yet no one insists on its being grammatically correct. Ain't is accepted in conversational English perfectly well but it will be frowned upon when it is put into print.
This is a non sequitur indeed. The placing of a preposition at the end of a sentence has far more linguistic acceptance (and common usage) than ain't has ever had, or ever will. Does anyone even seriously (non-comically, non-ironically) use ain't anywhere? I'm willing to be so advised.
Rules against sentence-ending prepositions are as forgettable as those against the split infinitive.
answered Nov 26 '15 at 4:33
CargillCargill
1,75748
1,75748
Just mistaken identification of when a word that looks like a preposition is actually acting like one.
– Sk Johnson
Dec 2 '15 at 19:36
And, yes, plenty of people use it, go to a high-school campus someday and you will hear enough of it.
– Sk Johnson
Dec 4 '15 at 22:01
And cases where words which normally function as prepositions are at the ends of logistically sound sentences, I guarantee you, are not serving the purpose of a preposition in that particular sentence. Most likely they are incorporated as part of a verb+helping verb phrase which, together, are simply a verb (think of the helping verb, or particle, as being an adverb modifying the verb next to it). Either that or they are in the form of a question, and questions are allowed to be incomplete sentences. – Sk Johnson 2 days ago
– Sk Johnson
Dec 4 '15 at 23:20
add a comment |
Just mistaken identification of when a word that looks like a preposition is actually acting like one.
– Sk Johnson
Dec 2 '15 at 19:36
And, yes, plenty of people use it, go to a high-school campus someday and you will hear enough of it.
– Sk Johnson
Dec 4 '15 at 22:01
And cases where words which normally function as prepositions are at the ends of logistically sound sentences, I guarantee you, are not serving the purpose of a preposition in that particular sentence. Most likely they are incorporated as part of a verb+helping verb phrase which, together, are simply a verb (think of the helping verb, or particle, as being an adverb modifying the verb next to it). Either that or they are in the form of a question, and questions are allowed to be incomplete sentences. – Sk Johnson 2 days ago
– Sk Johnson
Dec 4 '15 at 23:20
Just mistaken identification of when a word that looks like a preposition is actually acting like one.
– Sk Johnson
Dec 2 '15 at 19:36
Just mistaken identification of when a word that looks like a preposition is actually acting like one.
– Sk Johnson
Dec 2 '15 at 19:36
And, yes, plenty of people use it, go to a high-school campus someday and you will hear enough of it.
– Sk Johnson
Dec 4 '15 at 22:01
And, yes, plenty of people use it, go to a high-school campus someday and you will hear enough of it.
– Sk Johnson
Dec 4 '15 at 22:01
And cases where words which normally function as prepositions are at the ends of logistically sound sentences, I guarantee you, are not serving the purpose of a preposition in that particular sentence. Most likely they are incorporated as part of a verb+helping verb phrase which, together, are simply a verb (think of the helping verb, or particle, as being an adverb modifying the verb next to it). Either that or they are in the form of a question, and questions are allowed to be incomplete sentences. – Sk Johnson 2 days ago
– Sk Johnson
Dec 4 '15 at 23:20
And cases where words which normally function as prepositions are at the ends of logistically sound sentences, I guarantee you, are not serving the purpose of a preposition in that particular sentence. Most likely they are incorporated as part of a verb+helping verb phrase which, together, are simply a verb (think of the helping verb, or particle, as being an adverb modifying the verb next to it). Either that or they are in the form of a question, and questions are allowed to be incomplete sentences. – Sk Johnson 2 days ago
– Sk Johnson
Dec 4 '15 at 23:20
add a comment |
Okay, sure, it doesn't matter... Unless, of course, you're writing your college thesis and just can't seem to figure out why on earth your lunatic professor only gave your paper a C after all the hard work you put in to it. Hmm... well, maybe it matters just a little, don't you think? I mean, even if you disagree with the convention, try convincing the dean of the university's Linguistics Department how it 'must be correct because so many people use it so often' and see if that gets you anywhere. The same could be said of the word ain't and yet no one insists on its being grammatically correct. Ain't is accepted in conversational English perfectly well but it will be frowned upon when it is put into print. So why don't people just accept the same to be true for prepositional phrase words at the ends of sentences?
See here for the explanation of a prepositional phrase. Particularly, notice the statements "Prepositions are indeclinable words that introduce the object of a prepositional phrase." and "The noun phrase or pronoun that follows the preposition is called the subject of the preposition." these two descriptions make it fairly clear why prepositions don't belong at the end. It's like saying "I'd like to introduce." and then ending the statement there without specifying who you are introducing.
Obviously, if the author is one of literature or prose, or a lyricist, there's good reason why they might want to use improper grammar. Style is often a big part of what draws readers to the content of a piece of work. But that seems to me only to qualify the use of incorrect grammar, not to qualify incorrect grammar as actually being correct.
To be perfectly clear, some words typically used as prepositions are NOT always prepositions! Mistaken identity of the parts of speech is the culprit of every example given in the comments and answers on this page. As the following distinction explains:
- A word that looks like a preposition but is actually part of a verb is called a particle. Held up is a verb meaning “to rob.” Therefore, up is not a preposition, and bank is not the object of a preposition. Instead, bank is the direct object of the verb held up.
- Is it a particle or a preposition? To avoid confusing prepositions with particles, test by moving the word (up) and words following it to the front of the sentence: Up the bank four armed men held. If the resulting sentence does not make sense, then the word belongs with the verb and is a particle, not a preposition.
Look, whether or not it should or shouldn't be is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the majority of people who are in positions of power in society and industry today, are of the generation of people who were all taught that ending a sentence with a preposition is bad grammar and that generation of people are likely to make a judgement call about people who do so as being, to some degree, uneducated people. So if you really want to be sure to cross your t's and dot i's in any given particular instance, you'd better your chances of making a good impression if you would also avoid the preposition-ending sentences. When the millennials become the majority of people in positions of power in society, then it will become sound advice to encourage neglect of that 'rule'.
2
try convincing the dean of the university's Linguistics Department how it 'must be correct because so many people use it so often' and see if that gets you anywhere – Actually, linguists tend to be descriptivists instead of prescriptivists nowadays.
– Wrzlprmft
Oct 28 '15 at 13:20
"I'd like to." Clearly this is not a full sentence. Certain prepositions in certain contexts require some other word to follow them. What no one seems to be aware of, here, is that in the vast majority of cases where one does end a sentence with a preposition, the preposition can just be entirely omitted without changing the meaning of the sentence. Yes, there are always exceptions... that is a given in English. Regardless of the analysis of conversational English... comprehensive understanding of sentence structure is still a vitally important aspect of language.
– Sk Johnson
Nov 15 '15 at 18:57
This answer was stitched from three other answers, where two ought have been edits. Here is some commentary on one of those.
– Kit Z. Fox♦
Dec 7 '15 at 13:18
add a comment |
Okay, sure, it doesn't matter... Unless, of course, you're writing your college thesis and just can't seem to figure out why on earth your lunatic professor only gave your paper a C after all the hard work you put in to it. Hmm... well, maybe it matters just a little, don't you think? I mean, even if you disagree with the convention, try convincing the dean of the university's Linguistics Department how it 'must be correct because so many people use it so often' and see if that gets you anywhere. The same could be said of the word ain't and yet no one insists on its being grammatically correct. Ain't is accepted in conversational English perfectly well but it will be frowned upon when it is put into print. So why don't people just accept the same to be true for prepositional phrase words at the ends of sentences?
See here for the explanation of a prepositional phrase. Particularly, notice the statements "Prepositions are indeclinable words that introduce the object of a prepositional phrase." and "The noun phrase or pronoun that follows the preposition is called the subject of the preposition." these two descriptions make it fairly clear why prepositions don't belong at the end. It's like saying "I'd like to introduce." and then ending the statement there without specifying who you are introducing.
Obviously, if the author is one of literature or prose, or a lyricist, there's good reason why they might want to use improper grammar. Style is often a big part of what draws readers to the content of a piece of work. But that seems to me only to qualify the use of incorrect grammar, not to qualify incorrect grammar as actually being correct.
To be perfectly clear, some words typically used as prepositions are NOT always prepositions! Mistaken identity of the parts of speech is the culprit of every example given in the comments and answers on this page. As the following distinction explains:
- A word that looks like a preposition but is actually part of a verb is called a particle. Held up is a verb meaning “to rob.” Therefore, up is not a preposition, and bank is not the object of a preposition. Instead, bank is the direct object of the verb held up.
- Is it a particle or a preposition? To avoid confusing prepositions with particles, test by moving the word (up) and words following it to the front of the sentence: Up the bank four armed men held. If the resulting sentence does not make sense, then the word belongs with the verb and is a particle, not a preposition.
Look, whether or not it should or shouldn't be is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the majority of people who are in positions of power in society and industry today, are of the generation of people who were all taught that ending a sentence with a preposition is bad grammar and that generation of people are likely to make a judgement call about people who do so as being, to some degree, uneducated people. So if you really want to be sure to cross your t's and dot i's in any given particular instance, you'd better your chances of making a good impression if you would also avoid the preposition-ending sentences. When the millennials become the majority of people in positions of power in society, then it will become sound advice to encourage neglect of that 'rule'.
2
try convincing the dean of the university's Linguistics Department how it 'must be correct because so many people use it so often' and see if that gets you anywhere – Actually, linguists tend to be descriptivists instead of prescriptivists nowadays.
– Wrzlprmft
Oct 28 '15 at 13:20
"I'd like to." Clearly this is not a full sentence. Certain prepositions in certain contexts require some other word to follow them. What no one seems to be aware of, here, is that in the vast majority of cases where one does end a sentence with a preposition, the preposition can just be entirely omitted without changing the meaning of the sentence. Yes, there are always exceptions... that is a given in English. Regardless of the analysis of conversational English... comprehensive understanding of sentence structure is still a vitally important aspect of language.
– Sk Johnson
Nov 15 '15 at 18:57
This answer was stitched from three other answers, where two ought have been edits. Here is some commentary on one of those.
– Kit Z. Fox♦
Dec 7 '15 at 13:18
add a comment |
Okay, sure, it doesn't matter... Unless, of course, you're writing your college thesis and just can't seem to figure out why on earth your lunatic professor only gave your paper a C after all the hard work you put in to it. Hmm... well, maybe it matters just a little, don't you think? I mean, even if you disagree with the convention, try convincing the dean of the university's Linguistics Department how it 'must be correct because so many people use it so often' and see if that gets you anywhere. The same could be said of the word ain't and yet no one insists on its being grammatically correct. Ain't is accepted in conversational English perfectly well but it will be frowned upon when it is put into print. So why don't people just accept the same to be true for prepositional phrase words at the ends of sentences?
See here for the explanation of a prepositional phrase. Particularly, notice the statements "Prepositions are indeclinable words that introduce the object of a prepositional phrase." and "The noun phrase or pronoun that follows the preposition is called the subject of the preposition." these two descriptions make it fairly clear why prepositions don't belong at the end. It's like saying "I'd like to introduce." and then ending the statement there without specifying who you are introducing.
Obviously, if the author is one of literature or prose, or a lyricist, there's good reason why they might want to use improper grammar. Style is often a big part of what draws readers to the content of a piece of work. But that seems to me only to qualify the use of incorrect grammar, not to qualify incorrect grammar as actually being correct.
To be perfectly clear, some words typically used as prepositions are NOT always prepositions! Mistaken identity of the parts of speech is the culprit of every example given in the comments and answers on this page. As the following distinction explains:
- A word that looks like a preposition but is actually part of a verb is called a particle. Held up is a verb meaning “to rob.” Therefore, up is not a preposition, and bank is not the object of a preposition. Instead, bank is the direct object of the verb held up.
- Is it a particle or a preposition? To avoid confusing prepositions with particles, test by moving the word (up) and words following it to the front of the sentence: Up the bank four armed men held. If the resulting sentence does not make sense, then the word belongs with the verb and is a particle, not a preposition.
Look, whether or not it should or shouldn't be is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the majority of people who are in positions of power in society and industry today, are of the generation of people who were all taught that ending a sentence with a preposition is bad grammar and that generation of people are likely to make a judgement call about people who do so as being, to some degree, uneducated people. So if you really want to be sure to cross your t's and dot i's in any given particular instance, you'd better your chances of making a good impression if you would also avoid the preposition-ending sentences. When the millennials become the majority of people in positions of power in society, then it will become sound advice to encourage neglect of that 'rule'.
Okay, sure, it doesn't matter... Unless, of course, you're writing your college thesis and just can't seem to figure out why on earth your lunatic professor only gave your paper a C after all the hard work you put in to it. Hmm... well, maybe it matters just a little, don't you think? I mean, even if you disagree with the convention, try convincing the dean of the university's Linguistics Department how it 'must be correct because so many people use it so often' and see if that gets you anywhere. The same could be said of the word ain't and yet no one insists on its being grammatically correct. Ain't is accepted in conversational English perfectly well but it will be frowned upon when it is put into print. So why don't people just accept the same to be true for prepositional phrase words at the ends of sentences?
See here for the explanation of a prepositional phrase. Particularly, notice the statements "Prepositions are indeclinable words that introduce the object of a prepositional phrase." and "The noun phrase or pronoun that follows the preposition is called the subject of the preposition." these two descriptions make it fairly clear why prepositions don't belong at the end. It's like saying "I'd like to introduce." and then ending the statement there without specifying who you are introducing.
Obviously, if the author is one of literature or prose, or a lyricist, there's good reason why they might want to use improper grammar. Style is often a big part of what draws readers to the content of a piece of work. But that seems to me only to qualify the use of incorrect grammar, not to qualify incorrect grammar as actually being correct.
To be perfectly clear, some words typically used as prepositions are NOT always prepositions! Mistaken identity of the parts of speech is the culprit of every example given in the comments and answers on this page. As the following distinction explains:
- A word that looks like a preposition but is actually part of a verb is called a particle. Held up is a verb meaning “to rob.” Therefore, up is not a preposition, and bank is not the object of a preposition. Instead, bank is the direct object of the verb held up.
- Is it a particle or a preposition? To avoid confusing prepositions with particles, test by moving the word (up) and words following it to the front of the sentence: Up the bank four armed men held. If the resulting sentence does not make sense, then the word belongs with the verb and is a particle, not a preposition.
Look, whether or not it should or shouldn't be is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the majority of people who are in positions of power in society and industry today, are of the generation of people who were all taught that ending a sentence with a preposition is bad grammar and that generation of people are likely to make a judgement call about people who do so as being, to some degree, uneducated people. So if you really want to be sure to cross your t's and dot i's in any given particular instance, you'd better your chances of making a good impression if you would also avoid the preposition-ending sentences. When the millennials become the majority of people in positions of power in society, then it will become sound advice to encourage neglect of that 'rule'.
edited Dec 7 '15 at 13:15
Kit Z. Fox♦
23.4k1993180
23.4k1993180
answered Oct 25 '15 at 19:42
Sk JohnsonSk Johnson
1868
1868
2
try convincing the dean of the university's Linguistics Department how it 'must be correct because so many people use it so often' and see if that gets you anywhere – Actually, linguists tend to be descriptivists instead of prescriptivists nowadays.
– Wrzlprmft
Oct 28 '15 at 13:20
"I'd like to." Clearly this is not a full sentence. Certain prepositions in certain contexts require some other word to follow them. What no one seems to be aware of, here, is that in the vast majority of cases where one does end a sentence with a preposition, the preposition can just be entirely omitted without changing the meaning of the sentence. Yes, there are always exceptions... that is a given in English. Regardless of the analysis of conversational English... comprehensive understanding of sentence structure is still a vitally important aspect of language.
– Sk Johnson
Nov 15 '15 at 18:57
This answer was stitched from three other answers, where two ought have been edits. Here is some commentary on one of those.
– Kit Z. Fox♦
Dec 7 '15 at 13:18
add a comment |
2
try convincing the dean of the university's Linguistics Department how it 'must be correct because so many people use it so often' and see if that gets you anywhere – Actually, linguists tend to be descriptivists instead of prescriptivists nowadays.
– Wrzlprmft
Oct 28 '15 at 13:20
"I'd like to." Clearly this is not a full sentence. Certain prepositions in certain contexts require some other word to follow them. What no one seems to be aware of, here, is that in the vast majority of cases where one does end a sentence with a preposition, the preposition can just be entirely omitted without changing the meaning of the sentence. Yes, there are always exceptions... that is a given in English. Regardless of the analysis of conversational English... comprehensive understanding of sentence structure is still a vitally important aspect of language.
– Sk Johnson
Nov 15 '15 at 18:57
This answer was stitched from three other answers, where two ought have been edits. Here is some commentary on one of those.
– Kit Z. Fox♦
Dec 7 '15 at 13:18
2
2
try convincing the dean of the university's Linguistics Department how it 'must be correct because so many people use it so often' and see if that gets you anywhere – Actually, linguists tend to be descriptivists instead of prescriptivists nowadays.
– Wrzlprmft
Oct 28 '15 at 13:20
try convincing the dean of the university's Linguistics Department how it 'must be correct because so many people use it so often' and see if that gets you anywhere – Actually, linguists tend to be descriptivists instead of prescriptivists nowadays.
– Wrzlprmft
Oct 28 '15 at 13:20
"I'd like to." Clearly this is not a full sentence. Certain prepositions in certain contexts require some other word to follow them. What no one seems to be aware of, here, is that in the vast majority of cases where one does end a sentence with a preposition, the preposition can just be entirely omitted without changing the meaning of the sentence. Yes, there are always exceptions... that is a given in English. Regardless of the analysis of conversational English... comprehensive understanding of sentence structure is still a vitally important aspect of language.
– Sk Johnson
Nov 15 '15 at 18:57
"I'd like to." Clearly this is not a full sentence. Certain prepositions in certain contexts require some other word to follow them. What no one seems to be aware of, here, is that in the vast majority of cases where one does end a sentence with a preposition, the preposition can just be entirely omitted without changing the meaning of the sentence. Yes, there are always exceptions... that is a given in English. Regardless of the analysis of conversational English... comprehensive understanding of sentence structure is still a vitally important aspect of language.
– Sk Johnson
Nov 15 '15 at 18:57
This answer was stitched from three other answers, where two ought have been edits. Here is some commentary on one of those.
– Kit Z. Fox♦
Dec 7 '15 at 13:18
This answer was stitched from three other answers, where two ought have been edits. Here is some commentary on one of those.
– Kit Z. Fox♦
Dec 7 '15 at 13:18
add a comment |
protected by RegDwigнt♦ Apr 11 '11 at 8:09
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
12
I think this question is much too steeped in grammar-school pedantry. You yourself say you use it frequently without conscious effort. What better way is there to describe the correctness of an utterance from a descriptive perspective? Is this the type of question the site is interested in?
– Charlie
Aug 6 '10 at 3:05
49
As the little boy said [about the Australian book]: "Daddy, what did you bring that book that I don't want to be read to out of [about Down Under] up for?"
– ShreevatsaR
Aug 6 '10 at 3:23
31
Don't you mean, "When is it okay to use a preposition to end a sentence with?"?
– Sophie Alpert
Aug 6 '10 at 17:57
8
Relevant.
– Kosmonaut
Aug 26 '10 at 18:35
6
Whenever you want to.
– Adam
Mar 29 '11 at 20:15