# Preposition at the end of a sentence. Examples, general discussion, history of the "rule" #19.



## suzzzenn

Hi guys, 
 
I could use some help with a paper I am writing. I have looked at so many examples evrything is starting to sound OK, even sentences that I know are wrong! Could native speakers give me thier judgments as to which sentences sound natural and which sound strange? I know that many of us were taught in school to never end a sentence with a preposition, but please ignore that rule for these examples! All the linguists that I have read say that there are some situations where it is possible to end a sentence with a preposition and the rule is an overgeneralization. 
 = fine  =not sure  = sounds strange = terrible
 
1. What a curvy road we are driving on!
2. On what a curvy road we are driving!
3. On the kitchen table, the man is sitting. 
4. The kitchen table, the man is sitting on. 
5. He's the one who I bought it from. 
6. What a dirty room the children are playing in!
7. In what a dirty room the children are playing! 
. He waited for the crosstown bus. 
8. For which bus did he wait?
9. Which bus did he wait for?
She left the conference after the second lecture.
10. Which lecture did she leave the conference after?
11. After which lecture did she leave the conference?
 
Thank You!
Susan


----------



## Eddie

Hi, Suze.

That rule is a vestige of what is known as _prescriptive_ grammar. The last 4 decades have produced a more scientifically oriented grammar known as _descriptive_ grammar.

1. What a curvy road we are driving on! OK
2. On what a curvy road we are driving! no
3. On the kitchen table, the man is sitting. no
4. The kitchen table, the man is sitting on. (What's the man sitting on?)
5. He's the one who I bought it from. OK
6. What a dirty room the children are playing in! OK
7. In what a dirty room the children are playing! no
. He waited for the crosstown bus. 
8. For which bus did he wait? OK, but infrequent
9. Which bus did he wait for? OK
She left the conference after the second lecture.
10. Which lecture did she leave the conference after? no
11. After which lecture did she leave the conference? OK


----------



## mjscott

1. What a curvy road we are driving on! (thumbs up)
2. On what a curvy road we are driving!(yellow exclamation) _Kind of like, "Oh what a tangled web we weave"--a little old-fashioned--however, correct_
3. On the kitchen table, the man is sitting. (yellow exclamation) _Even though correct, and this could be an answer to a question, it sounds like an answer from a foreigner who doesn't know that normal English sentence structure is subject, then prepositional phrases. (However, "Whose woods these are I think I know....")_
4. The kitchen table, the man is sitting on. (thumbs down) _This is not a complete sentence--however, it could be used as an answer to the question, "Which kitchen table do you mean?" (It's still not a complete sentence.)_
5. He's the one who I bought it from. (blue face, question mark hair) _Although it sounds perfectly natural, I'm thinking it should be whom instead of who (I bought it from whom--object of the preposition from)....But then, again, is who an appositive that renames He--which is in the subjective case?--Wow, Suzennne--I feel like I'm back in 7th grade grammar class--I see what you mean!_
6. What a dirty room the children are playing in!(thumbs up)
7. In what a dirty room the children are playing! (thumbs up)--_Out of #6 and #7, I think they are both fine structurally--however, it is becoming more common to hear the preposition at the end of the sentence in everyday speech. The structure of #7 sounds either a) contrived to follow the "Don't end a sentence with a preposition!" rule (which you've already said that linguists don't subscribe to) or b) written before 1930._
. He waited for the crosstown bus. (thumbs up)
8. For which bus did he wait? (thumbs up)
9. Which bus did he wait for? (thumbs up)--_Again, if linguists are saying the preposition thing is passe, I would tend to agree-just because it's commonly heard in an evolving language. However, comparing 6&7 with 8&9, #8 sounds less awkward than #7...._
She left the conference after the second lecture. (thumbs up)
10. Which lecture did she leave the conference after? (thumbs up)
11. After which lecture did she leave the conference? (thumbs up)

Thank You!
Susan

_Yeah, they all start looking okay after a while. The last three have no comments because I feel similar structure was addressed earlier. However, the un-numbered sentence and #11 sound more correct (It's that preposition thingy that was drilled in us in 7th grade!)_

_NOTE TO ANY MODERATORS: When trying to comply with the questioner's request to put in icons, the website would not allow me to do it. "Too many something-or-other, something-or-others in my signature...."_


----------



## panjandrum

suzzzenn said:
			
		

> 1. What a curvy road we are driving on! Eccentric but OK
> 2. On what a curvy road we are driving! No.
> 3. On the kitchen table, the man is sitting. No.
> 4. The kitchen table, the man is sitting on. Just possibly, without the comma, as an answer to "Which table do you like best?" (or similar daft question).
> 5. He's the one who I bought it from. No.  "He's the one I bought it from." or "I bought it from him."
> 6. What a dirty room the children are playing in! OK
> 7. In what a dirty room the children are playing! No.
> . He waited for the crosstown bus. OK.
> 8. For which bus did he wait? No.
> 9. Which bus did he wait for? OK.
> She left the conference after the second lecture. OK.
> 10. Which lecture did she leave the conference after? Questionable, but normal.
> 11. After which lecture did she leave the conference? OK but a bit pedantic and formal.
> 
> Thank You!
> Susan


Apparently, having edited my comments into your quote, the post is too short. These words are included only to avoid the error message.


----------



## timpeac

I agree with all said so far apart from number 10. I see MJScott likes it, but not Eddie or Panjandrum. To me it sounds fine. 

Pan - I agree with your comments after 11. If you don't like 10 or 11, how would you express this then?


----------



## panjandrum

If I was talking about the conference I would use 10. If I was writing about it I would use 11. The pedant in me does not like 10. The human in me does not like 11. 
How would I express it? Well you see I don't think I would. 
I think I would ask, first: "When did she leave the conference?". 
And if I wanted to know which of the lectures she had heard, I would ask "Who did she hear last?" or (a bit unlikely) "Whose lecture did she hear last?" or "Who was  speaking when she left?".


----------



## Eddie

Hey, Pan!

#1 might sound eccentric to you, but it's perfectly acceptable English in the colonies (the USA).


----------



## JasonNPato

Eddie said:
			
		

> Hi, Suze.
> 
> That rule is a vestige of what is known as _prescriptive_ grammar. The last 4 decades have produced a more scientifically oriented grammar known as _descriptive_ grammar.
> 
> 1. What a curvy road we are driving on! OK...actually, while in speech this is usually acceptable and no one would think you a fool if you spoke this way, it is actually wrong. In writing especially, one should NEVER *end* a sentence with a preposition. It's just bad grammar; it leaves the sentence "hanging".
> But...this is usually only something to look for when writing an advanced paper, say, for college or something.
> When speaking, it would probably be best to use this as opposed to #2, which is technically more correct. If someone spoke like #2, most English speakers would actually think it sounds stupid, and thus wrong.
> 2. On what a curvy road we are driving! no YES! As I said, this sentence is actually grammatically correct. It may sound strange, but it's right. One could also say (changing the exclamation) "We are driving on a curvy road." or "What a curvy road on which we are driving?" But the latter (second) of the two is pretty awkward - correct, but awkward - so I don't advise using that.
> 3. On the kitchen table, the man is sitting. no
> 4. The kitchen table, the man is sitting on. (What's the man sitting on?)
> 5. He's the one who I bought it from. OK again...just like #1...this should be "He's the one from whom I bought it."
> 6. What a dirty room the children are playing in! OK Same here
> 7. In what a dirty room the children are playing! no YES, same as 2, though again, most English-speakers would look at you funny if you spoke this way.
> . He waited for the crosstown bus.
> 8. For which bus did he wait? OK, but infrequent
> 9. Which bus did he wait for? OK again, for the same reason, 8 is right and this is wrong, but this, as Eddie says, is more frequent.
> She left the conference after the second lecture.
> 10. Which lecture did she leave the conference after? no
> 11. After which lecture did she leave the conference? OK


 
Advanced grammar is at times awkward. Hope this helps, but like I said, most people will not even catch the mistakes I just pointed out (see...I just used one myself ) So don't worry about all of this too much unless you plan on writing a college English paper, and then, it may still rely on the choice of the instructor.
Some teachers will understand that "Which bus did he wait for?" is standard spoken English, and won't really care so much if it's technically grammatically wrong, but others, especially English ones, will.

Sorry for being so wordy.


----------



## panjandrum

Eddie said:
			
		

> Hey, Pan!
> 
> #1 might sound eccentric to you, but it's perfectly acceptable English in the colonies (the USA).


Sorry Eddie, I didn't mean to suggest there was anything at all wrong with the English; only that its not the kind of thing I would say myself unless I wanted to add extra emphasis to how curvy the road was by the eccentricity of the language I used.
Mind you, curvy is not a word I'd use to describe a road - I'd use windy or bendy (that's windy as in winding round the corners, not windy as in blowing your hair off).  Curvy normally refers to ..... oops, better not go there in public forum.
So I'd be more likely to say "Hey, this is a really windy road!" or "This road's _really_ windy!"
But there is nothing wrong with the original.


----------



## elroy

JasonNPato said:
			
		

> Advanced grammar is at times awkward. Hope these helps, but like I said, most people will not even catch the mistakes I just pointed out (see...I just used one myself ) So don't worry about all of this too much unless you plan on writing a college English paper, and then, it may still rely on the choice of the instructor.
> Some teachers will understand that "Which bus did he wait for?" is standard spoken English, and won't really care so much if it's technically grammatically wrong, but others, especially English ones, will.
> 
> Sorry for being so wordy.



Notice that Suzzen (who started this thread) said to ignore the no-preposition-at-the-end-of-a-sentence rule for this sentences - which, by the way, is an extremely debatable and controversial "rule."  I would by no means decry ending a sentence with a preposition as incorrect because 

1) it's debatable
2) it does NOT leave the sentence hanging (the meaning is perfectly clear - the preposition has an object; it's just earlier in the sentence)
3) sometimes it is the best, smoothest way to express an idea
4) there is simply no logical reason for it.  Some of the Germanic languages strictly use the preposition with a relative or interrogative pronoun; others use it exclusively at the end.  Compare German *Woher * kommst du? and Norwegian *Hvar * kommer du *fra*?  In both languages the meaning is perfectly clear.  As a Germanic language, English could follow either of the two styles "From where do you come?" or "Where do you come from?" and the meaning remains clear.  It just depends on which one sounds smoother; as a matter of fact, the second one sounds a lot better in this case - which I think you will definitely agree *with*.  

Lastly, your usage of "pointed out" is not incorrect - even according to that rule - because in this case "out" is an adverb and not a preposition. (English grammars for foreigners would call this a "phrasal verb.") Notice that there is no object of a preposition.  The elliptical "that" in your sentence is a direct object following the verb "point."


----------



## timpeac

I swore I was going to keep away from this thread when I saw it was just becoming a "to have a preposition at the end or not to have a preposition at the end" argument, because no one will ever win.

Anyhow, I can't help myself. I completely agree with Elroy. I find it amazing that anyone could advise not to use sentence 6, but say sentence 7 is OK.

I believe that this (ridiculous) "no preposition at the end of the phrase" was invented because Latin didn't do it. Whatever the reason, languages can and do move on and this is certainly the case here. No one, ever, ever would say or write sentence 7, and frankly it seems rather irresponsible to suggest otherwise when foreign speakers are also going to be reading this, after all it is they who are going to receive the blank looks and smirks when they use it (or the red pen marks - I would hope - if they write it).

I think it is fair enough to advise that there may be some people who don't like it, but this is far from universal. I don't know if this is a BE-AE difference, but at school I remember my English teacher saying that it was fine to end a sentence with a preposition, and that no marks would ever be lost for doing so. He didn't comment on whether tortured sentences such as 7 would gain or lose marks.

An argument rages about whether you should or should not end a sentence with a preposition (and I've made it abundantly clear where I stand on that issue) but this does_ not_ imply that sentences which have been fashioned actively to avoid ending with a preposition are ok. Usually they are convoluted, heavy and, most importantly, _not used in normal expression_. I notice that Jason said that "people would give you funny looks" if you used 7. Quite right, but how that is compatible with saying it is grammatically correct is beyond me - particularly in conjunction with the advice not to use sentence 6. Are people supposed to completely avoid ever using a sentence with a preposition in it then?

As Churchill said "this is the sort of English up with which I will not put!"


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> I swore I was going to keep away from this thread when I saw it was just becoming a "to have a preposition at the end or not to have a preposition at the end" argument, because no one will ever win.
> 
> Anyhow, I can't help myself. I completely agree with Elroy. I find it amazing that anyone could advise not to use sentence 6, but say sentence 7 is OK.
> 
> I believe that this (ridiculous) "no preposition at the end of the phrase" was invented because Latin didn't do it. Whatever the reason, languages can and do move on and this is certainly the case here. No one, ever, ever would say or write sentence 7, and frankly it seems rather irresponsible to suggest otherwise when foreign speakers are also going to be reading this, after all it is they who are going to receive the blank looks and smirks when they use it (or the red pen marks - I would hope - if they write it).
> 
> I think it is fair enough to advise that there may be some people who don't like it, but this is far from universal. I don't know if this is a BE-AE difference, but at school I remember my English teacher saying that it was fine to end a sentence with a preposition, and that no marks would ever be lost for doing so. He didn't comment on whether tortured sentences such as 7 would gain or lose marks.
> 
> An argument rages about whether you should or should not end a sentence with a preposition (and I've made it abundantly clear where I stand on that issue) but this does_ not_ imply that sentences which have been fashioned actively to avoid ending with a preposition are ok. Usually they are convoluted, heavy and, most importantly, _not used in normal expression_. I notice that Jason said that "people would give you funny looks" if you used 7. Quite right, but how that is compatible with saying it is grammatically correct is beyond me - particularly in conjunction with the advice not to use sentence 6. Are people supposed to completely avoid ever using a sentence with a preposition in it then?
> 
> As Churchill said "such pedantry is something up with which I will not put!"



Exactly.  I think it's just a matter of personal style and preference.

By the way, I find Churchill's quote particularly telling because "up" in this case is actually an adverb, and "with" a preposition, so if one were to completely adhere to this nonsensical rule, one would have to say "Such pedantry is something with which I will not put up."  

Which is exactly the point.  If people started worrying about shoving all their prepositions or preposition look-alikes to earlier in the sentence, they'd just start piling up adverbs along with the prepositions, which would result in a complete and inextricable mess.  The most natural way to say this sentence would obviously be "Such pedantry is something I will not put up with."


----------



## timpeac

elroy said:
			
		

> Exactly. I think it's just a matter of personal style and preference.
> 
> By the way, I find Churchill's quote particularly telling because "up" in this case is actually an "adverb," and "with" a preposition, so if one were to completely adhere to this nonsensical rule, one would have to say "Such pedantry is something with which I will not put up."
> 
> Which is exactly the point. If people started worrying about shoving all their prepositions or preposition look-alikes to earlier in the sentence, they'll just start piling up adverbs along with the prepositions, which would result in a complete and inextricable mess. The most natural way to say this sentence would obviously be "Such pedantry is something I will not put up with."


 
Oh interesting, and a very good point. There is nothing worse than when people start being pedantic, but in doing so creating further errors.

I've lost count of the number of times that I have heard "between you and I". People have heard that too many people say "me" when they should say "I" and so insert it into sentences such as this incorrectly ("me" being the correct form after a preposition).

By the way I slightly misquoted Churchill, and have since corrected, but the point remains the same.


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> Oh interesting, and a very good point. There is nothing worse than when people start being pedantic, but in doing so creating further errors.
> 
> I've lost count of the number of times that I have heard "between you and I". People have heard that too many people say "me" when they should say "I" and so insert it into sentences such as this incorrectly ("me" being the correct form after a preposition).
> 
> By the way I slightly misquoted Churchill, and have since corrected, but the point remains the same.



Haha, great point.  Why can't people just leave good enough alone?


----------



## Eddie

No offense taken, Pan. I was just playing with you. I'm well aware of the fact that every language has its varieties of expression according to the location in which it is spoken. That's what makes foreign language study so interesting.


----------



## panjandrum

Eddie:  Thanks.  As a matter of interest, would you use "curvy" in general to describe inanimate things - such as roads?  For me, curvy is more or less exclusively feminine and to describe a geographical feature as curvy would be something of an anatomical comparison - and attractive at that.


----------



## suzzzenn

Hi Everybody, 

Jason, thank you for your attempts at helping. I have no doubt that you are repeating what you were taught! The problem is, the rule itself is incorrect. That's why I asked people to avoid it.

Here's a bit of trivia.  Just to add to what Tim, Elroy, Eddie, said about the rule, it grew out of something that John Dryden said about Ben Johnson's writing. In 1616 Ben Johnson wrote this line:



The bodies, that those soules were frighted from;

Dryden didn't like it and wrote in a critique it should have been:

The bodies, from which those soules were frighted;



The "rule" was picked up and put into grammars in the 18th century and found its way into the hearts of grammar teachers everywhere. (sources: Cambridge Grammar of English, and others) The problem is that no one, even excellent writers, follows that rule all of the time. There are times when it is perfectly fine to end a sentence with a preposition. Sometimes the choice to end a sentence with a preposition or not is purely a style difference.  The Cambridge grammar says it is harder to leave a preposition at the end of a sentence that adds extra information than one that is required by the verb. 



The Cambridge grammar says that in sentences like #10 it is easier to leave the preposition at the end than sentences like #11. (adjuncts vs. complements) I wasn't sure if I agreed, but my head is swimming from so many examples of similar sounding sentences, I couldn't be sure anymore. I appreciated your answers. Any other opinions are welcome.


----------



## Krams

I always thought the position of the preposition didn't mind but indicated formality. I mean if the preposition comes first it's very formal and even much more correct than putting it at the end what is also correct.


----------



## elroy

Krams said:
			
		

> I always thought the position of the preposition didn't mind but indicated formality. I mean if the preposition comes first it's very formal and even much more correct than putting it at the end what is also correct.



That's one way to look at it, yes.  Using the preposition towards the beginning does tend to sound more formal.


----------



## panjandrum

suzzzenn:  Fascinating bit of history!  
Ideas like this would have started as generalisations from accepted style and then been formalised into rules for schools.  Like many rules for schools, they are simplified.  And just as it it quite legitimate to start a sentence with "And" if you know what you are doing, so it is quite acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition if it would be artificial and tortuous to find something else to end it with.  Or:
"If the final preposition that has naturally presented itself sounds comfortable, keep it; if it does not sound comfortable, still keep it if it has compensating vigour, or when among awkward possibilities it is the least awkward."


----------



## JasonNPato

wow...I stirred up quite a discussion. As many of you say, and as I was trying to say in the first place (though I may have failed), just be careful. Some teachers will mark the "end rule" wrong, while others will mark it right, but none, that I know of, would mark it wrong if the sentence does not end with a preposition. All I was trying to say, is that it's safest, in my experience, never to end a sentence with a preposition, because in that way, you can't really be grammatically or technically wrong, no matter the so-called "rule." By avoiding it, you simply never face it.

That said, when I'm correcting papers written by my foreign-language-speaking friends, I never make that correction, because it's just way too "picky" of a thing to point out to someone who is learning more how to speak and write clearly as opposed to worrying about things that are really a decision of preference from the instructor.

As I said in my original, some instructors won't care, but others might, and it's almost impossible to know which is which until you make the mistake in the first place. So, my advice was only to try to avaid "guessing" by writing in such a way that, in my experience, none will ever say is "wrong" (though they might label it "awkward", and rightfully so).

My personal preference, of course, is the more clearly understood way "Where did you come from?"
instead of "From where did you come?" 

I wouldn't talk that way, and so I would not ask any other to talk that way. In America, in fact, the second example would make you sound "high-and-mighty", like you think you're above everyone else, and many Americans, I think, would feel almost insulted if you walked around all the time thinking about such an arguable rule.


----------



## elroy

JasonNPato said:
			
		

> Some teachers will mark the "end rule" wrong, while others will mark it right, but none, that I know of, would mark it wrong if the sentence does not end with a preposition.



I think you meant "would mark it wrong if it *did * end with a preposition,"....right?


----------



## mjscott

I always thought the position of the preposition didn't mind but indicated formality. I mean if the preposition comes first it's very formal and even much more correct than putting it at the end which is also correct.

Of course, you could go too far--like saying, "First, it's very formal--and even much more correct than putting it at the end, which is also a correct place to put it at.....


----------



## gaer

suzzzenn said:
			
		

> Here's a bit of trivia. Just to add to what Tim, Elroy, Eddie, said about the rule, it grew out of something that John Dryden said about Ben Johnson's writing. In 1616 Ben Johnson wrote this line:
> 
> The bodies, that those soules were frighted from;
> Dryden didn't like it and wrote in a critique it should have been:
> 
> The bodies, from which those soules were frighted;


Let me add that Dryden had a bone to pick with Johnson (who knows why), but he also criticized Shakespeare, among others. He was a pompous idiot, nothing more.


> The "rule" was picked up and put into grammars in the 18th century and found its way into the hearts of grammar teachers everywhere. (sources: Cambridge Grammar of English, and others)


I have been speaking about similar topics for months. Complete fools make up rules, with absolutely NO right to do so, then other fools follow them like sheep. Centuries later nonsense is still being taught in English classes. It is impossible to read many books by fine writers without seeing that such rules are wrong. There are countless people in this world who spend a great deal of time talking about how English is written well without spending much time reading well-written English.


> The problem is that no one, even excellent writers, follows that rule all of the time. There are times when it is perfectly fine to end a sentence with a preposition.


That's the point. Pick 50 books by your favorite authors. Check the ends of all the sentences. If you believe that ending a sentence with a preposition is wrong, you must conclude that all your favorites are poor writers. 

Gaer


----------



## Krams

mjscott: Don't tease me, I'm still learning and I will for years, I'm sorry to make mistakes like those but please don't tease me... Or have I misunderstood what did you mean.


----------



## elroy

Krams said:
			
		

> mjscott: Don't tease me, I'm still learning and I will for years, I'm sorry to make mistakes like those but please don't tease me... Or have I misunderstood what *you meant*.



I don't think he/she was teasing you.  It's pretty common in these forums to correct mistakes in people's posts, just like I did above.  (Please don't think I'm teasing you!)


----------



## panjandrum

There seems to be a suggestion creeping in here that an eccentric-sounding preposition coming first is more formal = better = a sign of a well-educated person.  To me, it suggests exactly the opposite.  Good communicators will not contort the sentence just to follow a supposed rule.  If the preposition at the end bothers them, or if they think it may bother their audience, they will change the sentence.


----------



## elroy

panjandrum said:
			
		

> There seems to be a suggestion creeping in here that an eccentric-sounding preposition coming first is more formal = better = a sign of a well-educated person.  To me, it suggests exactly the opposite.  Good communicators will not contort the sentence just to follow a supposed rule.  If the preposition at the end bothers them, or if they think it may bother their audience, they will change the sentence.



Well, I think sometimes you can put the preposition first, as an alternative.  Let's not reverse the absurdity of the rule and generalize it for the opposite scenario!


----------



## panjandrum

elroy:  totally agree - my irritation is with the eccentric-sounding sentences created by unthinking rule-followers.


----------



## Krams

elroy, I'm very pleased to be corrected and I thank you, but mjscott said: "Of course, you could go too far--like saying...". In spanish it might be translated as "Claro, prodrías ir demasiado lejos diciendo: and here comes the correction". Well, that "demasiado lejos" could be interpret as I can't write things like that. If mjscott didn't mean that... Ok, I'm sorry I'd misunderstood him/her.


----------



## Starcreator

I just joined this discussion and thus I'll just throw in my hat.

The way I learned it and the way we grammarians still see it today, the ending of a sentence or clause with a preposition is wrong.

Traditional English tells us that there are ways around it and if we look, simply, to the French we can see how things are supposed to be done - the pages on which the book was written, the store at which I bought the hat - do these not sound much more distinguished in written language?

Let us look to the reason why it is acceptable today to end sentences with prespositions - in a word, laziness. People over the ages have left their prepositions to the end of their clauses and now because this is so widespread it has been accepted by grammarians as informally correct.

I do not see many situations in which grammarians would except the "hanging" preposition, but I advise all of you to use it cautiously and, above all, only in spoken or colloquial language. Using it in written language would definitely harm your professionalism.

I above all see no point in debating this though as English has no Academie Francaise to determine what is right or wrong and instead things are correct based on usage - hence, both you and I can be correct at the same time. But I will advise you that if I were ever marking a paper of yours you'd be docked marks for each and every preposition with which you ended a sentence.


----------



## Starcreator

timpeac said:
			
		

> I swore I was going to keep away from this thread when I saw it was just becoming a "to have a preposition at the end or not to have a preposition at the end" argument, because no one will ever win.
> 
> Anyhow, I can't help myself. I completely agree with Elroy. I find it amazing that anyone could advise not to use sentence 6, but say sentence 7 is OK.
> 
> I believe that this (ridiculous) "no preposition at the end of the phrase" was invented because Latin didn't do it. Whatever the reason, languages can and do move on and this is certainly the case here. No one, ever, ever would say or write sentence 7, and frankly it seems rather irresponsible to suggest otherwise when foreign speakers are also going to be reading this, after all it is they who are going to receive the blank looks and smirks when they use it (or the red pen marks - I would hope - if they write it).
> 
> I think it is fair enough to advise that there may be some people who don't like it, but this is far from universal. I don't know if this is a BE-AE difference, but at school I remember my English teacher saying that it was fine to end a sentence with a preposition, and that no marks would ever be lost for doing so. He didn't comment on whether tortured sentences such as 7 would gain or lose marks.
> 
> An argument rages about whether you should or should not end a sentence with a preposition (and I've made it abundantly clear where I stand on that issue) but this does_ not_ imply that sentences which have been fashioned actively to avoid ending with a preposition are ok. Usually they are convoluted, heavy and, most importantly, _not used in normal expression_. I notice that Jason said that "people would give you funny looks" if you used 7. Quite right, but how that is compatible with saying it is grammatically correct is beyond me - particularly in conjunction with the advice not to use sentence 6. Are people supposed to completely avoid ever using a sentence with a preposition in it then?
> 
> As Churchill said "this is the sort of English up with which I will not put!"


 
I would not use sentence seven either, but as I've mentioned there are ways around preposition ended sentences as well. "What a dirty room! I cannot believe these children are playing in it!"


----------



## SmokyBear

I have to agree with Winston Churchill (has there been a greater grammarian in the last 100 years?) that ending a sentence with a preposition is not and never was a rule, but rather a pedantic idea "up with which I will not put."


----------



## Outsider

According to this essay, the quote was probably misattributed to Churchill, and whoever came up with it cheated a little.   

But I definitely agree that it's the kind of rule up with which none of us should have to put.


----------



## Starcreator

You're right, one of the pages I was reading said it was his editor or someone...but then, I can't be sure - I've also read sources quoting Churchill himself as saying it.


----------



## panjandrum

Starcreator said:
			
		

> But I will advise you that if I were ever marking a paper of yours you'd be docked marks for each and every preposition with which you ended a sentence.


Perhaps this is true. 

But I would respond by saying that any written work that includes a bizarre and tortured perversion of common sense perpetrated to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition should be returned, unapproved.

There is always an alternative - if you know you are sending the material to an un-reconstructed pedant.


----------



## lsp

elroy said:
			
		

> I think you meant "would mark it wrong if it *did * end with a preposition,"....right?


Elroy, I don't know why Jason didn't respond, but I think he had it right the first time. Opinions differ about how to mark sentences that do end in prepositions, but all instructors agree on sentences that do not do so.


----------



## remosfan

lsp said:
			
		

> Elroy, I don't know why Jason didn't respond, but I think he had it right the first time. Opinions differ about how to mark sentences that do end in prepositions, but all instructors agree on sentences that do not do so.



Do they? Take the sentence "There once was a fire, out which no one could put." Please tell me that everyone considers this sentence at best odd, if not outright incorrect. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "There once was a fire, which no one could put out."

I've been told, and this seems eminently reasonable, that some prepositions go with verb, not with the noun, and these can end the sentence -- they're basically adverbs more than anything. Or is "I stood up" an incorrect sentence? The rule here could be stated as what goes together should stay together.


----------



## lsp

remosfan said:
			
		

> Do they? Take the sentence "There once was a fire, out which no one could put." Please tell me that everyone considers this sentence at best odd, if not outright incorrect. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "There once was a fire, which no one could put out."
> 
> I've been told, and this seems eminently reasonable, that some prepositions go with verb, not with the noun, and these can end the sentence -- they're basically adverbs more than anything. Or is "I stood up" an incorrect sentence? The rule here could be stated as what goes together should stay together.


Gee, I hope you're addressing Jason, since I stuck my nose in to his post to paraphrase his intent for elroy , I personally think students should be encouraged to judge whether ending a sentence with a preposition or its alternative sounds less awkward. The same can be said for the split infinitive, another old non-rule.


----------



## cuchuflete

The grammarians' ship is going down!  Someone throw them a life raft.  The sun is coming up.  

Up is coming the sun. ?

Go ahead. Return my sentence with a nasty grade.


----------



## jacinta

Unless we all start talking like Yoda, prepositions will continue to end sentences.

Out let the dog!
Don't run! Up I cannot keep!


----------



## lsp

jacinta said:
			
		

> Unless we all start talking like Yoda, prepositions will continue to end sentences.
> 
> Out let the dog!
> Don't run! Up I cannot keep!


LMAO*, or should that be LOMA??!!

* Acronym for Laughing My Ass Off


----------



## remosfan

Hi lsp,

I was responding to where you said,



> Opinions differ about how to mark sentences that do end in prepositions, but all instructors agree on sentences that do not do so.



just to point out that some sentences that do not end in propositions might be considered wrong as well. It seems that our positions on the rule are pretty similar, though, so it's all good.


----------



## lsp

remosfan said:
			
		

> Hi lsp,
> 
> I was responding to where you said ... It seems that our positions on the rule are pretty similar, though, so it's all good.


I didn't say, I rephrased another member's position with which I do not agree. Hmm. Old habits die hard apparently. Make that, which I do not agree with.


----------



## remosfan

lsp, I finally understand and sorry for the mix-up.


----------



## lsp

remosfan said:
			
		

> lsp, I finally understand and sorry for the mix-up.


No problem. That's what I get for butting in (in butting?!?)


----------



## gaer

Starcreator said:
			
		

> I just joined this discussion and thus I'll just throw in my hat.
> 
> The way I learned it and the way we grammarians still see it today, the ending of a sentence or clause with a preposition is wrong.


May I ask to whom you are referring when you use the word "we"?  

Do you know who John Dryden was? His position was the same as yours, many centuries ago, when he stated that ending a sentence with a preposition was wrong. He was attacking, among others, Shakespeare:

_Thou hast no speculation in those eyes_
_Which thou dost glare with (Macbeth 1606)_

Other writers (just a few) who would get a poor grade from you:

Lewis Carrol
Robert Frost
James Thurber
Jonathon Swift
Jane Austen
Samuel Johnson

(This is only a very small part of a VERY long list of famous writers.)


> Let us look to the reason why it is acceptable today to end sentences with prespositions - in a word, laziness.


Some of the greatest writers the world has known considered it acceptable long before "today". 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

jacinta said:
			
		

> Unless we all start talking like Yoda, prepositions will continue to end sentences.
> 
> Out let the dog!
> Don't run! Up I cannot keep!


Thank you for up-bringing that. 

Gaer


----------



## garryknight

Has anybody else noticed that many of these examples that people have given are ones where the sentence ends with a phrasal verb, i.e. verb+preposition? 'remosfan' almost stated as much in his/her post.


----------



## remosfan

garryknight said:
			
		

> Has anybody else noticed that many of these examples that people have given are ones where the sentence ends with a phrasal verb, i.e. verb+preposition? 'remosfan' almost stated as much in his/her post.



Thanks, that was basically what I was trying to get at, but I could not think of the word.

And watch out, or you'll start a debate about his vs. his/her vs. they. 

I'm a he btw.


----------



## elroy

lsp said:
			
		

> Elroy, I don't know why Jason didn't respond, but I think he had it right the first time. Opinions differ about how to mark sentences that do end in prepositions, but all instructors agree on sentences that do not do so.



Oh, I see - of course.  I must have misread the sentence or something.  Thanks for that.


----------



## elroy

remosfan said:
			
		

> Do they? Take the sentence "There once was a fire, out which no one could put." Please tell me that everyone considers this sentence at best odd, if not outright incorrect. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "There once was a fire, which no one could put out."
> 
> I've been told, and this seems eminently reasonable, that some prepositions go with verb, not with the noun, and these can end the sentence -- they're basically adverbs more than anything. Or is "I stood up" an incorrect sentence? The rule here could be stated as what goes together should stay together.



Those words are in fact *ONLY * adverbs - they are not prepositions in any way, shape, or form.  *A preposition joins two words together and shows the relationship between them.  *  When a word does not do that, it is not at all a preposition. 

That said, your examples are not relevant to the discussion of prepositions at the end of the sentence; "out" has to go after "put" because it is an adverb.


----------



## elroy

jacinta said:
			
		

> Unless we all start talking like Yoda, prepositions will continue to end sentences.
> 
> Out let the dog!
> Don't run! Up I cannot keep!



These are again adverbs.


----------



## elroy

lsp said:
			
		

> LMAO*, or should that be LOMA??!!
> 
> * Acronym for Laughing My Ass Off



This is also an adverb!   

Sorry to be posting so many times, but it seems to me that people are confusing prepositions and adverbs - just because a word looks like a preposition doesn't mean it is one!


----------



## elroy

garryknight said:
			
		

> Has anybody else noticed that many of these examples that people have given are ones where the sentence ends with a phrasal verb, i.e. verb+preposition? 'remosfan' almost stated as much in his/her post.



Yes, they are examples of phrasal verbs, which are in fact *verb + adverb  * - as I have explained profusely.


----------



## elroy

I would just like to add, in response to the comment that French apparently reflects how it is "supposed to be done," that there are many languages in which it is *WRONG * not to end the sentence with the preposition.

For example:

Norwegian: Det er gutten *som * jeg spillte *med*.
French: C'est le garçon *avec qui * j'ai joué. 
_(English: This is the boy I played with / with whom I played.) _ 

Just goes to show that BOTH WAYS ARE ACCEPTABLE.


----------



## suzzzenn

Hi, 

In addition to the examples you all have mentioned, there are many other circumstances where it is common (and grammatically correct) to end a sentence or a clause with a preposition These examples aren't controversial at all and none include phrasal verbs. 

*Comparatives:* Karen went to the same school as I went *to*. 

*Passives:* The bed has hardly been slept *in*. The affair was widely talked *about. *

*Hollow Clauses*: John is easy to talk *to*. Mary is difficult to live *with*. 

(some people call these clauses "complement object deletion clauses")

*Infinitival relative clauses*: There is no chair to sit *on*. There are too many stairs to walk *up*. 

*Elliptical interrogatives*: Where *to*?

*Fused relative constructions*: That house is just what we are looking *for*. 

*That/zero relative clauses:* She is the person (that) I bought it *from.* 


In addition to these examples the Oxford English Grammar adds:

*Subordinated sentences that function as the clause object of another preposition:* We can't agree on which grant we should apply *for*. (The Oxford grammar adds about three more environments where preposition stranding is common)

As I said, the examples above aren't controversial. The examples below are what most people worry* about.* In these examples there is a style difference when you leave the preposition at the end. 

*Relative clauses:*

He is the one who I bought it from
He is the one from whom I bought it. 

*Interrogatives:*

From whom did you buy it?
Who did you buy it from?

*Exclamatives:*

What heavy blanket you are sleeping under!
Under what a heavy blanket you are sleeping!

*Topicalizations:*

The babies, I sing to. 
To the babies, I sing. 

Many people noticed that phrasal verbs can't be moved to the front. In fact one of the tests to determine if a verb/preposition combination is a phrasal verb or not is to see if the "preposition" can be moved to the front of a relative clause or question. The "preposition" part of a phrasal verb (or verbal idiom) can't ever be moved to the front. As Elroy said, the preposition-like things are really a different part of speech. I usually see them called "particles" or sometimes, adverbs. 

They carried the baby *over broken glass*. (Verb + preposition)

Over what did they carry the baby?  
What did they carry the baby over?  

They *took over* the government. (Phrasal verb, verb + particle)

Over what did they take?  
What did they take over?  

Given all of this, it is a true error to say: 




> The way I learned it and the way we grammarians still see it today, the ending of a sentence or clause with a preposition is wrong.


 

BTW*, *I got my information from the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, The Oxford English Grammar, The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL teacher's guide, Merriam-Webster's Guide to Punctuation and Style, Understanding and Using English Grammar (Azar). I am not sure which grammarians see it any other way!


----------



## gaer

suzzzenn said:
			
		

> BTW*, *I got my information from the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, The Oxford English Grammar, The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL teacher's guide, Merriam-Webster's Guide to Punctuation and Style, Understanding and Using English Grammar (Azar). I am not sure which grammarians see it any other way!


Those who have no idea what they are talking about.  

Gaer


----------



## garryknight

elroy said:
			
		

> Yes, they are examples of phrasal verbs, which are in fact *verb + adverb  * - as I have explained profusely.


But you're not saying that an adverb is something we shouldn't end a sentence with?  Otherwise, how could I finish this sentence off?


----------



## remosfan

elroy said:
			
		

> Those words are in fact *ONLY * adverbs - they are not prepositions in any way, shape, or form.  *A preposition joins two words together and shows the relationship between them.  *  When a word does not do that, it is not at all a preposition.



I know what you're saying but I don't know if the distinction you're trying to make is so clear cut. Sure "out" is "put out" is not a preposition, but it's not quite an adverb either. Adverbs normally don't go between a verb and its object as in "put out the fire". And I don't understand your saying



> That said, your examples are not relevant to the discussion of prepositions at the end of the sentence; "out" has to go after "put" because it is an adverb.


 
Why can't adverbs go before the verb: "Yesterday I went to the store", "I slowly walked home."

But mostly I would say the fact that so many of these words are used both as prepositions and adverbs (and maybe something in between) shows how little force this distinction has in the minds of English speakers. I can think of both "come to" and "come with" where prepositions are plainly used as adverbs, which they aren't normally.

And it doesn't make too much sense to me to say that "down" in "climb down" is an entirely different word from the "down" in "climb down the ladder." And you can say "The ladder down which I climbed", so it does have prepositional aspects.

I don't know if the above made sense or even if it's relevant , but what the heck.


----------



## elroy

suzzzenn said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> In addition to the examples you all have mentioned, there are many other circumstances where it is common (and grammatically correct) to end a sentence or a clause with a preposition These examples aren't controversial at all and none include phrasal verbs.
> 
> *Comparatives:* Karen went to the same school as I went *to*.
> 
> *Passives:* The bed has hardly been slept *in*. The land was fought *over. *
> 
> *Hollow Clauses*: John is easy to talk *to*. Mary is difficult to live *with*.
> 
> (some people call these clauses "complement object deletion clauses")
> 
> *Infinitival relative clauses*: There is no chair to sit *on*. There are too many stairs to walk *up*.
> 
> *Elliptical interrogatives*: Where *to*?
> 
> *Fused relative constructions*: That house is just what we are looking *for*.
> 
> *That/zero relative clauses:* She is the person (that) I bought it *from.*
> 
> 
> In addition to these examples the Oxford English Grammar adds:
> 
> *Subordinated sentences that function as the clause object of another preposition:* We can't agree on which grant we should apply *for*. (The Oxford grammar adds about three more environments where preposition stranding is common)
> 
> As I said, the examples above aren't controversial. The examples below are what most people worry* about.* In these examples there is a style difference when you leave the preposition at the end.
> 
> *Relative clauses:*
> 
> He is the one who I bought it from
> He is the one from whom I bought it.
> 
> *Interrogatives:*
> 
> From whom did you buy it?
> Who did you buy it from?
> 
> *Exclamatives:*
> 
> What heavy blanket you are sleeping under!
> Under what a heavy blanket you are sleeping!
> 
> *Topicalizations:*
> 
> The babies, I sing to.
> To the babies, I sing.
> 
> Many people noticed that phrasal verbs can't be moved to the front. In fact one of the tests to determine if a verb/preposition combination is a phrasal verb or not is to see if the "preposition" can be moved to the front of a relative clause or question. The "preposition" part of a phrasal verb (or verbal idiom) can't ever be moved to the front. As Elroy said, the preposition-like things are really a different part of speech. I usually see them called "particles" or sometimes, adverbs.
> 
> They carried the baby *over broken glass*. (Verb + preposition)
> 
> Over what did they carry the baby?
> What did they carry the baby over?
> 
> They *took over* the government. (Phrasal verb, verb + particle)
> 
> Over what did they take?
> What did they take over?
> 
> Given all of this, it is a true error to say:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW*, *I got my information from the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, The Oxford English Grammar, The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL teacher's guide, Merriam-Webster's Guide to Punctuation and Style, Understanding and Using English Grammar (Azar). I am not sure which grammarians see it any other way!



Hats off to a superb explanation!


----------



## elroy

garryknight said:
			
		

> But you're not saying that an adverb is something we shouldn't end a sentence with?  Otherwise, how could I finish this sentence off?



No, no - that's not what I'm saying at all.  I'm just saying these examples don't prove that you can end a sentence with a preposition (which, by the way, I believe you can) because the words in question aren't prepositions.

That's all I was getting *at*.  I'm glad I could clear it *up*.


----------



## elroy

Ok, ok - let me explain. 



			
				remosfan said:
			
		

> I know what you're saying but I don't know if the distinction you're trying to make is so clear cut. Sure "out" is "put out" is not a preposition, but it's not quite an adverb either. Adverbs normally don't go between a verb and its object as in "put out the fire". And I don't understand your saying



It is in fact an adverb, because it's modifying or limiting the verb "put."  However, I do agree that it is not a "usual" adverb, since it is part of a special construction - the phrasal verb - in which a verb and an adverb are so closely tied together that the two really express one action and can be considered a simple verb.  However, when you dissect the sentence those particles are in fact considered adverbs.  Their position is unusual because of their unusual nature.  Besides, you _could _ say "put the fire out." 



> Why can't adverbs go before the verb: "Yesterday I went to the store", "I slowly walked home."



Adverbs can of course go before the verb.  I was referring to a specific example, namely "There once was a fire, out which no one could put."  This is incorrect because it is illogical.  "Out which" implies that "fire" is the object of the "preposition" "out," which is clearly not the case.  "Fire" is the object of the verb "put" and "out" is an adverb.  Because it is a special adverb (part of a phrasal verb) it has to come after the verb.  Sorry about the confusion. 



> But mostly I would say the fact that so many of these words are used both as prepositions and adverbs (and maybe something in between) shows how little force this distinction has in the minds of English speakers. I can think of both "come to" and "come with" where prepositions are plainly used as adverbs, which they aren't normally.



You are right, but why would this mean that the distinction has little force?  



> And it doesn't make too much sense to me to say that "down" in "climb down" is an entirely different word from the "down" in "climb down the ladder." And you can say "The ladder down which I climbed", so it does have prepositional aspects.



Grammatically, they have different functions.  In "climb down," "down" is an adverb because it is part of a phrasal verb and furthermore has no object.  In "climb down the ladder" it is a preposition because it has an object and because it is showing the relationship between "climb" and "ladder" (as opposed to "up" or "around" the ladder).  You can indeed say "the ladder down which I climbed," in which it is a preposition, but that only proves what I'm saying.  It is a simple rewording of the second phrase, in which "down" is a preposition (so obviously it has "prepositional aspects") and not an adverb.



> I don't know if the above made sense or even if it's relevant , but what the heck.



It most certainly did and was...Your questions were insightful and intelligent; I just hope I was able to answer them fully.


----------



## jess oh seven

1. What a curvy road we are driving on! yes, but it sounds like someone straight out of the wholesome 50s saying it
2. On what a curvy road we are driving! no
3. On the kitchen table, the man is sitting. no
4. The kitchen table, the man is sitting on. no
5. He's the one who I bought it from. yes, even though the preposition is at the end... it's how you'd say it
6. What a dirty room the children are playing in! yes, but again nobody would say it unless the words "swell" and "golly" regularly featured in their vocabulary
7. In what a dirty room the children are playing! no
. He waited for the crosstown bus. yes
8. For which bus did he wait? yes but very formal, maybe in old literature
9. Which bus did he wait for? yes
She left the conference after the second lecture. yes
10. Which lecture did she leave the conference after? yes and no... the phrase is slightly too long to put the preposition at the end... it's a bit confusing
11. After which lecture did she leave the conference? yes


----------



## Starcreator

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Perhaps this is true.
> 
> But I would respond by saying that any written work that includes a bizarre and tortured perversion of common sense perpetrated to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition should be returned, unapproved.
> 
> There is always an alternative - if you know you are sending the material to an un-reconstructed pedant.


 
I agree. There is indeed always a less awkward alternative, often involving elimination of the preposition.


----------



## Starcreator

All right, let me elaborate on my views as evidently there are a number of conflicting opinions here.

I will conceded that there are grammarians who believe that verbs are sometimes different by their prepositions. For instance, to put and to put up are very different things. As Suzen explained in a very long post one page ago, there are some cases in which words can't simply be rearranged.

What my point is, is that we can make word choices which avoid prepositional constructions! The sun didn't come up - the sun rose! The land wasn't fought over - people fought over the land! (Which, as well, eliminates the pesky passive voice.)

Some people accept that certain verbs must take their prepositions - to take over, to put up, but in most cases if we can avoid these verbs it will protect our work from contempt.

The man I bought it from.
_The majority may approve, but not all._
The man from whom I bought it.
_Everyone agrees that this is correct!_

The sun is coming up.
_Some grammarians would disagree..._
The sun is rising.
_Ahh, perfect, we can all agree!_

The man I spoke to was there.
_Sounds bad, some grammarians will hate it._
The man to whom I spoke was there.
_Excellent!_

Ad infinitum...

I consider the hanging preposition wrong, but I understand that is just my opinion. I can inform you all that there are people who agree with me. To avoid their contempt, the rewording of a sentence is something so simple and it can, as someone said earlier, make your sentence sound much more distinguished.

I am not in favour of *awkward wordings *to avoid prepositions.
This is the kind of English up with which I will not put. = *wrong*
I am in favour of *changing verbs* in order to eliminate prepositions.
This is the kind of English which I will not tolerate. = *correct*

Hope this clarifies my views.

Star


----------



## elroy

Starcreator said:
			
		

> All right, let me elaborate on my views as evidently there are a number of conflicting opinions here.
> 
> I will conceded that there are grammarians who believe that verbs are sometimes different by their prepositions. For instance, to put and to put up are very different things. As Suzen explained in a very long post one page ago, there are some cases in which words can't simply be rearranged.
> 
> What my point is, is that we can make word choices which avoid prepositional constructions! The sun didn't come up - the sun rose! The land wasn't fought over - people fought over the land! (Which, as well, eliminates the pesky passive voice.)
> 
> Some people accept that certain verbs must take their prepositions - to take over, to put up, but in most cases if we can avoid these verbs it will protect our work from contempt.
> 
> The man I bought it from.
> _The majority may approve, but not all._
> The man from whom I bought it.
> _Everyone agrees that this is correct!_
> 
> The sun is coming up.
> _Some grammarians would disagree..._
> The sun is rising.
> _Ahh, perfect, we can all agree!_
> 
> The man I spoke to was there.
> _Sounds bad, some grammarians will hate it._
> The man to whom I spoke was there.
> _Excellent!_
> 
> Ad infinitum...
> 
> I consider the hanging preposition wrong, but I understand that is just my opinion. I can inform you all that there are people who agree with me. To avoid their contempt, the rewording of a sentence is something so simple and it can, as someone said earlier, make your sentence sound much more distinguished.
> 
> I am not in favour of *awkward wordings *to avoid prepositions.
> This is the kind of English up with which I will not put. = *wrong*
> I am in favour of *changing verbs* in order to eliminate prepositions.
> This is the kind of English which I will not tolerate. = *correct*
> 
> Hope this clarifies my views.
> 
> Star



Your position is respectable, but with all due respect, you are confusing prepositions and adverbs in some cases.  For example, nobody would disagree with "the sun is coming up" because "up" is not a preposition in this sentence!  Same with "up with which I will not put."  "Up" is not a preposition there.  As I said in a previous post, a preposition joins *two * words by showing the relationship between them.

See what I mean?


----------



## remosfan

> You are right, but why would this mean that the distinction has little force?



Little force in the minds of english speakers. This is probably why people have no problem ending sentences in prepositions (even ones we can agree are relevant, like "Where do you come from?"). That's what I was trying to get at, I think. Prepositions and adverbs are treated very similarly and causes this "problem".

But come to think of it, this is not all that different from Latin, except that when prepositions are used to modify verbs in Latin they appear as prefixes, and so there's no sort of precedence to finish the sentence with such elements.



> Grammatically, they have different functions. In "climb down," "down" is an adverb because it is part of a phrasal verb and furthermore has no object. In "climb down the ladder" it is a preposition because it has an object and because it is showing the relationship between "climb" and "ladder" (as opposed to "up" or "around" the ladder). You can indeed say "the ladder down which I climbed," in which it is a preposition, but that only proves what I'm saying. It is a simple rewording of the second phrase, in which "down" is a preposition (so obviously it has "prepositional aspects") and not an adverb.



This is probably where I'm most hesitant to agree with you. Why is "down" in "climb down the ladder" not an adverb, and "the ladder" not the direct object? If you take these three sentences:

1. He climbed down.
2. He climbed down the ladder.
3. He climbed the ladder.

Your analysis would treat these sentences very differently, but it's my gut feeling that they are very similar.



> It most certainly did and was...Your questions were insightful and intelligent; I just hope I was able to answer them fully.


----------



## cuchuflete

Like this? 





			
				Starcreator said:
			
		

> I agree. There is indeed always a less awkward alternative, often involving elimination of *eliminating* the preposition.


----------



## Starcreator

elroy said:
			
		

> Your position is respectable, but with all due respect, you are confusing prepositions and adverbs in some cases. For example, nobody would disagree with "the sun is coming up" because "up" is not a preposition in this sentence! Same with "up with which I will not put." "Up" is not a preposition there. As I said in a previous post, a preposition joins *two *words by showing the relationship between them.
> 
> See what I mean?


 
Exactly! Thanks, Elroy - perhaps I was a bit too vague. In the verb "to put up", up is not a preposition at all - it acts as an adverb. That is the thing to which I was alluding when I mentioned that "to put up" can actually be recognized as a verb itself.

Sorry about that.


----------



## Starcreator

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Like this?


 
I don't agree with your adjustment at all. The word indeed was for emphasis, and often *involving* elimination of the preposition - not *just* eliminating the preposition, as there is more to be done than that! A new verb must be substituted in, evidently, and the old one out.

Thanks, though, for your concern.

Star


----------



## cuchuflete

Starcreator said:
			
		

> I don't agree with your adjustment at all. The word indeed was for emphasis, and often *involving* elimination of the preposition - not *just* eliminating the preposition, as there is more to be done than that! A new verb must be substituted in, evidently, and the old one out.
> 
> Thanks, though, for your concern.
> 
> Star



What's the difference between substituting a new verb, and substituting _in_ a new verb?


----------



## elroy

remosfan said:
			
		

> This is probably where I'm most hesitant to agree with you. Why is "down" in "climb down the ladder" not an adverb, and "the ladder" not the direct object? If you take these three sentences:
> 
> 1. He climbed down.
> 2. He climbed down the ladder.
> 3. He climbed the ladder.
> 
> Your analysis would treat these sentences very differently, but it's my gut feeling that they are very similar.



"Down the ladder" in #2 is a prepositional phrase.  The preposition "down" shows the relationship between the verb "climbed" and the noun "ladder" by indicating the type of movement that occurred on the ladder by the climbing.  In #1, it is clearly an adverb - there is no other noun to worry about; we are simply stating that he climbed in a downward direction.  In the third sentence there is no preposition or adverb; we are stating that he climbed the ladder but we don't know how or where.  Sentence 2 is different in that there is a clear connection between the words "climbed" and "ladder."  It differs, for example, from "He climbed up the ladder," "He climbed around the ladder," "He climbed with the ladder" (if that's possible ), etc.  If "down" were an adverb and "ladder" a direct object, the sentence would read "He climbed the ladder down," which sounds kind of awkward and not as direct as "He climbed down the ladder."  Other uses of the preposition "down": I walked down the street (This does not mean "I walked the street down" , I went down the list, etc. 

Is it clearer now?


----------



## elroy

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> What's the difference between substituting a new verb, and substituting _in_ a new verb?



You *substitute * an old verb with another verb by *substituting in * the new one. 

Substituting = replacing
Substituting in = introducing


----------



## elroy

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Like this?





> I agree. There is always a less awkward alternative, often eliminating the preposition.



Furthermore, this alternative doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since the alternative is not eliminating the preposition.


----------



## remosfan

elroy said:
			
		

> Is it clearer now?



The problem wasn't so much that it wasn't clear but that I thought the distinction you were making was ad hoc. But you're right. After googling I discovered you could test by seeing where you can insert a (genuine) adverb. E.g.:

You can say "I climbed slowly down the ladder"
So down is a preposition.

You can't say "I put quickly out the fire"
So out is not a preposition.


----------



## elroy

remosfan said:
			
		

> The problem wasn't so much that it wasn't clear but that I thought the distinction you were making was ad hoc. But you're right. After googling I discovered you could test by seeing where you can insert a (genuine) adverb. E.g.:
> 
> You can say "I climbed slowly down the ladder"
> So down is a preposition.
> 
> You can't say "I put quickly out the fire"
> So out is not a preposition.



Interesting.  Does this test apply only when you put the adverb directly before the word in question?  Because you could say "I quickly put out the fire."

The distinction I was making was purely grammatical - unless I've been taught wrong all these years.    But tell me, how does this adverb test help you distinguish between the fuctions of "down" in your examples?  After all, you could say "I climbed slowly down," couldn't you?


----------



## remosfan

elroy said:
			
		

> Interesting. Does this test apply only when you put the adverb directly before the word in question? Because you could say "I quickly put out the fire."



Sorry, I forgot to say what the test actually was. It's whether you can put a adverb between the verb and the potential preposition (for lack of a better term). Since you can't say "I put quickly out the fire", "out" is not a preposition.



> The distinction I was making was purely grammatical - unless I've been taught wrong all these years.   But tell me, how does this adverb test help you distinguish between the fuctions of "down" in your examples? After all, you could say "I climbed slowly down," couldn't you?



You can (although I probably wouldn't) but this would mean that "down" in this case is a genuine adverb instead of whatever "up" is in, say, "stay up."

But I'm not sure how this might make you wrong in any way -- just the opposite. Maybe it's just me, but I like tests like these because you can apply them without thinking.


----------



## gaer

Starcreator said:
			
		

> I will conceded that there are grammarians who believe that verbs are sometimes different by their prepositions. For instance, to put and to put up are very different things.


What does "different by their prepositions" mean?


> What my point is, is that we can make word choices which avoid prepositional constructions! The sun didn't come up - the sun rose!
> 
> "The sun came up" is fine. Replacing "came up" with "rose" is a choice, not a matter of being correct or incorrect. "What my point is, is…" sounds absolutely horrible to me.
> 
> 
> 
> The land wasn't fought over - people fought over the land! (Which, as well, eliminates the pesky passive voice.)
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is valid if we all agree that we must avoid passive constructions at all cost. In fact, the insistence on avoiding passive constructions is a relatively new trend. If you read the works of 19th century authors, this is quite obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> Some people accept that certain verbs must take their prepositions - to take over, to put up, but in most cases if we can avoid these verbs it will protect our work from contempt.
> 
> The man I bought it from.
> _The majority may approve, but not all._
> The man from whom I bought it.
> _Everyone agrees that this is correct!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't agree that the first sentence is incorrect. I could, theoretically, reword every sentence and every paragraph I write in a way that would avoid words of which you disapprove ending a sentence. In my opinion, the result would be unnatural. I would be using a style that feels very awkward to me, in order to write in the style *of which you approve*.
> 
> Now, I don't wish to be unfair to you, since I barely know you. When I am unsure what is true, and what is not, I test my ideas. I picked up my first volume of Sherlock Holmes stories, and I searched for sentences that ended with prepositions. I did not worry about whether or not these "prepositions" actually were prepositions. I didn't need to. I skimmed through several pages and found none at the end of sentences. In the future I will look even more carefully, because now I'm quite curious.
> 
> However, it is also true that Sir Conan Doyle used passive voice so frequently that you, sticking to current standards, would give him a poor grade for that.
> 
> Language is not mathematics. Surely you would not judge the quality of an author's works by whether or not he uses too many sentences using passive voice, or ends too many sentences with "prepositions". Or would you?
> 
> I can easily understand sticking to solid mechanics while teaching. Perhaps your students learn to write well, and perhaps your style of teaching works well for them. However, I would hope that you would present alternative ideas to those of them who show talent. I would hope you would make a differentiation between what is accepted in college grammar handbooks and what is accepted in the writing of authors who are well-respected by countless people around the world, authors who may break many of the rules that you (I assume) are teaching as unbreakable—or usually so.
> 
> 
> 
> The sun is coming up.
> _Some grammarians would disagree..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't agree at all, because "coming up" and "rise" are stylistic choices. If *one* takes your point to its logical conclusion, *one* would limit *ones* choices, which would make *one's* writing bland and predictable.
> 
> I did not use the informal "you" above in fear that you would produce your read marker and dock my grade.
> 
> 
> 
> I consider the hanging preposition wrong, but I understand that is just my opinion. I can inform you all that there are people who agree with me. To avoid their contempt, the rewording of a sentence is something so simple and it can, as someone said earlier, make your sentence sound much more distinguished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It can also make *one's* writing sound incredibly pompous, artificial and stiff. Such rewording is not easy for people who do not have advanced language skills, since it involves developing a writing style that differs greatly from the style *with which *most of us speak. In addition, I don't fear the _contempt_ of those I do not respect, and anyone so rigid as to condemn the writing of anyone who does not conform to *his* personal views about language is someone I would prefer to avoid at all costs.
> 
> Gaer
Click to expand...


----------



## Starcreator

Elroy: Thanks very much for correcting my incorrect use of the verb "to substitute" and its adverbial "in". I appreciate it. And no, I agree, the alternative is not always eliminating the preposition - there are always a wide range of alternatives.

Gaer: Excellent points! I really appreciate countering points which are justified well as yours are.

_What does "different by their prepositions" mean?_

I don't want to criticise your ideas as I hardly know you either but I would think it was fairly obvious that I was referring to the fact that a preposition can change the meaning of a verb, making it, in a sense, an adverb - as Elroy has already said quite a few times.

_"The sun came up" is fine. Replacing "came up" with "rose" is a choice, not a matter of being correct or incorrect. "What my point is, is…" sounds absolutely horrible to me._

As I have stated several times, some people recognize the word "up" as an adverb in that instance and would not consider it incorrect. The logical thing to do, though, to avoid those who don't think it correct, is to make a *better* choice, such as "rose". I would personally see it as an issue of correct or incorrect, as I believe that it is not correct (and there is no point arguing it, before you go into a fury, as what is "correct" is based on belief and usage) but that does not mean that everyone does.

_"What my point is, is…" sounds absolutely horrible to me._

Erm, thanks?

_Your point is valid if we all agree that we must avoid passive constructions at all cost. In fact, the insistence on avoiding passive constructions is a relatively new trend. If you read the works of 19th century authors, this is quite obvious._

I don't believe - nor have I ever said - that we should unquestionably avoid passive constructions. I just think that rather than trying to use the passive voice (which has its faults in cohesion etc. - if you'd like to see some sites on this let me know) we can just use the simpler active voice and move the preposition.

_I don't agree that the first sentence is incorrect. I could, theoretically, reword every sentence and every paragraph I write in a way that would avoid words of which you disapprove ending a sentence. In my opinion, the result would be unnatural. I would be using a style that feels very awkward to me, in order to write in the style *of which you approve*._

_Now, I don't wish to be unfair to you, since I barely know you. When I am unsure what is true, and what is not, I test my ideas. I picked up my first volume of Sherlock Holmes stories, and I searched for sentences that ended with prepositions. I did not worry about whether or not these "prepositions" actually were prepositions. I didn't need to. I skimmed through several pages and found none at the end of sentences. In the future I will look even more carefully, because now I'm quite curious._

_However, it is also true that Sir Conan Doyle used passive voice so frequently that you, sticking to current standards, would give him a poor grade for that._


I never said the passive voice was universally inappropriate.

_Language is not mathematics. Surely you would not judge the quality of an author's works by whether or not he uses too many sentences using passive voice, or ends too many sentences with "prepositions". Or would you?_

To a certain extent, as would you, even if it is subconscious. If an author took no care in his or her grammar, regardless of how much you try to keep your eye on the big picture, you would judge it somewhat. Positively or negatively, I do not know. But I do consider the big picture more important than anything - I'd just encourage a student to try to write well in addition to trying to follow rules that will make their work acceptable grammatically to *all* those who judge it - or as many as possible.

_I can easily understand sticking to solid mechanics while teaching. Perhaps your students learn to write well, and perhaps your style of teaching works well for them. However, I would hope that you would present alternative ideas to those of them who show talent. I would hope you would make a differentiation between what is accepted in college grammar handbooks and what is accepted in the writing of authors who are well-respected by countless people around the world, authors who may break many of the rules that you (I assume) are teaching as unbreakable—or usually so._

Rules are not unbreakable - indeed, if they were, then we would never see a change in language! I simply advocate and admonish the use of prepositions embedded in sentences rather than those hanging at the ends. Thus I teach it to my students, hoping that it won't be lost through the generations. It sounds better (my opinion only), is universally acceptable and does make work more formal if it is used intelligently (no "up with which I will not put").

Perhaps for you conforming your writing to rules which would make your writing always acceptable would be unnatural - I do not know - but that is then the point of teaching. I would surely encourage students to use grammatical choices which would be both correct in the eyes of all grammarians and at the same time cohesive and fluent. This is the equilibrium we try to achieve. Do I look at the general idea? Yes! Is it more important than grammar rules? Of course! But do I consider it important that we maintain these rules? Yes! 

I want that we ensure that these rules are carried forth and not lost, and for the status quo maybe 20% of people would consider incorrect "The man I talked to", but none will consider grammatically incorrect "The man to whom I spoke".

_I don't agree at all, because "coming up" and "rise" are stylistic choices. If *one* takes your point to its logical conclusion, *one* would limit *ones* choices, which would make *one's* writing bland and predictable._

_I did not use the informal "you" above in fear that you would produce your read marker and dock my grade. _

An important concept here is *REGISTER*. In the formal register, I would prefer that people use we, or one, but in colloquial dialogue with contractions like the one we are here experiencing I don't have a problem with your use of "you" - nor do I have a problem with using prepositions at the ends of our sentences. But if we were writing formally, it would be a different matter.

So no red pen today.  

_It can also make *one's* writing sound incredibly pompous, artificial and stiff. Such rewording is not easy for people who do not have advanced language skills, since it involves developing a writing style that differs greatly from the style *with which *most of us speak. In addition, I don't fear the contempt of those I do not respect, and anyone so rigid as to condemn the writing of anyone who does not conform to *his* personal views about language is someone I would prefer to avoid at all costs._

Perhaps, but it can also make someone's writing sound incredibly formal, educated and cohesive. It works both ways, so it really depends on the individual and the writing itself.

Maybe people don't have those language skills - but that it the problem of the schools, not the grammarians. Perhaps you don't fear the contempt of those whom you do not respect, but surely you aren't suggesting that you disrespect all those who disagree with you? Just because some person does not have the same analytical standards as you do, is it a reason to hold him in disrespect! I don't disrespect you for your grammatical views, though after reading your comment I'm not sure whether or not you would feel the same way.

The belief of grammarians such as me that the hanging preposition is best avoided in formal writing does not mean we are rigid enough to "*condemn*" the writing of others - like I said, the big idea always supercedes the finer rules. It is one thing to say that I "*condemn*" the writing of others and entirely another to say that I respect the writing of others but think that it is best for students to maintain what I consider appropriate. Likewise, you would tell students to maintain what you consider appropriate.

For students, it is the ability to conform to universally acceptable grammatical standards which matters in their exams. For me, I personally love the embedded preposition's sound and air and wish to see it live *on (*  *) *in English language.

Above all, most importantly of all that I have said, it is important to maintain that *ENGLISH GRAMMAR IS OPINION*. I would prefer that you not disrespect people who disagree with you, because in essence you both have ideas about what is right and what is wrong and you are *both right*. If I believed that unconjugated verbs would be appropriate, I would be right! Grammar is usage, and many people agree with me and the majority without, as you said, the care to move their prepositions agree with you. But the nature of the English language stands in that the majority does not rule and as long as both exist, they both are acceptable.

So essentially there is no point in further discussing whether or not we are correct or incorrect, as there is no Academie Anglaise to tell us.

I do not know if your intention was to deal any personal insults with your message, but I do know that it came much more strongly than anything I have seen before in this forum and in the future I would advise you to lay *off* () a bit on the poster and discuss the grammar.

Star


----------



## panjandrum

English is not a rule-based language.
The purpose of language is to communicate.
What is appropriate and effective in a conversation between friends would not be acceptable in drafting legislation; and _vice versa_.
Wise and experienced users of language adjust their style without being aware they are doing so.
On the way to acquiring wisdom and experience, there are many guidelines - useful generalisations - to support the learning process.


----------



## elroy

remosfan said:
			
		

> Sorry, I forgot to say what the test actually was. It's whether you can put a adverb between the verb and the potential preposition (for lack of a better term). Since you can't say "I put quickly out the fire", "out" is not a preposition.
> 
> 
> 
> You can (although I probably wouldn't) but this would mean that "down" in this case is a genuine adverb instead of whatever "up" is in, say, "stay up."
> 
> But I'm not sure how this might make you wrong in any way -- just the opposite. Maybe it's just me, but I like tests like these because you can apply them without thinking.



Well, I think this is actually not a relevant example because "down" is not a potential preposition here.  There's no noun following it that could be its object.  In "I climbed down the ladder," you can say "I climbed slowly down the ladder" (although it sounds slightly awkward); therefore, "down" is a preposition.

I think I follow...


----------



## elroy

Starcreator said:
			
		

> Elroy: Thanks very much for correcting my incorrect use of the verb "to substitute" and its adverbial "in". I appreciate it. And no, I agree, the alternative is not always eliminating the preposition - there are always a wide range of alternatives.
> 
> Star



No, no - I think you misunderstood me in both cases.

In the first case, I was responding to Cuchu, who seemed to imply there was no difference between the two (and thereby attempting to point out another redundancy, I think).  I actually think you used "substitute in" it correctly.

And in the second case, I was again responoding to Cuchu, by stating that his suggestion wasn't really logical, because it seemed to imply that the alternative was doing the eliminating of the preposition.  Your version was better because you said the alternative *involved * eliminating the preposition.


----------



## elroy

Star,

I respect your points, but I certainly don't agree that we should cater our writing to the whims of thsoe who "think" it's wrong with no basis whatsoever - as, for example, in the case of adverbs that aren't prepositions in the first place.

It's one thing to avoid an actual preposition at the end of the sentence because of the controversial nature of such a construction, but I certainly don't feel that even adverbs are to be avoided at the end of the sentence just because some people don't know how to identify what part of speech a word is.

That said, there is absolutely no reason for me to avoid "the sun came up" - "up" is not even a preposition there!


----------



## Starcreator

elroy said:
			
		

> Star,
> 
> I respect your points, but I certainly don't agree that we should cater our writing to the whims of thsoe who "think" it's wrong with no basis whatsoever - as, for example, in the case of adverbs that aren't prepositions in the first place.
> 
> It's one thing to avoid an actual preposition at the end of the sentence because of the controversial nature of such a construction, but I certainly don't feel that even adverbs are to be avoided at the end of the sentence just because some people don't know how to identify what part of speech a word is.
> 
> That said, there is absolutely no reason for me to avoid "the sun came up" - "up" is not even a preposition there!


 
That's true - you're just describing where the sun came. Up? Down? It's adverbial. Personally I'd choose "rose", though.

You're right - the prepositions I'd focus on avoiding personally are those which are actual prepositions. The things I'm talking about - yuck. But the sun came up? All right.

I am starting to agree with your views and those of the other grammarians who identify those words as adverbs and not prepositions at all, as they don't take an object and therefore their adverbial function is actually separate entirely from their prepositional function. But again, to my ear seeing "up" at the end of the sentence would turn me off so I'd make the personal choice (not a matter of correct/incorrect) to use "rose" instead of "came up".

It is a personal choice and we can keep our minds on the big picture rather than the small details.


----------



## suzzzenn

Starcreator, 




> Let us look to the reason why it is acceptable today to end sentences with prepositions - in a word, laziness. People over the ages have left their prepositions to the end of their clauses and now because this is so widespread it has been accepted by grammarians as informally correct.




This is totally false. Ending sentences with prepositions is natural and grammatical in English and has nothing to do with laziness. "Grammarians" do not now accept prepositions at the end of sentences because it is so widespread. Grammarians reject the rule because it is incorrect. The rule was NEVER correct, nor did it ever reflect the grammar of English. There are many interesting books written on the history of English that have a lot to say about development of this and other "rules" which fit Latin, but not English. 




> Perhaps for you conforming your writing to rules which would make your writing always acceptable would be unnatural - I do not know - but that is then the point of teaching. I would surely encourage students to use grammatical choices which would be both correct in the eyes of all grammarians and at the same time cohesive and fluent. This is the equilibrium we try to achieve. Do I look at the general idea? Yes! Is it more important than grammar rules? Of course! But do I consider it important that we maintain these rules? Yes!
> 
> I want that we ensure that these rules are carried forth and not lost, and for the status quo maybe 20% of people would consider incorrect "The man I talked to", but none will consider grammatically incorrect "The man to whom I spoke


 And what percentage would consider "My mother is easy to talk to" incorrect?

You are misinformed. It is unfortunate for your students that you persist in teaching rules that are not based on current knowledge about the structure of English. It is fine that you have opinions and express them, but they are not based on factual information. You do a disservice to your students when you mask your personal opinions as rules that "should be carried forth". In a few posts you have called yourself a grammarian, but I think a grammarian is someone who has actually studied grammar. The fact that you had trouble understanding the concept of phrasal verbs makes me wonder just how much training you've actually had. 

I base my opinions on numerous academic, well respected, reference sources which say the "hanging preposition" rule is ridiculous. Some of those sources I mentioned in a previous post. All are written by highly respected "grammarians" (meaning people who have devoted their life's work to the study of English). I recently wrote a paper on prepositions stranding for an advanced linguistics class and I tried to find academic sources that agreed with the rule, "never end a sentence with a preposition", and I found ZERO! Even the most conservative writers (like Strunk and White) said the rule was archaic. I looked in style guides, grammar reference books, examination preparation guides (TOEFL etc..), and academic journals. Many of those sources were aimed at college students who are native speakers of English The rule was occasionally mentioned but the authors invariably went on to say that in interrogatives (questions) and wh- relative clauses, fronting or stranding a preposition causes a style difference, but the rule is a vast overgeneralization. In fact, there are often cases where it is preferable to end a sentence with a preposition. 

If you would like to read more about the history of the rule, this link is a good starting place. It includes an excellent bibliography. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language is another good source. Although if you think I am being polemic you might want to be careful with the CGEL, the authors don't hold back their contempt of the "rule". 

http://courses.lib.odu.edu/engl/jbing/~$escriptivePaper.htm


You claim to dislike using phrasal verbs to end a sentence. Does this mean you wouldn't say, "What time do you want to wake up?" Perhaps you say "What time do you want to arise?" I find that hard to believe. What about checking out of a hotel? I find it difficult to swallow that a native English speaker would find "We need to check out" incorrect or "grating". 

By the way, you misunderstood the intent of my earlier post. I wasn't trying to point out that it a simple reordering isn't always possible. I was trying to make the point that there are many environments where terminal prepositions are acceptable.


----------



## panjandrum

*suzzzenn*    

​


----------



## LV4-26

Just a few words from a non native.

Some of you seem to disagree on how to call the "preposition" in a phrasal verb. Some call it a _*preposition,*_ others call it an *adverb*. You might be interested to know that my English teachers have always called them "_*post*positions_".

In the sentences quoted by suzzzenn, I tend to prefer the ones with the preposition at the end (i.e. 1,4,5,6 and 9). 
Like a few of you, I have a problem with sentence #10, though. Probably because of its length. So I would make an exception in this case and choose #11 instead... if I* had* to choose.

None of my teachers ever told me that the "hanging" preposition was to be banned at all cost. On the contrary, they would insist that "_from where do you_ _come ?_" is to be avoided.


----------



## Starcreator

suzzzenn said:
			
		

> Starcreator,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is totally false. Ending sentences with prepositions is natural and grammatical in English and has nothing to do with laziness. "Grammarians" do not now accept prepositions at the end of sentences because it is so widespread. Grammarians reject the rule because it is incorrect. The rule was NEVER correct, nor did it ever reflect the grammar of English. There are many interesting books written on the history of English that have a lot to say about development of this and other "rules" which fit Latin, but not English.
> 
> And what percentage would consider "My mother is easy to talk to" incorrect?
> 
> You are misinformed. It is unfortunate for your students that you persist in teaching rules that are not based on current knowledge about the structure of English. It is fine that you have opinions and express them, but they are not based on factual information. You do a disservice to your students when you mask your personal opinions as rules that "should be carried forth". In a few posts you have called yourself a grammarian, but I think a grammarian is someone who has actually studied grammar. The fact that you had trouble understanding the concept of phrasal verbs makes me wonder just how much training you've actually had.
> 
> I base my opinions on numerous academic, well respected, reference sources which say the "hanging preposition" rule is ridiculous. Some of those sources I mentioned in a previous post. All are written by highly respected "grammarians" (meaning people who have devoted their life's work to the study of English). I recently wrote a paper on prepositions stranding for an advanced linguistics class and I tried to find academic sources that agreed with the rule, "never end a sentence with a preposition", and I found ZERO! Even the most conservative writers (like Strunk and White) said the rule was archaic. I looked in style guides, grammar reference books, examination preparation guides (TOEFL etc..), and academic journals. Many of those sources were aimed at college students who are native speakers of English The rule was occasionally mentioned but the authors invariably went on to say that in interrogatives (questions) and wh- relative clauses, fronting or stranding a preposition causes a style difference, but the rule is a vast overgeneralization. In fact, there are often cases where it is preferable to end a sentence with a preposition.
> 
> If you would like to read more about the history of the rule, this link is a good starting place. It includes an excellent bibliography. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language is another good source. Although if you think I am being polemic you might want to be careful with the CGEL, the authors don't hold back their contempt of the "rule".
> 
> http://courses.lib.odu.edu/engl/jbing/~$escriptivePaper.htm
> 
> 
> You claim to dislike using phrasal verbs to end a sentence. Does this mean you wouldn't say, "What time do you want to wake up?" Perhaps you say "What time do you want to arise?" I find that hard to believe. What about checking out of a hotel? I find it difficult to swallow that a native English speaker would find "We need to check out" incorrect or "grating".
> 
> By the way, you misunderstood the intent of my earlier post. I wasn't trying to point out that it a simple reordering isn't always possible. I was trying to make the point that there are many environments where terminal prepositions are acceptable.


 
Suzann, I think you are obviously missing what I am saying time, and time, and time again so let me finally reiterate for what I hope will be my final time.

I am very familiar with phrasal verbs and as elroy has also said several times they are separate verbs and are acceptable. As I have also said, my choice to say that I don't tolerate something, rather than saying that it is something I don't "put up with", is a personal one and not a matter of correctness. I dislike it because to my ear it sounds wrong, not because it is wrong, and I have said this before.

Secondly, with regards to your academic sources, fine. As I have also said (you can see that this post is just pulling up my past points, so if you have the chance do read my earlier posts) the English language is such that as long as there exists a minority of usage something can still be considered correct. Oh, and by the way, I have the following books which, although they do not condemn completely the use of the hanging preposition, acknowledge its questionability in formal writing and advise against it. Essentials of English Grammar, L. Baugh. Webster's English Language Desk Reference. English Grammar for Dummies. Oxford Guide to Plain English.

With regards to the origin of the rule, it really matters not to me. Do you know how many words, how many rules, how many sections of our language have questionable origins? Shakespeare made up <-(there you go) words that we use today. I don't care if the fact that we don't end sentences or clauses with prepositions with the exception of phrasal verbs came from Dryden's Latin obsession - it has now fallen into our language and is accepted by many. Lots of things that were incorrect were wrong at first. Live with it - language is dynamic.

Your own source says:
_The person to whom I am writing_ may generate a more favorable response in business correspondence than _the person I am writing to_. This suggests that the audience may often determine how the rule is used. Since writers do not always know their audience, adherence to generally accepted rules of grammar in professional correspondence is a good standard. 

That summarizes my point. Whenever students can, it is best to embed their prepositions lest it is read by someone who will condemn it and, for students, universal acceptance is key.

On the contrary, however, it will likely take decades, perhaps longer, to do away with a rule that continues to be perceived by many as proper English.

Maybe it is being less used, but for the time being it is proper English and students would do best to apply the rule so that their English can not be condemned.

They go on and on <-P) about how applying the rule makes your writing rigid and ambiguous, but it completely does not! What is wrong with saying "Why are you doing that?" instead of "What are you doing that for?". Is it that less cohesive? Is it that much work? Is it less fluid, less expressive? NO! Your mother is not easy to talk to - she is a good listener, or a good coversationalist, or whatever you wish to say. But "to talk to" is not an infinitive.

You can question my grammatical training all you like, but so far you have not proven yourself much better trained. You haven't mentioned at all the effects of register on the words and rules you choose, you haven't taken into account that there are sources on either side (and if you found none for your _advanced_ linguistics class, I'm surprised you were able to write your paper) and even the fact that you keep trying to "prove me wrong" when there is no wrong is rather ridiculous.

Finally, in conclusion, I am going to go back to register. It is fine to use hanging prepositions when talking to your friends, or even in a formal debate. It is in formal writing where it should be avoided. There is always a way around it. Such is the nature of language.

And again, if you're going to reply to this in a huge fit about how I'm wrong, you are wasting your time. Believe me, I'm not, and neither are you, as long as there are still users of either rule.

Thanks very much, though, for your thoughts.


----------



## timpeac

Starcreator said:
			
		

> Finally, in conclusion, I am going to go back to register. It is fine to use hanging prepositions when talking to your friends, or even in a formal debate. It is in formal writing where it should be avoided.


 
Why and according to who (sic) and why should we respect their (sic) opinion? It sounds fine to most people and the constructions used to avoid it usually sound more contorted than the normal sentence ending in the preposition.

I take your point that the "audience" of what you are writing might (arguably under a misconception) think you (sic) have made some sort of grammatical error, but I tend to view that as their (sic) problem. Perhaps I am in the happy position of not having to impress people whose views I might consider to be ridiculous. I would happily write a business letter with sentences ending in prepositions, and I would actively think less of someone I received a letter from (sic) with a phrase such as "the person to whom I am writing".

I think it is right to flag that some people might have a problem with the ending of sentences with prepositions, but pandering to their whim by respecting the rule seems counter-productive to me. Unless, of course, you don't like it for personal reasons - as you yourself don't - when of course it is your prerogative to use your native language as you see fit. 

Sorry, my knee-jerk reaction when told not to do something is to do it, unless I can be given a very good reason why not.


----------



## gaer

panjandrum said:
			
		

> *suzzzenn*
> 
> 
> 
> ​


I totally agree!

Gaer


----------



## Starcreator

timpeac said:
			
		

> Why and according to who (sic) and why should we respect their (sic) opinion? It sounds fine to most people and the constructions used to avoid it usually sound more contorted than the normal sentence ending in the preposition.
> 
> I take your point that the "audience" of what you are writing might (arguably under a misconception) think you (sic) have made some sort of grammatical error, but I tend to view that as their (sic) problem. Perhaps I am in the happy position of not having to impress people whose views I might consider to be ridiculous. I would happily write a business letter with sentences ending in prepositions, and I would actively think less of someone I received a letter from (sic) with a phrase such as "the person to whom I am writing".
> 
> I think it is right to flag that some people might have a problem with the ending of sentences with prepositions, but pandering to their whim by respecting the rule seems counter-productive to me. Unless, of course, you don't like it for personal reasons - as you yourself don't - when of course it is your prerogative to use your native language as you see fit.
> 
> Sorry, my knee-jerk reaction when told not to do something is to do it, unless I can be given a very good reason why not.


 
Well said and I respect your personal position very much - we both have the right to make our own personal choices and our own determinations as to what we consider correct or incorrect. (Many people would call me uneducated for having said "as to", for instance.)

Star


----------



## timpeac

Starcreator said:
			
		

> Well said and I respect your personal position very much - we both have the right to make our own personal choices and our own determinations as to what we consider correct or incorrect. (Many people would call me uneducated for having said "as to", for instance.)
> 
> Star


 
Well rest assured, I wouldn't!


----------



## Outsider

Starcreator said:
			
		

> Your mother is not easy to talk to - she is a good listener, or a good coversationalist, or whatever you wish to say. But "to talk to" is not an infinitive.


Why is that?


----------



## Starcreator

Why do we say "you are" instead of "you is"? Why do we say "ate" instead of "eated"? That's the way it is.


----------



## Outsider

I'm asking why you say that "to talk to" is not an infinitive. Terminology, not use.


----------



## Inara

I know I am not the one to put in my opinion 

Just a remark. When I studied at secondary school (1985-1990, not in 18th century, please note!), I was tought that the *correct way* *is to end the sentence with a preposition*:
Where are you coming from? What is it you are looking at?, etc.
And that was in Baku, USSR. My English teacher was azerbaijanian as I am and I believe she had learn her English in Baku, USSR. So what I am wondering about is how comes all you people say that there is an official rule prohibiting to put a preposition at the end of the sentence??? Or had soviet teachers invented there own rules for English grammer?
I also had attended a number of language schools in Baku as well as in Budapest, but I swear, I haven't heard about this rule till today.
It is really very strange, don't you find?


----------



## Outsider

Inara said:
			
		

> So what I am wondering about is how comes all you people say that there is an official rule prohibiting to put a preposition at the end of the sentence??? Or had soviet teachers invented there their own rules for English grammar?
> I also had attended a number of language schools in Baku as well as in Budapest, but I swear, I haven't heard about this rule till today.
> It is really very strange, don't you find?


Not at all. Your teachers taught you to speak English as most native speakers would. The no-preposition-at-end rule is observed only in very formal registers, and mostly in writing.


----------



## Starcreator

The reason why is that the rule itself is only respected in certain places and by certain grammarians. If you visited Canada or the US some teachers still abide by this rule in teaching, but like I said earlier more emphasis today is put on the main idea than on the tiny details.

I say it is not an infinitive because "to talk" and "to talk to" mean the same thing, therefore "to talk to" is not a phrasal verb. Unlike "to put" and "to put up", which mean completely different things figuratively. In "to put up" the "up" acts more as an adverb and in "to talk to" the "to" is very clearly a preposition.


----------



## Starcreator

Outsider said:
			
		

> Not at all. Your teachers taught you to speak English as most native speakers would. The no-preposition-at-end rule is observed only in very formal registers, and mostly in writing.


 
I agree completely.


----------



## gaer

Starcreator said:
			
		

> I just joined this discussion and thus I'll just throw in my hat.
> 
> The way I learned it and the way we grammarians still see it today, the ending of a sentence or clause with a preposition is wrong.


I wanted to go back to your original post, to explain why my reply to you later was sharp. When I saw "we grammarians", I literally saw red. It sounded as if you were looking down at the rest of us, those of us who were not fully in agreement with you.

However, fair is fair, and I'd like to make a point that I think supports your ideas. My point is broader and does not use grammatical terms.

For the last week or more I have examined the writing of many authors while reading. I did not pick up books to read for the purpose of analysis, but I did make an effort to pay attention.

Here is what I found.

In general, authors DO switch style from narration to dialogue, and it's quite striking. There is a tendency—a strong one—to adhere to more conservative rules in narration, rules that I would call "prescriptive", although you and others may prefer another word.

I've been examining books written very recently as well as those written earlier, and I have noticed that authors tend to avoid less informal constructions and choose those that are more formal. We could call them literary constructions. Or choose your own label.

I will never agree that many of the constructions we use frequently in conversation are wrong merely because they are less formal, and I'll bet there are some writers who use a more informal style in their narrations too. So far I have not stumbled across this, but I'll continue to watch carefully. However, some of the books I've examined contain very "modern characters" speaking in a way that is very idiomatic right now. The books themselves are not formal, stiff or even serious.

Finally, I can see that in a teaching situation it might be useful to stress the more formal or "literary" style in writing, since using a more informal and casual style comes so naturally to most of us, and using an informal style in narration will "draw fire" from those who are enforcing what to me appears to be a whole set of unwritten rules. In other words, in order to write in a manner that is not more or less standard, you would have to gain a great deal of fame, fame that would give you the freedom to break many rules. For that reason, I would expect to see MORE formal rules broken in the writing of our greatest authors, who like most artists dislike rules and who are more unconventional in every way.

By the way, this also may be the reason why the notation of most musicians is surprisingly standardized, but the notation of the greatest composers is much more individual, challenging all rules.

Back to writing. There must be thousands of examples of things preferred by writers, but here is just one:

"The teacher stood before the class."

I've noticed for years that this is so standard that you simply won't find "in front of the class" in narration, or if so, it is very rare. There are countless "conventions" like this in writing.

So, finally back to the original point: regardless what you call it—hanging preposition, sentence ending with a preposition, etc.—you will find it about 100 times more frequently in dialogue than in narration.

And I have to admit that this DID surprise me!

That having been said, I still would never say that this is wrong or inferior:

"That's just the word I've been looking for." I would merely say that it is a stylistic choice and more suited toward conversation than formal writing, rather rare in narration but very common in dialogue. 

Gaer


----------



## Starcreator

How enlightening! I was a bit shocked with the sharpness of the responses that came back to me (and to my own disdain, I replied with equal sharpness) but now I understand the reason why you took the tone you did and I want to assure you that when I use the phrase grammarian I in no way put myself above you, rather I just wanted to highlight that I have studied grammar as, I'm sure, the rest of you have. So I apologize to everyone if connotatively I sounded condescending but it certainly wasn't intentional.

And an excellent point - the difference between the register of formal and colloqual language, between dialogue and narrative, proclaims itself in respecting or disrespecting in the hanging preposition rule. I was reading the other day a book by Margaret Laurence, a Canadian author, and in the same week I read the latest "Harry Potter" book by Rowling and in both I noticed that their characters had no problem using conversational hanging prepositions - something, which I also noticed, the authors tried narratively to avoid.

This isn't something I brought up before or, for that matter, even NOTICED before so thanks very much for bringing it to our attention. Authors do tend to be more formal in their narrative writing however I still admit that many authors - maybe even the majority - have no problem using a hanging preposition at the end of a sentence to avoid an awkward construction. And if the quality of the work is good overall, that's just fine.

Thanks again,

Star


----------



## gaer

Starcreator said:
			
		

> How enlightening! I was a bit shocked with the sharpness of the responses that came back to me (and to my own disdain, I replied with equal sharpness) but now I understand the reason why you took the tone you did and I want to assure you that when I use the phrase grammarian I in no way put myself above you, rather I just wanted to highlight that I have studied grammar as, I'm sure, the rest of you have. So I apologize to everyone if connotatively I sounded condescending but it certainly wasn't intentional.


Well, I broke the first rule here: be kind. And I think we all get a bit overworked about small things at times, as if the placement of a preposition is more important than the feelings of the people we are talking to—or to whom we are talking.

It struck me later that I can instantly rephrase almost any thought to any level of formality, and I think most here are able to do the same. I'm sure you would agree. In addition, many of us are (to some extent at least) fluent in other languages, and we are quite comfortable with "playing with grammar".

Today I told two of my advanced students that the "rules" I have given them are not really rules at all, that I MUST give most people invariable rules, because if I give them too many choices while they are leaning mechanics, they are overwhelmed. So when teaching "what is right", I usually teach what is most common. However, as I explained today, my "rules" are only made to be used by them to expand, change, bend or even disregard when they reach a level of mastery that allows them to make their own decisions.

As a rebellious person myself, I have to tell you that I am delighted when I see fine musicians breaking rules "left and right", and it is true that the best of them are most likely to do exactly what the rest of us are told not to do with such assurance and style that we can only marvel.

I think the same is true of great writers. However, they earn the right to be so independent, and it is also true that even most of those writers who will later on create their own standards are forced to "toe the mark" as they break into the publishing world. It is rare that a young talent breaking many rules is recognized as having such outstanding genius that he or she is left alone.


> And an excellent point - the difference between the register of formal and colloqual language, between dialogue and narrative, proclaims itself in respecting or disrespecting in the hanging preposition rule.


Yes. I've noticed a few here and there in narrative, but they are rather rare. This is true.


> I was reading the other day a book by Margaret Laurence, a Canadian author, and in the same week I read the latest "Harry Potter" book by Rowling and in both I noticed that their characters had no problem using conversational hanging prepositions - something, which I also noticed, the authors tried narratively to avoid.


Absolutely, because dialogue must follow the way we speak when we are relaxed. In addition, fine authors master many speach patterns, enabling them to mimic. An American author "putting words into the mouth of an Englishman" will have to remember to use:

Spelt, learnt, leapt, have got, "I haven't any", etc.

In addition, narrative takes on a completely different feel when the narrator is also a character in the story.


> This isn't something I brought up before or, for that matter, even NOTICED before so thanks very much for bringing it to our attention. Authors do tend to be more formal in their narrative writing however I still admit that many authors - maybe even the majority - have no problem using a hanging preposition at the end of a sentence to avoid an awkward construction. And if the quality of the work is good overall, that's just fine.


I'm "gonna continue to keep my eye out", but I think it's safe to assume that this is true most of the time.

And the reason I came back to this discussion is that it went off in a very different direction from that intended by Susan, who was going in a very different direction.  

We got off topic entirely, talking about right and wrong, better and worse, rather than style and context. 

Gaer


----------



## Starcreator

Indeed we have! 

It is true that rules are never rules in English, only guidelines - however, it is my wish that most people adhere to at least a vague sense of what we consider to be correct English as if there are too many differences we shall see different dialects entirely forming which, though natural, get confusing. I'd like to see languages merging in the age of communication, not separating - but alas, what I would like is not always what will be and I am truly just in for the ride!

How interesting it is that you bring up the dialogue of the British - just last night I was contemplating the way that they say "I have got" rather than "I have" and they use the construction "I haven't" rather than "I don't have", which in Canada we would see as archaic and stuffy while over there it is quite common.

I play with grammar often, moving my sentences and vocabulary choices between registers but I find that though I very much prefer the formal register (for me, I find it more easy to describe with the larger vocabulary which presents itself there) the most universally understood English is, indeed, colloquial English and I don't consider anyone a true English speaker or intellectual if he presents himself with pretentious formality and cannot even carry on a conversation informally. Too often we see people who think they are, I don't know - better? smarter? - than the rest of us because they find themselves incapable of talking as a normal person would (British: would do  ) in simple dialogue. Have you ever seen Frasier? Prime example of pretentiousness to the extreme, and not unrealistic either.

So in conclusion it's true that context plays a huge role in determination of "right or wrong" as indeed there is no right or wrong but just, perhaps, bad choices for a particular context or style. And, then, each of us will have a different idea of what constitutes a "good" or "bad" choice.

What do you teach, out of curiousity? You certainly do seem _very_ well informed regarding English overall.


----------



## Jay21401

First, I would like to say I'm not trying to make fun of this subject.

I'm can't help but ask, if all languages are evolving,
does this mean that the phrase "where you at?" is going to become correct because lots of people say it. Or when lots of people say"orientated" instead of "oriented".
I don't think it's as easy as saying that language just changes over time. 

Just my two cents. 

Jay


----------



## gaer

Jay21401 said:
			
		

> First, I would like to say I'm not trying to make fun of this subject.
> 
> I'm can't help but ask, if all languages are evolving,
> does this mean that the phrase "where you at?" is going to become correct because lots of people say it. Or when lots of people say"orientated" instead of "oriented".
> I don't think it's as easy as saying that language just changes over time.
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> Jay


Jay, disorientated is correct in BE.

disorientate
verb [T] (US USUALLY disorient) 
to make someone confused about where they are and where they are going

This if from the Cambridge Site.

More important, I don't understand what this has to do with prepositions…

Gaer


----------



## A90Six

remosfan said:
			
		

> You can say "I climbed slowly down the ladder"


I know we all say it, but doesn't climb mean ascend? In climb up, isn't the *up* superfluous? Can we climb down (ascend down)? Shouldn't we just say descend?

 Sir Edmund Hillary: It has been my ambition for many years to climb Mount Everest.
Tenzing Norgay: Oh really sir! Would that be up or down? 



			
				Starcreator said:
			
		

> A new verb must be substituted in, evidently, and the old one *out*.


 This sentence ends with a preposition!

To me, the sentence reads, "a new verb must be substituted in and the old verb must be substituted out." I'm not sure that something can be substituted out, but wouldn't *taken out* (pro-prep-enders) or *removed* (anti-prep-enders) have been better used here.

Of this, I should probably keep out.


----------



## Outsider

Jay21401 said:
			
		

> First, I would like to say I'm not trying to make fun of this subject.
> 
> I'm can't help but ask, if all languages are evolving,
> does this mean that the phrase "where you at?" is going to become correct because lots of people say it. Or when lots of people say"orientated" instead of "oriented".
> I don't think it's as easy as saying that language just changes over time.
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> Jay


I agree with you. Innovations pop up all the time in language, but they are also criticized by many (as we've just seen in this thread), or simply fall out of fashion. It all depends on whether an innovation manages to survive time, and criticism.

I must say, though, that ending words with prepositions is not an innovation in English. It's almost as old as the language itself. What was an innovation was the claim that you shouldn't do it.


----------



## Defy_Convention

Panjandrum,

To answer your question (which I know was not directed at me) about using curvy to describe a road, as an American, I would say that that usage is very common here.  It can also be used to describe a feminine figure, but lines and roads can be curvy on this side of the pond with no sexual or anatomical connotations. In fact, I think it is quite likely that I have said "What a curvy road we're on" at some point in my life!

Cordially yours,
Defy_Convention


----------



## VTTM

Hey, guys! Could you please help me out with the following issue? I've learned to end the sentence with *to* when I use *listen*. Eg.: What kind of music do you listen to? However, I need to know whether the *to* after *listen* is mandatory in this case:



> What effect does the music you listen have on you?



Should I always use "to" after "listen" or are there cases when it's not necessary?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## RM1(SS)

_To_ is required.  Listen is an intransitive verb; you cannot "listen something."


----------

