# preposition (placement)



## Yngwie

Hi! I Would like to know when I have to put a preposition at the end of a sentence. For example in "It's very difficult to speak of".

Thanks in advance


----------



## pistakee

Theoretically prepositions do not go at the end of sentences. However, they are often used that way in casual speech and writing. Your sentence should probably be, "It's very difficult to speak of it." or "It's a very difficult thing of which to speak."


----------



## Chris K

English speakers are very comfortable with ending a sentence with a preposition, although formerly many educators disapproved of the practice. Your sentence is correct (although we probably would say "It's very difficult to talk about it").

It's hard to come up with an answer = An answer is hard to come up *with*.

I was thinking of someone --> Who were you thinking *of*?

What have you been up *to*?


----------



## Bil

Sometimes the "dangling preposition" is impossible to avoid.  When this is the case, we usually find ourselves wrestling to restructure the sentence using the pronoun _"which,"_ and we end up in frustration with either an archaic, stilted or flat-out disastrous construction, for instance:

_"It's very difficult of which to speak." _

But, let's turn to the experts:

"*Preposition ending a sentence.*  It was John Dryden, the 17th-century poet and dramatist, who first promulgated the doctrine that a preposition may not be used at the end a sentence. Grammarians in the 18th century refined the doctrine, and the rule has since become one of the most venerated maxims of schoolroom grammar. But sentences ending with prepositions can be found in the works of most of the great writers since the Renaissance. In fact, English syntax not only allows but sometimes even requires final placement of the preposition, as in _'We have much to be thankful for'_ or _'That depends on what you believe in.'_ Efforts to rewrite such sentences to place the preposition elsewhere can have comical results, as Winston Churchill demonstrated when he objected to the doctrine by saying _'This is the sort of English up with which I cannot put.'_

Even sticklers for the traditional rule can have no grounds for criticizing sentences such as _'I don’t know where she will end up'_ or _'It’s the most curious book I’ve ever run across'_; in these examples, _'up_' and _'across'_ are adverbs, not prepositions. You can be sure of this because it is impossible to transform these examples into sentences with prepositional phrases. It is simply not grammatical English to say I don’t know up where she will end and It’s the most curious book across which I have ever run" (_The American Heritage Book of English Usage_).


----------



## Cristina Moreno

In spanish, can we also put the prepositions at the end of the sentence?
Gracias de antemano.
Cristina.


----------



## Jellby

Cristina Moreno said:


> In spanish, can we also put the prepositions at the end of the sentence?



No, never.

Unless it's an informal question formed only by the preposition: "¿Por?" (maybe some other case)


----------



## NewdestinyX

Yngwie said:


> Hi! I Would like to know when I have to put a preposition at the end of a sentence. For example in "It's very difficult to speak of".
> 
> Thanks in advance



Well this is a tricky subject. Yes -- prepositions at the end are possible in many instances and even embraced. you've gotten one side of the story from Bil and his input that some sentences, when trying to avoid the preposition at the end, sound just plain weird. But the practice of nesting the preposition within the sentence (like Spanish does) is still considered an important undertaking by the careful educated speaker. There's no simple rule to tell you which verbs with which it can be done and which it can't. --

You'll notice in my last sentence there I put the 'with' in the middle. To have put 'with' at the end there would have sounded 'less than educated' to my ears and in the opinion of many grammarians as well.

Here's an example of where the opposite of what Bil's grammarian presented is true.

Who did you go there with.
With whom did you go there.

The "with" at the end in the first one would not be said by careful speakers and writers of the language.

In casual speech almost anything is possible. But I'm assuming you were asking the question because you want to learn 'the best' English. If I have misconstrued your request -- then, yes, put the prepositions at the end wherever you wish. 

Regards,
Grant


----------



## Cristina Moreno

Jellby said:


> No, never.
> 
> Unless it's an informal question formed only by the preposition: "¿Por?" (maybe some other case)


 
Muchas gracias Jellby por su ayuda
Cristina.


----------



## spinyilex

NewdestinyX said:


> Who did you go there with.
> With whom did you go there.
> 
> The "with" at the end in the first one would not be said by careful speakers and writers of the language.



While Grant is correct in saying that "with whom did you go there?" is the best English, I would argue that it's not the "best" English for every situation.  Most native speakers (in the United States, anyway) would reserve that phrasing for formal written communication or perhaps discourse in academic circles or other situations in which careful, formal language is expected.

If your aim is to speak like the majority of the population and to sound natural in everyday conversation, I would definitely choose to say "who did you go there with?"


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

In English, you're not supposed to end sentences in prepositions. They're called "pre"positions because they're supposed to begin a phrase. I understand, however, that there are languages that employ postpositions.


----------



## spinyilex

But in casual conversation, we do frequently end sentences with prepositions.


example:

My friend and I notice our friend Bob having a conversation with someone.  If I want to know who the other person is, I would ask, "Who is Bob talking to?"  I would not say, "with whom is Bob talking?"  

Other examples of phrases ending in prepositions that are perfectly acceptable in casual spoken English:

- What are you thinking about?
- Which box is it in?
- What street does he live on?
- Please tell us what your book is about.
- Who are you going out to dinner with?
- I can't reach that shelf.  I need something to stand on.

To me, "I need something on which to stand" sounds overly formal for everyday conversation, although that construction is appropriate for a business proposal, academic paper, legal document, etc.

There are, however, some cases in which people end sentences with unnecessary prepositions, and that _does _sound like bad English in any context:

- Where are you at?  (should be "Where are you?")
- Where is he going to?  (should be "where is he going?")


----------



## NewdestinyX

spinyilex said:


> ) ....would reserve that phrasing for formal written communication or perhaps discourse in academic circles or other situations in which careful, formal language is expected.
> 
> If your aim is to speak like the majority of the population and to sound natural in everyday conversation, I would definitely choose to say "who did you go there with?"



Where I live -- in casual speech, that sentence, would not be said with 'with' at the end. There are parts of America and Britain that vary vastly on this issue. And I can't agree that for certain sentence structures that the preposition at the end 'sounds' more natural. It just doesn't - in every case, that is. In "put up with" the 'woth' would always, by any person, be put at the end; but not the 'with' in "go with".


----------



## spinyilex

NewdestinyX, you're telling me that in casual speech, most people in Pennsylvania would say, "with whom did you go there?"

Maybe most people in Pennsylvania who are also faculty members in the English department at Penn...


----------



## NewdestinyX

spinyilex said:


> NewdestinyX, you're telling me that in casual speech, most people in Pennsylvania would say, "with whom did you go there?"
> 
> Maybe most people in Pennsylvania who are also faculty members in the English department at Penn...



In the adult college educated community -- without fail. (Southeastern PA) As would they in Upstate New York and the Washington DC area. And in the national news media. Just watch CBS Evening news. But that may be considered a little more formal.


----------



## Bil

No, Spinyilex, you're wrong!  Sentences like _"With whom did you go"_ and _"For whom are you calling"_ are commonplace among butlers in old British films.


----------



## spinyilex

On the evening news, yes.  In casual conversation, I'm not buying it.  I'll have to ask my father-in-law, who is an adult college graduate from Philadelphia who now resides in the Washington DC area.


----------



## spinyilex

I should clarify my opinion... 

I'm sure there are people who would casually ask, "with whom did you go?"  And I applaud them for taking the grammatical high road.  I'm just saying that in many cases, ending sentences with prepositions is common and generally acceptable in casual, everyday American English conversations, even among educated speakers.


----------



## NewdestinyX

spinyilex said:


> I should clarify my opinion...
> 
> I'm sure there are people who would casually ask, "with whom did you go?"  And I applaud them for taking the grammatical high road.  I'm just saying that in many cases, ending sentences with prepositions is common and generally acceptable in casual, everyday American English conversations, even among educated speakers.



Just remember, Spiny, I said 'go "there" with'. There are many constructions that sound forced to put the preposition at the end. I originally entered the conversation offering some measure of balance to what Bil had said -- where he was implying that it sounds just goofy to put the preposition in the center. Which for me is way, way overstated. To the educated ear ..go there with.. sounds just as goofy and is avoided amongst careful speakers. It depends on the preposition and the syntax. 

The reason why "where are you at" sounds bad and is not used by the careful is because location doesn't require the preposition 'at'. "Go with" is a syntax where the preposition is required to make the communication. In all the examples you gave -- the preposition at the end is totally fine and common is speech -- there are others where, regionally, it is not as common. I just offered one. You and I both agree that in writing and more business and news settings the preposition nested is still in most writing styles guides as the norm. Do indeed ask your Dad-in-law. Would love to hear his response. I'll also come up with a few more that sound 'out of place' to put the preposition at the end.

Here's a few:
At what point should I stop. --never: What point should I stop at.
I want to see the point at/from which they started their journey. Never: I want to see which point they started their journey at/from.
In which lane is he swimming. --probably not: Which lane is he swimming in.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Well this is a tricky subject. Yes -- prepositions at the end are possible in many instances and even embraced. you've gotten one side of the story from Bil and his input that some sentences, when trying to avoid the preposition at the end, sound just plain weird. But the practice of nesting the preposition within the sentence (like Spanish does) is still considered an important undertaking by the careful educated speaker. There's no simple rule to tell you which verbs with which it can be done and which it can't. --
> 
> 
> Here's an example of where the opposite of what Bil's grammarian presented is true.
> 
> Who did you go there with.
> With whom did you go there.
> 
> The "with" at the end in the first one would not be said by careful speakers and writers of the language.
> Regards,
> Grant


 
According to 'OXFORD GUIDE to english grammar' page 29, numeral 3. 

A- A Question word can also be the object of a preposition :

who did you go to the party with?
I 've got a tape for you to listen to.
War reporters sometimes get shot at
that's the article I told you about.
who was the parcel addressed to.
where does María come from
what are young people interested in?

B- a preposition comes in its normal place, usually after a verb or adjective in an infinitive clause.

your meals are all you have to pay for.
there's nothing to get excited about.
I need a vase to put these flowers in

C- when we use a phrasal or prepositional verb in the passive the adverb or *preposition* comes after the *passive* *participle* :

Such out-of-date practices should be done away with.
The poor child always being made fun of.

D- Relative clauses (= ADJECTIVE) :
prepositions in relative clauses:

she is the woman whom I told you *about*.
she is the woman I told you *about*.
the music we listened *to* last night was good.
the building he lives *in* is very old.
I'll introduce you to the man *who/that* I share a flat *with.*
*is this the mangazine which/that you were talking about?*


*Ivy29*


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> According to 'OXFORD GUIDE to english grammar' page 29, numeral 3.
> 
> A- A Question word can also be the object of a preposition :
> 
> who did you go to the party with?
> I 've got a tape for you to listen to.
> War reporters sometimes get shot at
> that's the article I told you about.
> who was the parcel address addressed to.
> where does María come from
> what are young people interested in?



It's "at" and "from" with location syntaxes where the preposition at the end is more of a stretch. As in the examples I gave. The preposition at the end of a sentence is rarely ungrammatical. Grammar rules are not the issue here. This is a matter of style and usage we're discussing. The question came from a native Spanish speaker asking how to speak English well.


----------



## HistofEng

spinyilex said:


> NewdestinyX, you're telling me that in casual speech, most people in Pennsylvania would say, "with whom did you go there?"
> 
> Maybe most people in Pennsylvania who are also faculty members in the English department at Penn...


 


			
				NewdestinyX said:
			
		

> In the adult college educated community -- without fail. (Southeastern PA) As would they in Upstate New York and the Washington DC area. And in the national news media. Just watch CBS Evening news. But that may be considered a little more formal.


 

Funny, I just graduated from U of Penn undergrad in May and I truly don't recall people talking like that ("with whom did you go there") and if they did it would strike me as a little odd (even by a lecturer). I'm with Spineyilex on this one, anyone who uses such constructions in casual settings may be regarded as high-falutent. Using them really sets a formal tone. That has been my experience, at least.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> It's "at" and "from" with location syntaxes where the preposition at the end is more of a stretch. As in the examples I gave. The preposition at the end of a sentence is rarely ungrammatical. Grammar rules are not the issue here. This is a matter of style and usage we're discussing. The question came from a native Spanish speaker asking how to speak English well.


 


> Newdestiny=who did you go there with?


.
this sentence is correct and is grammatically perfect.

But the preposition 'with' can be used at the end and is perfectly correct. And these are some rules where they are used.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

HistofEng said:


> Funny, I just graduated from U of Penn undergrad in May and I truly don't recall people talking like that ("with whom did you go there") and if they did it would strike me as a little odd (even by a lecturer). I'm with Spineyilex on this one, anyone who uses such constructions in casual settings may be regarded as high-falutent. Using them really sets a formal tone. That has been my experience, at least.



How about my other examples to Spiney? -- with 'at' and 'point'. How to they sound with the 'at' at the end?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> .
> this sentence is correct and is grammatically perfect.
> 
> But the preposition 'with' can be used at the end and is perfectly correct. [[And these are some rules where they are used.]] (that sentence doesn't make sense to me in English. Please rephrase so I can understand your meaning)
> 
> Ivy29



Again this is not an issue of grammar at all. I have never asserted they weren't grammatically correct. Many sentences sound better using the traditional rules than the newer rules that you cite from Oxford for placement of the preposition. 

Grant


----------



## virgilio

Yngwie,
           To try to answer your question, there are two cases in which final prepositions are used.
(1) in sentences (or clauses) beginning with an interrogative word assisted by a preposition
(2) in adjectival clauses (_aka_ 'relative' clauses) in which the interrogative correlative word is preposition-assisted.
e.g.
(1) *Where* has he come *from*?     (for "from where has he come?")
*What* is the child playing *with*? (for "with what is the child playing?")

(2) This the house (*which*) I was born *in*?
 (for "this is the house in which I was born"  )

That is the man (*who(m)*) she is married *to*.  (for "that is the man to whom she is married")

When the preposition is put at the end of the adjectival clause, the interrogative correlatives (which, who(m), that) are often omitted and in the case of "who", if it is not omitted altogether, the accusative or dative form (whom) is often disregarded in favour of the simple "who".

e.g.
This the car I bought yesterday.
The woman I went to the theatre with was my sister.
Who did you go to the theatre with?

If Dryden, who is said to have found English brick and left it marble, really said that such final prepositions were amiss, he was talking about style, that is personal preference. He was certainly not referring to the syntax involved, which is impeccable.
When people criticise grammar, they often find themselves criticising style instead. Some people may think that style is a part of what we call "grammar" but I am not one of them.

I hope this helps a little.
Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> If Dryden, who is said to have found English brick and left it marble, really said that such final prepositions were amiss, he was talking about style, that is personal preference. He was certainly not referring to the syntax involved, which is impeccable.
> When people criticise grammar, they often find themselves criticising style instead. Some people may think that style is a part of what we call "grammar" but I am not one of them.
> 
> I hope this helps a little.
> Best wishes
> Virgilio



I agree Virgilio -- in this case, in modern English, it is all about style. There is no grammar book written today that I've perused that disallows the preposition at the end and yet there are some sentences where it sounds forced to me and lacking a careful style. But as to "the rule"?? Well English doesn't have to many of those left anyway.


----------



## HistofEng

NewdestinyX said:


> Here's a few:
> At what point should I stop. --never: What point should I stop at.
> I see, hear, and use the first one, the second indeed sounds a bit awkward.
> 
> I want to see the point at/from which they started their journey. Never: I want to see which point they started their journey at/from.
> In which lane is he swimming. --probably not: Which lane is he swimming in.
> For these last two examples, I really would expect to hear both.


 
Sorry I didn't have the time to read the whole thread (I'm in a rush) but if you were talking about these examples, I think all of these would be said in a casual environment. None of them grate on the ear (except perhaps "what point should I stop at") but then again, none of them sound pretentious either. 

And I'm talking about this in the context of having a discussion with a professor or another student/graduate.


----------



## NewdestinyX

HistofEng said:


> Sorry I didn't have the time to read the whole thread (I'm in a rush) but if you were talking about these examples, I think all of these would be said in a casual environment. None of them grate on the ear (except perhaps "what point should I stop at") but then again, none of them sound pretentious either.
> 
> And I'm talking about this in the context of having a discussion with a professor or another student/graduate.



Thanks for your input, Hist. The people I asked found all three grating to the ear, the second ones.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Again this is not an issue of grammar at all. I have never asserted they weren't grammatically correct. Many sentences sound better using the traditional rules than the newer rules that you cite from Oxford for placement of the preposition.
> 
> Grant


 
What I *meant* is that the preposition *'with'* at the end is correct according to the rules from Oxford, and they are also correct English.

Ivy29


----------



## virgilio

NewdestinyX,
                  Re your:"There is no grammar book written today that I've perused that disallows the preposition at the end".
How could any grammar book do so without wandering off into "style"? It is the job of grammarians to hear what is said and try to fit it into a consistent pattern not to prescribe for people what they may say. That is "style" or "fashion" and not syntax.

All the best,
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NewdestinyX,
> Re your:"There is no grammar book written today that I've perused that disallows the preposition at the end".
> How could any grammar book do so without wandering off into "style"? It is the job of grammarians to hear what is said and try to fit it into a consistent pattern not to prescribe for people what they may say. That is "style" or "fashion" and not syntax.
> 
> All the best,
> Virgilio



What some refer to as a matter of style -- others refer to as a matter of prescriptive versus descriptive grammar. A 'preposition' has a defined syntactic function. The real question becomes: can it accomplish that function at the end of the sentence in all or most cases: If the answer is no then it's a matter of bad syntax. If it's a matter of it being able to accomplish its function "better or worse" then it's a matter of style and preference. I think you've seen that I'm on record as having no problem with it at the end syntactically. But I have some problems with the style of putting it at the end and it sounding best with some prepositions - like 'at'. "At" is the most offensive to the ear at the end -- with 'from' a close second. An adverb of place (like "there") before the preposition, with, at the end makes the 'with' sound badly placed at the end. Again all matters of style -- but you'll find the news media and collegiate settings avoiding these uses.


----------



## virgilio

NewdestinyX,
 Thanks  for your reply. You write:"A 'preposition' has a defined syntactic function"
Agreed. Would you care to define it?
What takes my breath away, though, is the proprietorial tone of what you call 'prescriptive grammar' It's so undemocratic. Why should a minority of  speakers prescribe for a majority what they may or may not say or write, unless, of course, they are children at school studying under a qualified subject teacher?
We know that style gurus will always come along and tell people what they should wear and what they should eat and drink but - offensive or obscene language excepted - are a man's words (which means his thoughts) not his own to use as he sees fit?

All the best,
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NewdestinyX,
> Thanks  for your reply. You write:"A 'preposition' has a defined syntactic function"
> Agreed. Would you care to define it?
> What takes my breath away, though, is the proprietorial tone of what you call 'prescriptive grammar' It's so undemocratic.
> Why should a minority of  speakers prescribe for a majority what they may or may not say or write, unless, of course, they
> are children at school studying under a qualified subject teacher?
> We know that style gurus will always come along and tell people what they should wear and what they should eat and drink
> but - offensive or obscene language excepted - are a man's words (which means his thoughts) not his own to use as he sees
> fit?
> 
> All the best,
> Virgilio



Your last comment assumes much, Virgilio. The issue is, of course, between subtle and gross deviations from the "prescribed"
as I am sure you would not allow for any 'large' group of people to use 'brung'. Where is our 'freedom' then? Where did we 'all'
come to accept that there is no 'freedom' to use brung? Or any other of a number of egregious syntax or verb errors? --from
our teachers of course. When do we get to leave their teachings and speak 'as we see fit'? ? Don't wiggle out of that question --
the pondering of which will shed much light on this topic of "a correct grammar" to the disquieted and imprisoned grammar
anarchist in some of us. ;-)

The prescriptive grammarian reminds us afresh of what we all learned in school and on a larger level what constitutes a well
structured and logical syntax in comparison with the standards for all such syntaxes in the modern languages of the world. A
language evolves "well" when it begins to find more logical and structured ways to express thought consistent with logical
systems from other disciplines like mathematics and science. Language, like math and science, needs to have a consistent
order to communicate well. Don't you think?

Rest assured when I refer to 'correctness' here (actually I'm trying to get rid of that word since it tends to be incendiary) --
I am referring to things that should be embraced by all speakers when writing well (and speaking well but that's less my focus)
-- like how we all would never accept 'brung' and we all wouldn't accept "I never find my ball yesterday". Obviously you're not
asking of us to discount 'all' prescription are you? For it's from 'prescription' that we know 'anything' to be "sayable". -- and yes,
I'm aware the child learns language by mimicking -- but one day (s)he will come upon 'better than me' versus 'better than I' and
'brought' versus 'brang' and in those moments, please, let's not let him "fend for himself". Please don't protect him(her) from the
"inquisition-ist" precriptive grammarians. 

In at least a meager attempt to stay on topic and if you wish to debate 'prescriptive' with me we can do it in Private Messaging-- I
will again affirm that prepositions at the end do not defy modern grammar rules. There are some that don't make for good sentence
structure and force the brain to try to refer way back to the object of the preposition earlier in the sentence. That's the biggest 'logical'
and 'functional' weakness of putting them with the verb and not the object of the preposition. --- uh -- with what? -- at where? -- for
'whom'??? By the time you hear the preposition at the end you forget what object or question word it goes with.

You asked for a definition [from dictionary.com]:


> *prep·o·si·tion*  --Spelled Pronunciation[prep-_uh_-*zish*-_uh_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> n]
> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun  Grammar. any member of a class of words found in many languages that are used before
> nouns, pronouns, or other substantives *to form phrases* functioning as modifiers of verbs, nouns, or adjectives, and that typically express
> a spatial, temporal, or other relationship, as _in, on, by, to, since._


*

When prepositions are at the end they are less capable of forming cogent 'phrases' and that's the biggest weakness of putting
them at the end.* *To much time between preposition and object of preposition for the mind to keep up. *..que opino yo.

Thanks for the interchange,
Grant


----------



## Ynez

I find this conversation very interesting. My idea up to now was the one I read in Grammar books, like in the examples of Spinyilex, Ivy, Virgilio...

NewdestinyX, if you can think of some other example when you (some people) would use "preposition + whom" in a conversation, I'd be very interested in hearing it 

About the use of "at" and "from" at the end of a sentence, nobody replied against it. Can I assume those prepositions don't sound nice at the end of a sentence in English in general?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> I find this conversation very interesting. My idea up to now was the one I read in Grammar books, like in the examples of Spinyilex, Ivy, Virgilio...
> 
> NewdestinyX, if you can think of some other example when you (some people) would use "preposition + whom" in a conversation, I'd be very interested in hearing it
> 
> About the use of "at" and "from" at the end of a sentence, nobody replied against it. Can I assume those prepositions don't sound nice at the end of a sentence in English in general?



Ynez,
I think I have to support my colleagues here and say that you're probably safe using almost any preposition at the end and still sound pretty normal in casual conversation. I think pretty much the others disagree with me and would use 'at' and 'from' at the end as well. "Where + ______ + at" is probably to be avoided. And I will think if there are any more that would commonly be avoided. But I will say that in more formal settings use the word order of Spanish for Relative pronouns which is the more 'formal' sound as in English.

_¿A quién te refieres?_
To whom are you referring? [Formal]
Who are you referring to? [Casual]

_La gente de/sobre la que/cual te conté vienen esta noche._
The people about which/whom I told you are coming tonight. [Formal]
The people I told you about are coming tonight. [Casual]


----------



## spinyilex

Ynez,

I can't think of any case where I would use 'at' at the end of a sentence without cringing.  Some people say things like, "where are you at?" but to most people, that sounds bad.  And it's unnecessary since you could just as easily say, "where are you?"  Similarly, "what time should I pick you up at?" could just as easily be said, "what time should I pick you up?"  You could also say, "at what time should I pick you up?" but that sounds a bit formal.

'From' is another matter.  In casual conversation, I would use 'from' at the end of a sentence when it is necessary.  For example, "where are you from?" is a very commonly heard question.  Or, "where did that strange noise come from?" 

However, if 'from' is used unnecessarily at the end of a sentence, like 'at' in the example above, it does sound incorrect.  Here's an example:  "where did you get your sweater from?"  It's just as easy to say, "where did you get your sweater?"

I hope that is helpful!


----------



## NewdestinyX

spinyilex said:


> Ynez,
> 
> I can't think of any case where I would use 'at' at the end of a sentence without cringing.  Some people say things like, "where are you at?" but to most people, that sounds bad.  And it's unnecessary since you could just as easily say, "where are you?"  Similarly, "what time should I pick you up at?" could just as easily be said, "what time should I pick you up?"  You could also say, "at what time should I pick you up?" but that sounds a bit formal.
> 
> 'From' is another matter.  In casual conversation, I would use 'from' at the end of a sentence when it is necessary.  For example, "where are you from?" is a very commonly heard question.  Or, "where did that strange noise come from?"
> 
> However, if 'from' is used unnecessarily at the end of a sentence, like 'at' in the example above, it does sound incorrect.  Here's an example:  "where did you get your sweater from?"  It's just as easy to say, "where did you get your sweater?"
> 
> I hope that is helpful!



I agree with Spiney here Ynez. I believe in Spanish you have certain verbs that require a pronoun. This is true in English too. And the prepositions required in English as part of a verb can go at the end for the most part. There are other verbs which don't require a preposition as in the examples Spiney gave you. Putting them at the end would be artificial and strange.

I think in Spanish it works the same (except you can't ever put prepositions at the end).

So in Spiney's example with the sweater I think in Spanish you can say:
¿De dónde compraste tu camiseta? -y-
¿Dónde compraste tu camiseta?

But the 'de' is not required. Right? When you bring it over into English... if you can 'drop' the preposition in Spanish -- then you probably 'shouldn't put it at the end in English. That may work as a general rule. We'll see.

Grant


----------



## Ynez

Thank you both, and don't worry: the explanations are very clear.


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> So in Spiney's example with the sweater I think in Spanish you can say:
> ¿De dónde compraste tu camiseta? -y-
> ¿Dónde compraste tu camiseta?
> 
> But the 'de' is not required. Right? When you bring it over into English... if you can 'drop' the preposition in Spanish -- then you probably 'shouldn't put it at the end in English. That may work as a general rule. We'll see.
> 
> Grant



Yes, for Spanish speakers the formal style is the easiest...as you guessed.

And the example applies. We can hear:

¿En dónde compraste la camiseta? (it is not nice use)

¿Dónde compraste la camiseta? (no need of preposition, yes)


----------



## NewdestinyX

And thanks fellow forum members for giving me the reality check always..


----------



## sendai

Ynez said:


> About the use of "at" and "from" at the end of a sentence, nobody replied against it. Can I assume those prepositions don't sound nice at the end of a sentence in English in general?


I wouldn't assume that. I think both "at" and "from" can sound fine at the end of the sentence.

Who did you spit at?
Who were you looking at?
This is something I am good at.

Where did you come from?
Who is that letter from?
This is something you should stay away from.


----------



## spinyilex

Sendai, you are absolutely right.  I didn't think of those cases.  I would certainly say, "who are you looking at?"  

I think only the cases where the preposition is unnecessarily tacked on the end ("Where are you at?"  "Where are you going to?") sound truly bad.


----------



## Ynez

Thank you for your examples sendai 

I have been thinking about all your examples, and now it looks to me that it was a coincidence Newdestiny thought of examples with "from" and "at", where the point really was that it is not normal to use the preposition at the of the sentence when we have "preposition + what/which + noun". Would you agree?

Examples:

At what/which temperature
From what/which stage
On what/which circumstances

Hmm though I googled "what temperature does water freeze at?" and found 138   pages

501 pages for "at what temperature does water freeze?"


Could we make some little rule saying in these cases the preposition at the end is not normal?


----------



## JB

Sorry, prepositions are about the most difficult things to translate, or state rules about, because standard usage keeps changing.  One problem is that, in English, there are many idiomatic expressions that require words that are classifeid as prepositions, but really are not in the context of the phrase.

Winston Churchill (UK Prime Minister, WWII, and great orator) was once criticized for ending a sentence with a preposition, and responded "This is an outrage up with which I shall not put."  If you English is good enough, it is obvious that his response is ridiculous, because "put up with" is a fixed expression, meaning "tolerate" and breaking it up makes no sense.

Plus, even when I was in high school, 45 years ago, our English teachers tuaght us it was, at best, a "pseudo-rule".  Even the person who invented this rule (an 18th Century clergyman, I believe) suggested it was a guideline to "elegant writing."  Only some pompous English teachers tried to make it a rule.

I believe there is no fixed rule, no matter how hard you search.  You just have to learn English well enough to know when it is clear and when it isn't.  (Also, there are differences between countries, so that what works in England will be wrong in the U.S.)  

The one thing that does irritate me, however, is a sentence such as "the world *in which we live in*" (the Beatles".  *The world we live in* is the way people normally talk.  *The world in which we live* is the way some "authorities" would say you should say it. (You have to add the "which" in order to get the proposition to the front of the sentence.)  *Either version is gramatically correct, but you cannot have both.* 

*I suggest that, instead of searching for a rule, you just post specific questions when you have specific examples, to see if what you wrote makes sense.*


----------



## Ynez

thank you jbruceismay  Yes, prepositions and pronounciation are the toughest in English.

Well, a particular sentence I'd like to know is:

¿A qué temperatura se congela el agua?


My idea is that four options could be right, but I wonder if some options are considered more or less "right" than the rest.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> thank you jbruceismay  Yes, prepositions and pronounciation are the toughest in English.
> 
> Well, a particular sentence I'd like to know is:
> 
> ¿A qué temperatura se congela el agua?
> 
> 
> My idea is that four options could be right, but I wonder if some options are considered more or less "right" than the rest.



This is a great example, Ynez, of where, in even the casual of speech, "at" at the end would not sound right.

At what temperature does water freeze?
What temperature does water freeze at?  Rarely if ever said in the American English I've been around all my life - though grammatically acceptable.
 What temperature does water freeze? Ungrammatical.


----------



## virgilio

NewdestinyX, 
Sorry to be a nuisance again but I must disagree with you:
" At what temperature does water freeze?
What temperature does water freeze at? Rarely if ever said.
 What temperature does water freeze? Ungrammatcal"

In my UK English experience " What temperature does water freeze at? is frequently heard in colloquial language.

And  the same applies to "what temperature does water freeze?". Nothing wrong with the syntax. It's just one of those examples of an English oblique substantive managing to function as an adverb *without the aid of a preposition*.  Similar to an expression like"I'll see you Sunday"

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NewdestinyX,
> Sorry to be a nuisance again but I must disagree with you:
> 
> In my UK English experience " What temperature does water freeze at? is frequently heard in colloquial language.



Not in US. Never heard it in my life. Except in 'street talk'. 



> And  the same applies to "what temperature does water freeze?". Nothing wrong with the syntax. It's just one of those examples of an English oblique substantive managing to function as an adverb *without the aid of a preposition*.  Similar to an expression like"I'll see you Sunday"


 Gonna have to ask you to prove your case here. It is not possible to 'freeze temperature' which is what you are asking of the verb there. It's ungrammatical. Parse the sentence for me. Maybe I'm missing something.

Warm regards,
Grant


----------



## Chris K

In my opinion, no editor worth his or her salt would let "what temperature does water freeze at?" go by. But in spoken language (NE US) it's heard all the time. That's the difference between written language and spoken. It's not so much a matter of being correct as it is of elegance / taste / tone. On the other hand, I can't see changing "what do you start with?" to "with what do you start?"

"What temperature does water freeze?" is not acceptable written English.


----------



## Ynez

For me it is very interesting to know all the options that could be heard also in colloquial speech Virgilio and Chris. I am certain the most correct in this case is "at what temperature does water freeze?", now....would anybody say:

Which temperature does water freeze at?

I know "At which temperature does water freeze" is some possible use.


And one more:

Under what circumstances was this created? 

What circumstances was this created under? (My bet is nobody would say this, except myself now


----------



## Chris K

Ynez,

We would only say "which" if presented with several alternatives: "32 degrees or 65 degrees -- at which temperature etc."

I would choose "under what circumstances..." because it seems to work better with the somewhat formal word "circumstances."


----------



## Ynez

Thank you Chris, yes...I think we have another little rule there: formal words won't go so good with prepositions at the end


----------



## sendai

At what temperature does water freeze? 
 What temperature does water freeze at? 

Both sound fine and are used in the US. The first one is definitely better in a formal situation.

Under what circumstances was this created? 
What circumstances was this created under? 

Ditto.


----------



## NewdestinyX

As you can tell Ynez - people have _very different_ experiences here in the US with this issue. Where I live people don't put the 'at' or 'under' at the end of either of those sentences you were working with -- in speech or writing. I always believe that foreign students learning English should learn the more formal way - and then you will never turn any heads wondering where you learned your English. That's my advice. But it is indeed something you have to learn over time. There is no rule to follow to figure this one out. On that point I agree with the others. But since most of what you are interested in is writing. Use the formal way. And it's easier to translate directly from Spanish too. ;-)

Enjoy the learning,
Grant


----------



## Ivy29

Winston Churchill (UK Prime Minister said:
			
		

> *r)*[/color] English is good enough, it is obvious that his response is ridiculous, because "put up with" is a fixed expression, meaning "tolerate" and breaking it up makes no sense


.

Sorry to disagree, the purpose of Winston Churchill, was completely different of what you have stated. This is from the web:



> =
> On the subject of ending sentences with prepositions, people often recount a story involving Winston Churchill. When an editor dared to change a sentence of Churchill's that appeared to end inappropriately with a preposition, Churchill responded by writing to the editor, "This is the kind of impertinence up with which I shall not put." *His purpose, of course*, was to illustrate the awkwardness that can result from *rigid adherence* to the notion that prepositions at the end of sentences *are always incorrect*


. 
http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/022703.htm

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Not in US. Never heard it in my life. Except in 'street talk'.
> 
> Gonna have to ask you to prove your case here. It is not possible to 'freeze temperature' which is what you are asking of the verb there. It's ungrammatical. Parse the sentence for me. Maybe I'm missing something.
> 
> Warm regards,
> Grant


 
*'*What temperature' ( what is a *determiner* in front of a noun).
*Does the water freeze?*  = the *water* is the *subject* of the standard question with the auxiliary 'DO=DOES third person singular'.

¿ A qué temperatura el *agua* se congela?

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> *'*What temperature' ( what is a *determiner* in front of a noun).
> *Does the water freeze?*  = the *water* is the *subject* of the standard question with the auxiliary 'DO=DOES third person singular'.
> 
> ¿ A qué temperatura el *agua* se congela?
> 
> Ivy29



In Spanish you could never say: ¿Qué temperatura el agua se congela? The 'a', as preposition before "qué", is necessary. The same in English. "At" is required  before "what" or at that end or it is ungrammatical. (See Oxford, See American Heritage Modern usage)


----------



## motley

It seems we have some grammarians here & even though this is not about prepositions, I would like your thoughts on this:
On the news You hear "she/he went missing", used for a missing person. That phrase bugs me & I'm wondering if it is grammatically correct.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> In Spanish you could never say: ¿Qué temperatura el agua se congela? The 'a', as preposition before "qué", is necessary. The same in English. "At" is required before "what" or at that end or it is ungrammatical. (See Oxford, See American Heritage Modern usage)


 

No, nope, then :
*What time* *is the next train*?  ¿cómo lo traducirías al español????

Ivy29


----------



## virgilio

NewdestinyX,
                  You write:"It is not possible to 'freeze temperature' which is what you are asking of the verb there"
But that, NDX, is precisely the point! It is *because* everyone knows that you can't freeze temperature that the reader automatically takes "temperature" as a different adverb than the verb-object  and sees the sentence the way it was intended. I am asking nothing of the verb; I am asking a little imagination of the reader or hearer.
Just like "aquí se habla inglés" - Here English speaks itself.
Everyone knows that a language does not speak itself and precisely for that reason we can say - rather picturesquely, as it happens - that it does!
  The people who are at such pains to explain away the fairy-tale miracle with scarcely intelligible abstract phrases do us no favours.
Definitions are indeed often necessry but they should never be used to supplant what a little human imagination can do for itself.
I personally prefer the fairy-tale miracle of languages that can speak themselves.

Best wishes
Virgilio.


----------



## Ivy29

motley said:


> It seems we have some grammarians here & even though this is not about prepositions, I would like your thoughts on this:
> On the news You hear "she/he went missing", used for a missing person. That phrase bugs me & I'm wondering if it is grammatically correct.


 
I'm not a native but I will give a try.
Go missing= desaparecer, perderse.
He/she went missing= se desapareció.
*The usage of the verb 'to go' with missing is CORRECT*.
Missing = adjective.
We have to recall that the verb 'to go' is a LINKING verb.

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> NewdestinyX,
> You write:"It is not possible to 'freeze temperature' which is what you are asking of the verb there"
> But that, NDX, is precisely the point! It is *because* everyone knows that you can't freeze temperature that the reader automatically takes "temperature" as a different adverb than the verb-object and sees the sentence the way it was intended.Virgilio


.

Virgilio, I wonder if I read you properly. *'Temperature* is a noun or an adverb?

Ivy29


----------



## Ynez

Now I've realised the little rule I was trying to get with "prep.+ what/which + noun" is not good either.

We are left with the idea of FORMAL/INFORMAL, which is the one we all know.

Now, I'd like to know if people would wonder where I learnt my English if I said:

For what dress are you looking?


sendai, I was surprised with the "what circumstances....under", thanks for commenting


----------



## virgilio

Ynez,
        Your wrote:" Now, I'd like to know if people would wonder where I learnt my English if I said:

For what dress are you looking?


It certainly would not have been in England!

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Ynez

hahaha Virgilio. My example was like Churchill's, a phrasal verb, so it is not good.

But I have 2 better examples now for NewDestinyX (and never forget I am understanding perfectly what you are explaining):

From where do you come?

To what are you referring?

Both are correct grammatically...


----------



## virgilio

Ivy 29,
         Thank you for your reply. In all three sentences involved "temperature" is, of course, an adverb.
(a) At what temperature does water boil?
(b) What temperature does water boil at?
(c) What temperature does water boil?

I believe that NewdestinyX may have been suggesting that in (c) "temperature" was the object of the verb "does (boil)"? Plainly that interpretation would not have been intended by any rational author of the sentence  but, even if NewdestinyX's suggestion had been right, "temperature" would still have been an adverb.
Are you perhaps deceived by the fact that in these cases "temperature" shares an identical spelling with the noun "temperature?
Appearances can often be deceptive. As Shakespeare once remarked:
"All's not gold that glitters"

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> Ivy 29,
> Thank you for your reply. In all three sentences involved "temperature" is, of course, an adverb.
> (a) At what temperature does water boil?
> (b) What temperature does water boil at?
> (c) What temperature does water boil?
> 
> I believe that NewdestinyX may have been suggesting that in (c) "temperature" was the object of the verb "does (boil)"? Plainly that interpretation would not have been intended by any rational author of the sentence but, even if NewdestinyX's suggestion had been right, "temperature" would still have been an adverb.
> Are you perhaps deceived by the fact that in these cases "temperature" shares an identical spelling with the noun "temperature?
> Appearances can often be deceptive. As Shakespeare once remarked:
> "All's not gold that glitters"
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


 
Thanks Virgilio for your prompt answer, my doubts are not about Shakespeare remark , but about the question word 'WHAT'. I do see clearly that why, where, when and how are adverbials, but what according to my books could be a pronoun by itself or a determiner in front of a noun:

1.- What happened? ( pronoun)
2.- what sports ?    ( determiner)
3.- what train will you catch? ( determiner).

I would appreciate your clarification how 'what' can be an adverbial in the sentences at issue. 

Ivy29


----------



## virgilio

Ivy29,
        Assuming that by "determiner" you mean a type of adjective, naturally an adjective cannot become an adverb but it is, of course, the function of adjectives to describe or identify substantives.
In all the sentences at issue "what" is plainly an adjective describing or identifying "temperature".
As I'm sure that you would agree, the substantive is from the point of view of syntax the major word of the two, the adjective being, so to speak, the substantive's 'shadow'.
Therefore the question resolves itself into whether "what temperature" is an adverb and this can further be simplified into whether "temperature" is an adverb.
It is a rule of syntax (often neglected by dictionaries and by some grammarians) that the sole function of a noun is to combine with a verb, thereby producing a sentence - in other words to be a 'subject' or, more accurately, a nominative.
If a word looks exactly like a noun but is not a nominative, it has, so to speak, 'fallen' into one of the "cases" - the number of which varies according to language. Such 'pseudo-nouns' are always either adjectives or adverbs. I personally call them "nominals" - that is words which, when and only when nominative, are nouns - in other cases functioning as adverbs or adjectives.
e.g.
The *dog* sleeps in the dog _kennel_.
"*dog*" (noun)    -       "dog"  adjective    "_kennel"  _adverb.

The children came *home* *early today *from* school*.
The words in bold type are plainly all adverbs, although two of them would be (imprudently) described in some dictionaries as "noun" or "substantive".

I hope this clarifies it a little.

With best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NewdestinyX,
> You write:"It is not possible to 'freeze temperature' which is what you are asking of the verb there"
> But that, NDX, is precisely the point! It is *because*
> Just like "aquí se habla inglés" - Here English speaks itself.
> Everyone knows that a language does not speak itself and precisely for that reason we can say - rather picturesquely, as it happens - that it does!
> The people who are at such pains to explain away the fairy-tale miracle with scarcely intelligible abstract phrases do us no favours.
> Definitions are indeed often necessary but they should never be used to supplant what a little human imagination can do for itself.
> I personally prefer the fairy-tale miracle of languages that can speak themselves.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio.



I like your spirit -- but I disagree in the grammatical nature of that sentence. Sounds like pure gibberish to me. Maybe in an 'art' film.. ;-) I had hoped you might offer some grammar support from sources to back up your assertion that it's grammatical. No one has yet. You can't ellipse out key germane referents in a sentence and expect people to get the communication. "Temperature" is never an adverb, my good colleague. Any dictionary will show you that. Always a noun. But there are 'adverbials' which have several words in them of which a noun could be an individual part. But an individual word is only 'one part of speech'. We need to be super careful of our terms here or this could get super confusing.

And the Spanish mind needs no leap of faith with 'aquí se habla inglés'. They do not 'sense/hear' it as a reflexive in the slightest. Se=marker of passive, in their minds. Opino que - Only we enthusiastic Spanish students see a potential ambiguity of which there is really none to the native speaker. (I wish English still used the verb 'to opine')

I think we come at things from different sides. You see "language as art" and I see "language as science" -- but I have to think that, as a student of Spanish (or English), learning the language, we probably shouldn't be as interested in the 'art' until well after we're fluent. That's why I think it's confusing to talk about the 'art' of it and ellipsis sometimes in these threads. Make no mistake -- I really think a lot of input from all angles is good for us students but I wish some disclaimers would accompany some comments. ;-)


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> Ivy29,
> Assuming that by "determiner" you mean a type of adjective, naturally an adjective cannot become an adverb but it is, of course, the function of adjectives to describe or identify substantives.
> In all the sentences at issue "what" is plainly an adjective describing or identifying "temperature".
> e.g.
> The *dog* sleeps in the dog _kennel_.
> "*dog*" (noun) - "dog" adjective "_kennel" _adverb.
> 
> The children came *home* *early today from school*.
> The words in bold type are plainly all adverbs, although two of them would be (imprudently) described in some dictionaries as "noun" or "substantive".
> 
> I hope this clarifies it a little.
> With best wishes
> Virgilio


 

Determiner is not an adjective, according to OXFORD guide to English grammar and PEU, M.Swan , determiner are :the, a; possessive,my, his; demonstrative, this, that; quantifier, all, three, four, some, enough, either, several.
GROUP A-DETERMINERS :
a) Articles
b) possessives
c) Demonstrative
Noun with possessive ['s]  Britain's weather.

GROUP B DETERMINERS :

Most od these are quantifiers; they say how much or how many we are talking about :
some, any
each, either, every, neither
Much, many, more, most, less, least, a few, fewer, fewest
What, whatever, which, whicever.
One, two, three
Some determiners of group B can be used with countable, uncountable nouns.

OTHER DETERMINERS :

What a pity
such a nice day
the only possibility
My other sister

May I ask if my books and you have different perception about determiners?

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> The *dog* sleeps in the dog _kennel_.
> "*dog*" (noun)    -       "dog"  adjective    "_kennel"  _adverb.
> 
> The children came *home* *early today from school*.
> The words in bold type are plainly all adverbs, although two of them would be (imprudently) described in some dictionaries as "noun" or "substantive".



I disagree with every word of this. Nonsense, I say!!  Sources, please... sources... -- pretty please?


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
       But what 'sources' will you accept? I really believe that almost the whole problem turns on a single issue. To save a lot of time and  space, this is the issue.
*Q*: What is the function of a noun?
*A*: The sole function of a noun is to combine with a verb to produce a sentence.

I would guess - from what you have written - that this definition of a noun's function would not be acceptable to you.
Fair enough, we each have our own system but that definition is fundamental and so, if we don't agree on that, any further discussion would be otiose and futile.
I'm afraid I've read so many 'sources' in a long life that I have stopped quoting them. Nowadays I prefer direct premiss-to-conclusion discussion.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

Ivy29,
        Thanks for your reply. From what I can see (with perhaps one or two exceptions) the 'determiners' you quote used all to be called adjectives.
I don't see that anything is gained (except possibly by the writers, if they can get this stuff published) by subdividing adjectives into all these sub-categories.
e.g.
The so-called definite and indefinite 'articles' are plainly adjectives. I agree that English or Arabic doesn't demonstrate this clearly but French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Greek and German most certainly do - German and Greek most clearly.
Cui bono esse potest?, as Cassius might have said.

Syntax was so much simpler before. There's an old English saying:"If it aint broke, don't fix it!"

If anyone can benefit from all this palaver, *please* tell me who!

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> But what 'sources' will you accept?



Oxford; Merriam Webster; Mark Swan; Betty Azar -- any grammarian of note anywhere -- at this point will do. ;-)



> I really believe that almost the whole problem turns on a single issue. To save a lot of time and  space, this is the issue.
> *Q*: What is the function of a noun?
> *A*: The sole function of a noun is to combine with a verb to produce a sentence.


 These answers are all established by dictionaries and grammar books. I am sorry if I'm putting you on the defensive -- pretend more that I'm an eager student wanting to grow beyond my boundaries -- but that I'm a scientist and need something more than the word of an individual for me to rethink everything I've ever been taught or currently teach. I don't think that's too much to ask (y "por" los estudiantes). 



> I would guess - from what you have written - that this definition of a noun's function would not be acceptable to you.


 Not 'your' definition, alone, no.



> Fair enough, we each have our own system but that definition is fundamental and so, if we don't agree on that, any further discussion would be otiose and futile.


 Sure it would be futile -- but only because it comes from an individual and no one else. I'm just asking -- Virgilio -- I'm intrigued -- may I 'pretty-please' read about this from someone who's dedicated his/her life to understanding and explaining syntax. Now that could be you -- we just met. So no slight intended in that last statement. On a language forum we need to separate out the 'theoretic' from the 'proven' -- and then those of us who present the 'theoretic' or 'esoteric' should, as good sports, make an appropriate disclaimer so a native Spanish speaker doesn't start to think of nouns being adverbs as something they actually need to grapple with. I just want to know that one other authoritative source can back what you propose -- and even with me, then, on your side -- we would need to disclaim the 'system' a bit as more esoteric -- agreed? Even the forum rules ask of us to be ready to provide sources when challenged.



> I'm afraid I've read so many 'sources' in a long life that I have stopped quoting them. Nowadays I prefer direct premiss[sic]-to-conclusion discussion.


Respectfully I would say, that on a learning language forum - premise-to-conclusion discussions get very long and heated -- when the premise isn't backed by some source.

My goal really was only to learn more, Virg.. but as a 'grammarian' in my own right (not of note for sure), I need more than a premise wafted out onto the table which cannot be supported. But now that you've stated your preferences -- premise-->conclusion interchanges -- maybe I can simply add to discussions the disclaimers necessary to let a native know that they don't need to learn that -- it won't be on the test. 

Eager student,
Grant


----------



## virgilio

NewdestinyX,
                  I am reluctant to offer you the only 'sources' I know (I'm afraid I've no acquaintance with any of the fellows you name except Oxford, and I wouldn't regard Oxford as an 'authority' on syntax) because they are largely in ancient languages and - I don't know what the situation is like your side of the 'Pond' - but over here those tongues have hardly been taught for several decades.
I don't know if authorities who are so ancient would be acceptable to you. Please let me know, if so.
Incidentally, as this is a "Grammar" forum, I don't necessarily see it simply as a vehicle for educating Spanish-speaking students - though that would, of course, be an added bonus, if it came about.
Moreover, if I might, so to speak, 'return the compliment' of the 'challenge', I am surprised that you might be ready to accept a proposition supported by more than one authority - as you appear to be, when you ask for 'sources' - when that same proposition would be unacceptable on the authority of a single author. 
Perhaps I am misstating your philosophical position and, if so, please correct me but surely what matters, in order to approach the thing scientifically, is that, whether there are many supporters or none of the proposition in question, you yourself find it valid.
That is why I suggested as the fundamental issue the definition of noun function earlier. All else follows from that. If you don't accept that, you will be unable to accept any of the rest, even if ratified by a hundred 'sources'.

Please let me know, if your 'sources' have to be modern and, if so, how modern.

All the best
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NewdestinyX,
> I am reluctant to offer you the only 'sources' I know <big snip out -- about Oxford no longer having any authoritative weight -- an 'amazing statement'>
> I don't know if authorities who are so ancient would be acceptable to you. Please let me know, if so.


 If they establish and offer a basis for your premise -- then sure -- at least I know where you're coming from. But as far as establishing practice in the modern day -- then no -- they won't sway me -- because this forum is about the practical -- not ancient.



> Incidentally, as this is a "Grammar" forum, I don't necessarily see it simply as a vehicle for educating Spanish-speaking students - though that would, of course, be an added bonus, if it came about.


 I doubt the leaders of the forum would agree with you. This is not a generic forum 'about' grammar. If you look in the header of this page you will see what this 'particular' folder is about: *
Grammar/Gramática, etc.* Para preguntas sobre conjugaciones verbales, tiempos gramaticales, adverbios, preposiciones y más. -- For questions regarding verb tenses, conjugation, adverbs, prepositions and more.



> Moreover, if I might, so to speak, 'return the compliment' of the 'challenge', I am surprised that you might be ready to accept a proposition supported by more than one authority - as you appear to be, when you ask for 'sources' - when that same proposition would be unacceptable on the authority of a single author.


 Actually, yes, I would accept it -- but not as authoritative for practice amongst speakers, native or learners. A preponderance of support is needed for establishing an authority for practice. This is true in many disciplines including grammar.



> Perhaps I am misstating your philosophical position and, if so, please correct me but surely what matters, in order to approach the thing scientifically, is that, whether there are many supporters or none of the proposition in question, you yourself find it valid.


 This construct would work in debate but not science. A proposition must have a central hypothesis -- but then for it to become 'established' as truth "for practice" it must have support (not popular necessarily but others, educated in the field, who agree that the construct/hypothesis is logical). And that's the point. Ancient practice no longer is the case (pun intended) -- or do you want us to return to the 'familiar (as opposed to formal) subject pronouns of 'thee/thou, etc' as well.



> That is why I suggested as the fundamental issue the definition of noun function earlier. All else follows from that. If you don't accept that, you will be unable to accept any of the rest, even if ratified by a hundred 'sources'.


 As I've said in each of the last three posts about this -- I would accept even 'one' person besides yourself that would establish your premise. I need to know where you heard it and that it had backing at some point. Right now I have 'virgilio', alone, who believes this. Please, amigo, -- one more authoritative source. Even if ancient.



> Please let me know, if your 'sources' have to be modern and, if so, how modern.


For establishing modern practice -- last hundred years or so. Something that would be likely acceptable to the oldest of the living generations.

Regards,
Grant


----------



## JB

Dear Foreros,

The question here was about prepositions, and the moderators have no problem letting a thread continue at great length, so long as interest continues, and the discussions remain on topic.

However, as has been pointed out by more than one forero, the conversations here a took a turn many posts back, perhaps beginning with "this is not about prepositions, but . .. ").  For that reason, the decision was made to close this thread.

For those who wish to pursue the discussions of "went missing", nouns, adjectives, and so on, we suggest you open specific threads for those topics.

Thanks for your understanding and enthusiastic participation in WordReference.
The Spanish-English Mods.


----------

