Language desk
< March 3	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 4

Prepositions at the end of a sentence

Is this grammar rule true? bibliomaniac 1 5 I see no changes 01:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, dear B15. Such a thing is never "true". Is it a widely promulgated rule, favoured by that species of pedant who dedicates her life and language to making life and language awkward for humanity at large? Yes, though it has little currency recently. Someone else will quote Churchill on this; myself, I refuse to.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean that "This is a situation up with which I will not put" thing?

But I actually came here to deliver a joke. Guy goes to Harvard University, walks into the library and goes to the desk. He asks the librarian there, "Can you tell me where the student union is at?". Librarian looks at him a second, arches his eyebrows, and replies in a cold sneer, "Here at Harvard, we do not end our sentences with prepositions." Not missing a beat the guy says, "OK, can you tell me where the student union is at, asshole?" +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is my first smile of the day, and it isn't even past lunchtime. Thank you for that! 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of made-up quotation up with which I will not put! —Keenan Pepper 02:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! Found my Grammar Grams books; wonderful little lessons on language usage. Here's what they have to say about this matter:

You can end some sentences with prepositions (particles) because the preposition (particle) is part of the verb.

For instance, look at the following:

I ran away.

He shouldn't lead you on.

But some sentences are confusing if they end in a true preposition (and not a particle that is part of a verb):

A preposition is a word you shouldn't end a sentence with.

Why not just say, "You shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition"? Whatever you do, remember that many people object strongly to ending sentences with these words, whether they are prepositions or particles. Be prepared for criticism.

In our efforts to be clear and precise, we sometimes double our prepositions, especially with the words which and whom, as in the following:

Is this the person to whom you would like to speak to? (Get rid of that last to.)

Now hasn't this been a Grammar Gram you can put up with? With which you can put up? Up with which you can put?

Good stuff; I recommend these little pamphlets to anyone who cares about words. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Away isn't a preposition. Anyway, there isn't much difference between those examples and end with — merely the degree of grammaticalization. If you wish to topicalize 'a preposition' by fronting it, there isn't much choice in colloquial English other than saying A preposition is a word you shouldn't end a sentence with. "With which" is just not colloquial anymore. kwami (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When was it ever colloquial? I thought that was the point of those tortured, supposed Churchill quotes. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Was it just an attempt to imitate Latin grammar? kwami (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. The rule was first formulated by John Dryden in 1672. However, most 20th and 21st century commentators on grammar don't believe that prepositions should be banned from the ends of sentences. Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage says: "The preposition at the end has always been an idiomatic feature of English. It would be pointless to worry about the few who believe it is a mistake." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a widely-enough known "rule" to have provided an opportunity for one of the more amusing historical headlines. When kidnapper Richard Loeb was killed in prison in 1936, the initial reports were that he had been slain by a fellow inmate after Loeb had tried to sexually importune him. The story, as reported by the Chicago Daily News: "Richard Loeb, despite his erudition, today ended his sentence with a proposition". - Nunh-huh 10:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's rich! Where do you find this stuff? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that there is a rule that prepositions should not appear at the end of sentences was well known both in 1936 and today. But it's not a rule that contemporary grammarians are inclined to uphold, nor is it a rule that most professional writers consider themselves bound by. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My father was a stickler for grammar, but enjoyed this sentence, that ends with many prepositions: 'What did you bring me this book to be read out of from for?'

It gets better: the little boy whose mother brought a book about Australia upstairs to read to him at bedtime said, "What did you bring this book about Down Under up for?". ;-) —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can expand further: "What did you bring the book you wanted to be read to out of from up for?" SaundersW (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And those 3 examples neatly provide a counter-example (if one were ever needed) to the "rule". What ... for as a synonym for "why" cannot be reversed as for ... what without offending idiom. Not even a pedant would ask "For what did you do that?" -- JackofOz (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small niggle there, which is to say that sure, one could say that ("For what did you do that?") and be grammatically (or at least syntactically) correct. Perhaps it's like that definition of a gentleman: one who can play the [trombone/accordion/insert name of hated instrument here], but refrains from doing so. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to say "bad-mouthing" in a less informal way?

In a formal report how can I write that Able was bad-mouthing Baker? "Bad-mouthing" seems too informal, so I would like to use a less informal equivalent. Thanks 80.0.127.115 (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disparaging? —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense of ridicule, discredit, criticize, defame, insult? Julia Rossi (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excoriate, execrate, censor, denounce, vilify, malign, traduce, asperse. I wonder whether most languages are as rich in such words as English is. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denigrate, deprecate, belittle... Vrac (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decry, denunciate, deplore, stigmatise, accuse, depreciate, impeach... Gwinva (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speak ill of, slander, maledict, calumniate. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime I will accumulate the short list of synonyms for good-mouthing. Google indicates it may be even shorter than I thought. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Praise, glorify, exalt, laud, extol, commend, and compliment, to list a few. Although most of them seem more appropriate in reference to a god or gods, they could also be used in reference to a person. HYENASTE 06:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

going on grammatically without any punctuation

I was wondering about how long a sentence someone could make without any punction.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.109.49 (talk • contribs)

I would like to answer your question even though it is not something I have wondered about much in the past but I guess one could write for quite some time without needing any form of punctuation if one kept to a stream of consciousness style which allows you to carry on at great length writing thoughts down but never getting anywhere or pausing for breath in much the same manner as I am doing now although you may find that you want to do it about quite another topic altogether which is quite up to you and I would not blame you for it although others might question whether there is anything to be gained by such a demonstration and consider that you would be better constructing something more formal especially as the problem with these sentences is that they bore the writer and they soon run out of inspiration which is why they finally stop. Gwinva (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese politicians are famous for going on for 20 minutes with a single sentence (though they do pause), so that they don't have to say whether they support or oppose the topic of their speech until they can gage the reaction of their audience. (Japanese is a verb-final language, and it is the verb that indicates polarity (is/isn't, will/won't), so as long as you avoid that final verb, you don't have to commit yourself.) kwami (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Bloom's Soliloquy in Ulysses is a well known example, containg, I think, 8 full stops in this final chapter. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forever! See Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. --Sean 14:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had(ley) had had had had had had...? Where is that article? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 17:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]