Why can't sentances end in prepositions?

[takyris]

I'm all up in the agreementactity with Umbran as far as it being both group concensus and actual rules... but I loathe that particular rule. Other people have mentioned the not-real nature of the rule, given that it was more or less invented when everyone decided to make English a romance language with no regard for actual history. What really gets me, though, is the fact that it puts such an artificial barrier between common vernacular and "proper English". If you walk into a room in the middle of a conversation, do you ask, "About what are you talking?" No. Do you go with, "What are you discussing?" Probably not, unless you care deeply about the rule. The vast majority of us simply ask, "What are you talking about?"

And I come at this from a rules-lawyer perspective where writing is concerned. I will get all over comma splices and misplaced modifiers and diction issues, because those might actually result in difficulty understanding the meaning of the sentence. But the person who says "bad grammar is something up with which I will not put" has made him-or-herself more difficult to understand in the pursuit of false grammatical perfection.

 

[Simplicity]

The real answer, I think, is both. The rules of language, overall, aren't really tied down. If enough people say you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition, then you shouldn't. Saying they are "misinformed" misses the fact that in the end, the language is in the hands of the masses, however much one wants to shout about grammatical misdemeanors.

That depends on whether you've chosen a Lawful or Chaotic alignment for your personal grammar. I, myself, use a Chaotic Evil grammar.

So there. <--- Note my lack of a verb, starting with a conjuction, and dangling reference. And now I've gone and misused parallelism... Muhahaha!

 

[Huw]

That depends on whether you've chosen a Lawful or Chaotic alignment for your personal grammar. I, myself, use a Chaotic Evil grammar.

So there. <--- Note my lack of a verb, starting with a conjuction, and dangling reference. And now I've gone and misused parallelism... Muhahaha!

"So there" is a grammatically correct interjection. Shift 1 point towards lawful!

 

[Umbran]

I'm all up in the agreementactity with Umbran as far as it being both group concensus and actual rules... but I loathe that particular rule. Other people have mentioned the not-real nature of the rule, given that it was more or less invented when everyone decided to make English a romance language with no regard for actual history.

Why thank you! You've just allowed me to realize something...

One of the most used and referenced books on English grammar is Strunk & White's Elements of Style. Note it isn't elements of "rules", but "style". Frequently, the "rules" we are getting up in arms about violating or not are really style guidelines. We're taught the Pirate's Code of grammar

The thing is, frequently we are taught beyond mere technical correctness - we are concerned with details beyond that, to what will be found acceptable later in life, in the professional and adult world. Just as a kid can't wear jeans and a T-shirt to most higher job interviews, they can't write in a slapdash manner either. We want our kids to be able to write well, so that they can get jobs, and be taken seriously. So, they get taught what the should do, rather than only what they must do.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

I think anybody who ends a sentence in a preposition should be shot at!

(Technically, this sentence ends in a )).

 

[Simplicity]

"So there" is a grammatically correct interjection. Shift 1 point towards lawful!

Then let's hereby declare that all preposition ending sentances are interjections!
We just need to use more exclamation points.

If "so there" is an interjection, then surely "take that" is an interjection. If "take that" is an interjection, then "you take that" is an interjection too. And thus, any sentance can legally be an interjection if applied with the proper amount of force.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

I consider myself to be pretty good at grammar, and I understand why most grammar rules are what they are. One rule that I don't understand is that sentances are not supposed to end in prepositions. Do you know the reasoning behind this?

Because the diagram of the sentence would look silly

 

[Umbran]

If "so there" is an interjection, then surely "take that" is an interjection.

No, not at all surely.

Interjections typically have no grammatical relationship to the rest of the sentence in which they appear, and are used to convey emotion.

"Take that" is a clear sentence fragment, missing only the implied subject "you". It is, effectively, a (usually rhetorical) command. It most certainly does have a grammatical relationship to what appears around it, as "that" is taken from the context.

 

[Hypersmurf]

"Take that" is a clear sentence fragment, missing only the implied subject "you". It is, effectively, a (usually rhetorical) command. It most certainly does have a grammatical relationship to what appears around it, as "that" is taken from the context.

Aside from which, since 'that' is a pronoun, "Take that!" doesn't serve as an example of one of Simplicity's 'preposition ending sentences'...

For some reason, I'm reminded of the chorus of an A-Ha song, where we have the same sentence presented in both ends-with-a-preposition and doesn't variants:

Take on me;
Take me on...

-Hyp.

 

[Pielorinho]

It is the perverse nature of humanity that the codified standard would always sound formal and stilted, whatever it happened to be. If the rule was, "Always end a sentence a preposition with," then that would be what we felt was formal and stilted sounding. Whatever the rule might be, they couldn't win.

The thing is, grammar is an observational science, to the extent that it's a science at all. It describes how folks talk, not how folks should talk. When grammar is an observational science, it's a fascinating, deep, complex science. When it's a guide to behavior, it makes Emily Post look rational in comparison.

In one of his books, the linguist Steven Pinker gives a great example of how a natural English speaker might communicate. A little girl, tucked into bed, sees that her dad has come from the downstairs library with a copy of Little Red Riding Hood. She says, "Aw, dad. Why did you bring that book that I don't want to be read to from out of up for?"

That sentence ends in six prepositions. And each one can be traced back to its object earlier in the sentence. Its meaning is perfectly clear to any native English speaker, so clear that most native English speakers wouldn't even notice its unusual structure.

Humans are brilliant at nesting clauses and phrases within themselves; it's an ability that has stumped language-generating computer programs.

Daniel