That old rule was long ago abandoned by most usage manuals and grammar police. In my own writing, I no longer try to avoid ending with a preposition. That said, when I am editing a manuscript and come across a sentence that clearly has been structured to avoid the ending preposition, I do try to leave it alone. It is possible that the author is elderly or conservative, probably is meticulous, and would be upset by the interference. Only if the result is very awkward do I suggest ending with a preposition.The Guardian and Observer style guide calls such a rule a "fallacy" promoted by "English teachers unduly influenced by Latin." The Oxford Dictionaries concur, insisting that "Ending a sentence with a preposition is a perfectly natural part of the structure of modern English," and providing examples of when it's appropriate:
in some passive expressions:The Jack Lynch guide from Rutgers suggests that "if you want to keep the crusty old-timers happy, try to avoid ending written sentences (and clauses) with prepositions," but that "if a sentence is more graceful with a final preposition, let it stand" -- suggesting “He gave the public what it longed for” as an example. Lynch argues that He gave the public that for which it longed "doesn't look like English," and "A sentence becomes unnecessarily obscure when it's filled with from whoms and with whiches."
√ The dress had not even been paid for.
X Paid for the dress had not even been.
√ The match was rained off.
X Rained off was the match.
in relative clauses and questions that include verbs with linked adverbs or prepositions:
√ What did you put that there for?
X For what [reason] did you put that there?
√ They must be convinced of the commitment they are taking on.
X Of the commitment they are taking on they must be convinced.
And yet I must object. Yes, it's cool to end a sentence with eight prepositions in a row ("Mom, why did you bring that book I don't like to be read to out of about Down Under up for?"), but I learned my grammar by diagramming sentences. Prepositions connect some object to the rest of the sentence, and they can't do that if the object is someplace other than following it. So let's be clear: I am one of the crusty old-timers who you're writing for ... err, for whom you're writing. So get it right.
Poll Results: Sentences can end with a preposition sparingly (52%), whenever you feel like it (39%), or never (7%).
quoting C.S. Lewis here: "The silly "rule" against [ending a sentence with a preposition] was invented by Dryden. I think he disliked it only because you can't do it in either French or Latin which he thought more "polite" languages than English."
ReplyDeleteI came across this quote in college when taking a class about Lewis. It has always stuck with me, and I have no problems with ending sentences with prepositions now.
I think "rained off" sounds weird no matter where it goes in a sentence.
ReplyDeleteThis is a made-up fake rule that was never a real rule.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned last week, sometimes a preposition at the end of a sentence makes you look and say, "is there a better way to phrase this?" For instance I think with the example above "What did you put that there for?" I would revise it to "Why did you put that there?" for being simpler overall, not just for the preposition issue. There are a few cases where I'd keep the original, though. And I would say that at least half the time this comes up, keeping the preposition at the end is the simplest, most logical choice.
I disagree that He gave the public that for which it longed doesn't sound like English. Of course it sounds like English. But part of writing it being aware of your tone. If you're going for a heightened tone, this sounds fine. If you're not, He gave the public what they longed for is the better choice.
The idea that because prepositions refer to something, they need that something to come directly after it is nice in theory, but that's just not how English works. We have widely varying sentence structure and word order. There's no one way to do it. In fact, good writing in English always varies sentence structure and word order. That's a style thing and not a grammar thing, but then again most of the Grammar Rodeos have been about style and not grammar, technically.
That's my main conclusion here. This perhaps more than anything we've discussed so far is a style choice, NOT a grammar rule. So it's a matter of personal preference, meaning that if you prefer to avoid doing it, then avoid away, if you can. This being English, there's usually going to be some other way to say it that will still be grammatically sound. And there will be some that slip through because you won't notice them, because they sound fine, because they are fine. But avoiding them is a perfectly acceptable choice. Just don't call it wrong when someone else doesn't avoid. It's not wrong and never has been.
Must be an American/British thing. I would say rained out.
ReplyDeleteI second Christy's point about rephrasing to avoid breaking the "rule."
ReplyDeleteThe match was delayed, due to rain.
Payment had not even been furnished for the dress.
Why did you choose that spot for this object?
They must be convinced of the commitment they are undertaking.
Also, not to continue posting Beavis and Butthead material, but:
From Beavis and Butthead Do America:
<span>Agent Bork</span>: Chief, you know that guy whose camper they were whacking off in?
<span>Agent Fleming</span>: Bork, you're a Federal Agent. You represent the United States government. Never end a sentence with a preposition.
<span>Agent Bork</span>: Oh, uh... You know that guy in whose camper they... I mean, that guy off in whose camper they were whacking?
Wasn't there one of these where we talked about "on line" vs. "in line?"
ReplyDeleteThis is less a rule than a standard. Most of the time, one should try to make a minimal effort to avoid ending sentences with preopositions, but sometimes it just makes sense to break that rule. Or, the contortions one has to undergo are not worth it. Still, don't do it too often.
ReplyDeleteI just went back to an email I sent yesterday because I remember rephrasing to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition. It was a long, clunky sentence anyway but the gist was this.
ReplyDeleteI changed "Our goal is...to allow them to learn more about a profession they have an interest in" to "...to allow them to learn more about a profession in which they have an interest."
I know the second way sounds a little stilted but I did it anyway. I don't feel passionate about not ending a sentence with a preposition. I just feel like that's the way it's supposed to be done so I do it that way. I'm a rule follower (even if this is not actually a real rule.)
Of all the sentences in this post that might not look like English, "What did you put that there for?" has to be the absolute least English-like. In fact, this sentence makes clear why we need the rule. If you were trying to abide by the rule and you came across this sentence, revising it to comply with the rule would immediately demonstrate that the sentence is rubbish. Slightly stilted English is a fair price to pay for good English. Also, do people really believe that "He gave the public what it longed for" is more graceful than "He gave the public that for which it longed"? The former might be simpler, shorter, more common, or lots of other things but not more graceful.
ReplyDeleteAs an executive assistant, I've corrected some awful grammar over the years from highly educated people who really should know better.
ReplyDeleteI supported a VP years ago who insisted that it wasn't "the Internet"; just "Internet". As in,
"I was just on Internet" instead of, "I was just on the Internet".
I don't think he cared if he Yoda sounded like...just as long as he was right, and I was wrong.
I do think it looks weird in writing, and will usually redraft. In speaking, though - when I'm in front of a classroom, I'll go for the stilted correction because it sounds fancier, more formal, and makes clear that I'm someone who cares about grammar.
ReplyDeleteEchoing waht others have said - I get irked by the unneccessary preposition: "What's he here for?" instead of "Why's he here?", "Where's that cat at?" instead of "Where's that cat?", etc.
ReplyDeleteSometimes, the answer is easy. To wit:
ReplyDeleteSam: What did you bring that up for?
Diane: Do you realize you ended that sentence with two prepositions?
Sam: Don't you have customers you could be waiting on?
Diane: Do you realize you ended that sentence with a preposition?
Sam: Don't you have customers you could be waiting on, Mullethead?
I agree with rephrasing, but not all of these rephrasings. I don't think that "rained out" (or "rained off" or, as we learned it in Seattle, "rained for") is really a verb and a preposition in English -- you really need to treat the whole phrase together as a single unit, like "done for." It would be weird to say "the rain/weather/world rained out the game" -- the natural preposition-object structure just doesn't work with this phrase. I don't think it sounds at all weird to say "the game was rained out."
ReplyDeleteThe rephrasing of the dress sentence is all wrong -- it's so stilted. In that case, I'd keep the original formulation. There are three elements to the sentence: the dress, the payment, and the implied actor. The particular combination of those elements seems important to me. There are three entirely different notes being played among "the dress hadn't even been paid for," "payment had not been made for the dress," and "she hadn't even paid for the dress!" The first focuses the reader on the scandalous dress and then explains why it's scandalous. The second focuses the reader on the act of paying, which seems more indignant than scandalous to me. Both of the first two leave the actor out of the sentence, which seems in the first example to sharpen the sentence but in the second example to be an act of passive-aggression (pun intended). So the first sentence says something about the dress, but the second says an awful lot about the speaker. The third version points you to the actor. Depending upon context, the three sentences are not interchangeable.
"What did you put that there for" is weird because the speaker is using "what for" as a single-unit synonym for "why," but then separating the two parts, which amplifies the weirdness of the dangling preposition. If you substitute "why" ("why did you put that there?"), the preposition becomes unnecessary, which is how it sounds anyway (even though it isn't). (To my ear, this sounds a lot like "where are you at?," which may not be wrong because the preposition is at the end but which certainly is wrong because the preposition is utterly pointless.) I guess in this case I would say that whether or not there is a rule against ending a sentence with a preposition, in this case that fucker is really dangling and needs to be cut. Or cut off, if you please.
I'm on board with "undertaking" (or "making"). The "taking on" sounds a little weird to me here, so my opinion would be that the sentence is bad.
How about: "Give the people what they want"?
ReplyDeleteSincerely, Ray Davies and the O'Jays.
There are subtle differences in meaning between "what for" and "why," and "long for" and "want." That's part of what I meant when I said I would keep the "what for" in some cases and change to "why" in others. Sometimes you want that precise meaning, and it's worth figuring out an acceptable way to phrase the sentence in order to use the expression you long for.
ReplyDeleteWinston Churchill: "Using a preposition to end a sentence is something up with which I will never put."
ReplyDeleteI guess I would leave it to Seattle residents to know the best use of "rained out." How many games a year does that happen, or is it a given that a Mariners game will take place in a few inches of water?
ReplyDeleteI don't know the full story behind the dress, which is why it was so stilted: is it a shoplifting thing? Is the dress purchased by proxy? Knowing the details would have yielded a better sentence, but I didn't even know the gender involved, so I scrapped my first choice of "She hadn't even paid for the dress." I apologize for my craftsmanship on that point.
"Is there a reason you've put that there, or can it be moved?"
I am mostly posting to note my love for the beginning of this post. It made me laugh, which, hey, is always a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI tend to try to avoid ending sentences with prepositions, as I often don't know the pet peeves of my audience.
Beat me to it - this was one of my dad's favorites.
ReplyDeleteThis, of course, leads to next Friday's Grammar Rodeo: will vs. shall.
ReplyDelete("will" is correct here, don't infer otherwise.)
Maybe he's British. Does he also go to hospital?
ReplyDeleteIsn't that what brung us to this here rodeo in the first place?
ReplyDeleteI was kidding about "rained for." Safeco Field has a retractable roof. The Kingdome had an unretractable roof. To my knowledge, no baseball game in Seattle has ever been rained or snowed out, though the old pre-renovation Coliseum sprung a leak and forced the postponement of a Sonics game once.
ReplyDeleteMerriam-Webster weighed in on this a couple days ago:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OLxLK_R6jQ
I'm Canadian (which I think I announce every chance I get!) and I would say rained out.
ReplyDelete