amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) (03/23/84)
That most awkward sentence "For what is WWB good", which avoids ending the sentence with a preposition, reminds me of the famous quip by Sir Winston Churchill, who, when told by one of his secretaries that he had ended a sentence with a preposition, replied: "This is an impertinence up with which I shall not put." John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs--Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2
grass@uiuccsb.UUCP (03/26/84)
#R:proper:-108100:uiuccsb:10500024:000:1284 uiuccsb!grass Mar 25 12:51:00 1984 Somewhere in my former life as a linguist, the origin of this "rule" of English grammar was discussed (the one saying no prepositions at the end of a sentence). It seems that many centuries ago, when scholars first started to pay attention to vernacular languages, the only existing books on grammar concerned the classical languages: Latin and Greek. The scholars who began writing grammars of "vulgar" languages modeled them on existing proscriptive grammars for those languages with the intention of demonstrating that their native languages were as good as the classical languages (they had at least some nationalistic motivations.. which I could elaborate on, but we'll leave the language politics of the 14-16th century alone...). Part of proving a language was as good as Latin in those days was to demonstrate a relation to Latin, usually in terms of similar grammar. The rule saying sentences may not end in prepositions is a rule of all the Romance languages, but ALL germanic languages use final prepositions (and verb particles that LOOK like prepositions as in the verb "to turn off"). The insistence on this rule today goes back to the non-English English rules proscribed by these very first grammars. Once an authority, always an authority.... -Judy Grass.
rpw3@fortune.UUCP (03/27/84)
#R:proper:-108100:fortune:8100010:000:716
fortune!rpw3 Mar 26 23:44:00 1984
Notice that a final preposition almost always implies some sort
of ellipsis following the sentence, as in:
That's the guy I was telling you about [...him].
Hi! Come on in[...to the house].
I'll see if Mr. Smith is in [...his office].
This is a jam I can't get out of [...which].
Or the old joke:
Where's the library at [...its location]?
As languages evolve, what was explicit becomes implicit. The evolution
occurs at different rates within various sub-groups, some of whom like
the changes and some of whom don't [...like the changes].
Rob Warnock
UUCP: {sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3
DDD: (415)595-8444
USPS: Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065grw@fortune.UUCP (Glenn Wichman) (03/28/84)
As I understand it, the rules about splitting infinitives
& ending sentences with prepositions are both carryovers from
Latin. In Latin, it is physically impossible to split an
infinitive, of course, and it makes no sense to end a sentence
with a preposition. There was a time when Latin so dominated
academics that it was felt that it's grammar ought to be
followed in English.
-Glennmmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/29/84)
"This is an impertinence up with which I will not put."
If we forget theories of syntax based either on modern linguistics or
on ancient languages, and don't worry about whether something is a
preposition of a particle, the problem becomes reasonably easy to handle.
Think of the strength of association between the words of the sentence,
and of the number of completed units (words, phrases, etc) that must
be held in mind at any one time. Is there a tighter binding among
"put up with" or "with an impertinence". To my ear, there are various
things I have to put up with, but few things in company with which I put up.
Hence I think of "up with" as a tightly bound complement to "put".
If I use "with" earlier in the sentence than "put", I have to hold
it in mind as the rest of the bindings are made, and then link it.
If I finish the sentence with "put up with", that problem goes away.
Better overall would be "I will not put up with this impertinence"
in which the bindings happen earlier, and the lightly bound groupings
("up with this impertinence") require no stacking.
Grammars may not be good for much, or they may be good for a lot,
depending on your needs. Good usage, however, always helps communication,
and good usage defines "good" grammar.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtgam@proper.UUCP (Gordon Moffett) (03/29/84)
@ In an article in Unix(tm) Review (incidentally cited in net.women...) we find: "For what is WWB [writers workbench] good?" Why this laborious turn of phrase to avoid the apparently dreaded preposition at the end of a sentence? It sounds awful. The question stands out as a decidedly unusual usage, and the reader (me, anyway) is so distracted by it that I lose the flow of the following paragraph. I submit that this attempt at improved grammar has in fact failed to convey meaning without drawing attention to usage, and this, I conclude, is poor writing style. The rule of avoiding ending sentences with prepositions, at least in this case, interferes with effective communication. (Or, put another way, the rules of grammar have shifted to make this usage archaic). Discussion is encouraged.
jbf@ccieng5.UUCP (Jens Bernhard Fiederer) (03/31/84)
Sounds grammatical to me. Of course, I am not a native speaker. -- Reachable as ....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf
dinitz@uicsl.UUCP (04/06/84)
#R:proper:-108100:uicsl:8600045:000:158 uicsl!dinitz Apr 5 10:47:00 1984 A preposition is a lovely thing to end a sentence with. Here's a killer example: What did you bring the book I did not want to be read to out of down for?
rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (04/17/84)
Come on, we're supposed to at least "think" like computer scientists a bit. "Put up with" is, abstractly, a verb (all three words make up the verb unit). It is totally different from anything having to do with the simple verb "put." (Okay, so "put" is one of our wierd multi-duty verbs...). "Accustomed to" is similar. The list is endless. When you say "That is something I won't put up with," *I* don't think you are ending the sentence with a preposition. On the other hand, it is a bit colloquial... -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh
ntt@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) (04/17/84)
Randwulf (Randy Haskins, mit-eddie!rh) says: "Put up with" is, abstractly, a verb (all three words make up the verb unit). ... When you say "That is something I won't put up with", *I* don't think you are ending the sentence with a preposition. Well, *I* do. "With" is a preposition, whose object is "something"-- or to be exact, the implied "that" that follows "something". And "up", of course, is an adverb. As somebody said, the whole issue only arises because early grammarians tried to adopt Latin rules in English, and in Latin a PREposition always precedes its object (hence the name). In English it doesn't, and that's all there is to it. What "put up with" is is an *idiom*. Yes, it is "abstractly a verb", but it isn't necessary to treat it as a single verb to parse the sentence. It's just like in C, where "for (foo=0; foo<N; foo++)" is an idiom, which you may read as a single "chunk", but it can still be parsed as a general "for" statement. What restaurant do you like to eat at? You can't say that "eat at" is an idiom; it conveys simply the meaning of "eat"+"at". As proof of this, you could rearrange the sentence with "at" at the beginning. But normally you wouldn't. The form given seems more natural--to me, anyway. How about killing this topic now? I don't think there's much more to say. Mark Brader
ed@unisoft.UUCP (Ed Gould) (04/21/84)
Cone on, now. Everyone knows that the correct way to phrase that is "up with which I will not put" :-). -- Ed Gould ucbvax!mtxinu!ed
lat@stcvax.UUCP (Larry Tepper) (04/26/84)
Forgive me, for I know I am about to be in deep yogurt on this topic.
My credentials: I am not a grammarian.
I've just been following along in this discussion for a while and
have finally decided to stir things up a bit. I have this vague
notion that, given a sentence ending with a preposition, there is
ALWAYS an equivalent (maybe only a near equivalent, though) way
of presenting it in a natural or comfortable-to-one's-ears manner.
For example, if
What is grammer good for? offends your sense of grammer
and
For what is grammer good? sounds clunky to you
then how about...
Is grammer good for anything? A possible equivalent, depending
on one's quibble quotient.
Or...
What are your favorite restaurants? Instead of...
What restaurants do you like to eat at?
Any takers?
--
Larry Tepper - Storage Technology (disk division)
uucp: { decvax, hao}!stcvax!lat
{ allegra, amd70, ucbvax }!nbires!stcvax!lat
USnail: Storage Technology Corp - MD 3T / Louisville, CO / 80028
DDD: (303) 673-5435gam@proper.UUCP (Gordon Moffett) (04/28/84)
> From: lat@stcvax.UUCP (Larry Tepper) > Organization: Storage Technology Corp. Louisville, CO > > I have this vague > notion that, given a sentence ending with a preposition, there is > ALWAYS an equivalent (maybe only a near equivalent, though) way > of presenting it in a natural or comfortable-to-one's-ears manner. > For example, if > > What is grammer good for? offends your sense of grammer > and > For what is grammer good? sounds clunky to you > then how about... > Is grammer good for anything? A possible equivalent, depending > on one's quibble quotient. > > Or... > What are your favorite restaurants? Instead of... > What restaurants do you like to eat at? But these aren't equivalent questions. `Is grammar good for anything?' and be answered simply `yes' or `no', though it implies a request for explanation. And while I like to eat at Taco Bell, I wouldn't say it is my favorite restaurant.
lat@stcvax.UUCP (Larry Tepper) (05/02/84)
The point I was attempting to explore is that there may well be
ways in english to end sentences without a preposition. I'm thinking
that perhaps we have become lazy. In response to Gordon Moffet's
reply, how about:
What are your favorite FAST FOOD restaurants?
(Maybe I should even say JUNK FOOD???)
I really don't want to know, Gordon :-). Anyway, the 1st try
I gave, i. e.:
Is grammar good for anything?
does imply a response beyond just yes or no in spoken language, and
that was my intent in using it. It reminds me of many frustrating
phone conversations I have had with friends' roommates:
Me: Is Pete there?
Him: No.
Me: ... ... Do you know when he'll be back?
Him: No.
Me: ... Do you know where he went?
Him: Uhh, I think he said he was going over to Kathy's.
Me: Thanks for all the help, I'll try reaching him there.
Click.
--
{decvax, hao}!stcvax!lat Larry Tepper
{allegra, amd70, ucbvax}!nbires!stcvax!lat 303-673-5435rene@nlm-mcs.ARPA (Rene Steiner) (05/04/84)
Actually, "up with which I will not put" is a split infinitive (put up). I think it should be, "That is something with which I will not put up." which sounds almost as bad. Better is, "I will not put up with that." or more commonly, "I'm not gonna put up with that!" (if you allow "gonna" for "going to" (and how did "going to" get that meaning?)). - rene -- rene@nlm-mcs
marcus@pyuxt.UUCP (M. G. Hand) (05/05/84)
I think rene misses the point with such sentences as *I will not put up with that!* : that kind of expression leads us straight back to the trailing preposition problem with which we started. Secondly, how on earth do you get an infinitive (let alone a split one) out of *With this, Iwill not put up* ?? Marcus Hand (pyuxt!marcus)
marcus@pyuxt.UUCP (M. G. Hand) (05/05/84)
sorry about the article i just posted - i meant that *up with which, I will not put* comes nowhere near an infinitive (which i will, merely to, infact actually make an important point, now do! (yech!!)) marcus hand (pyuxt!marcius)