It’s a Rule of Thumb, but so close to being an absolute Rule that we should put it into a sticky.
If your high school English teacher taught it to you as a Rule, it’s not true.
Merriam Webster has a video discussion on this, which includes a bit of the history.
Good stuff, Patty.
But it’s not even a particularly good rule of thumb. I wouldn’t even give it that much credence.
I disagree. I think it takes more effort when you have this rule in the back of your mind.
And there would be nothing wrong with that (well, minus the “in the form of a” part.)
Or I could say:
“There would be nothing wrong with writing the sentence as 'No, there’s nothing wrong with ending sentences with a preposition.”
But it’s needlessly wordy and the tone is more formal than what I’m trying to convey.
As for upsides and downsides to the “rule,” you’ve got me. You can read through Fowler’s opinion on the matter here:
The entry of his book for “preposition at end” is not fully reproduced, but you can find some of it here.
Fowler–remember, a “grammarian’s grammarian,” not coming from the linguistic descriptivist tradition–thought the whole “rule of thumb” to be pretty silly or, to use his words, “superstition.”
And this is from a book written in 1926, so it’s not exactly new-fangled, liberal, free-for-all English grammar.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Even the major style guide for American English, the Chicago Manual of Style, calls it “unnecessary” and “pedantic.” IMHO, and it’s a very strong opinion at that, it is dumb and useless, even as a rule of thumb, leading to over-wrought and needlessly awkward sentences.
A preposition is not a good word to end a sentence with.
You’re confusing true verbal phrases such as “put up with” with prepositions that are adverbial. Remember, a preposition connects a noun or pronoun with another word, which can be a verb, thus making it an adverbial prepositional phrase.
Consider this: He ate with his left hand. He ate with his girlfriend.
In neither sentence is “ate with” a verbal phrase. “Ate” is the verb. And “with his left hand” and “with his girlfriend” are prepositional phrases that modify “ate.”
And so, in English, when we invert word order for emphasis we might get these perfectly valid sentences:
Q: Which hand did he use? A: It was his left hand he ate with.
Q: Whom did he dine with? A: It was his girlfriend he ate with.***
So… there you go. Not verbal phrases but actual prepositional phrases in which inverted word order leaves the preposition dangling, which is perfectly fine.
Where is the place he is going to?
Are you the person she eats with?
Aren’t those sentences valid?
Pulykammell, this is what I’m talking about in regards to the “rule of thumb.”
or, “It’s the sort of thing that will not be tolerated.”
We can choose different words to convey the same message. I just think following this rule can actually help someone become a better writer.
Why?
I mentioned this to my favourite niece in law soon after she received her Ph.D in English. I did comment that it seems you have to come up with some awkward sentences to avoid it sometimes. She said that it was okay.
On the other hand, I mentally cringe when I hear “Where did I put my ink pen at?”
Wait… is she a lawyer or an English major?
I think it keeps things concise.
For example…
Instead use, “I’m not sure what you mean.”
Also, clarity. In the example I used above, we use the word “tolerate” instead of “things we will not put up with.”
It may seem unnecessary and useless, however if you peruse the boards, you will see posters ending their sentences with a preposition on a very consistent basis. It seems lazy. I also think their posts would be more clear and concise if they chose to follow this rule, instead of ignoring it. 
But, I do get your point. It can make things unnecessarily wordy at times. It’s not like I’m totally in the opposition.
That’s slightly different. It’s ending on a preposition, but it’s a peculiar idiom of its own. The “at” is completely unnecessary there and is an American colloquialism. I have no problem with proscribing against that form in formal writing. But saying something like “Where did this pen come from?” is to be cast aside “From where did this pen come” (or even “Whence did this pen come?”) is useless pedantry and sounds stilted to my ears.
Why? In one case you admonish me for not being wordy enough. In the next, I’m being too wordy by adding “by this.” I’m writing in a conversational tone. I’m not at a newspaper where space is at a premium, and the two extra words better convey my voice and the rhythm of my language.
I prefer “tolerate” in that sentence, too, but it’s meant to be a joke. Plus the author may prefer the sounds or the diction of the phrase “to put up with” vs “tolerate.”
What is lazy about ending on a preposition? This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I’ve given you many citations above from much-loved grammar pedants and style manuals that are not exactly known for “grammatical liberalism” that say it’s perfectly cromulent in English. *It’s perfectly okay to end a sentence on a preposition in English. That rule is even dumber than the “never split infinitives” horseshit.
Show me an example board post where a terminal preposition impedes clarity.
Incidentally, there’s a fun little history of the origins of the proscription against preposition dangling, and it all seems to start with Dryden, with no good explanation from him as to why.
Certainly, everything you are saying is valid. If a writer chooses eloquence over conciseness, that is their perogative. Also, I’ll admit that following this rule can actually decrease the level of clarity in some cases. It’s a balancing act and referring to the professionals like you have should take precedence over my opinion.
I think it’s just a habit that you can either choose to follow or not. For what it’s worth, I find it helpful. It sort of gives me structure.
Screw you and the horse in on which you rode.