That’s because the board doesn’t strip it out. Your browser does. Rendering multiple spaces as a single space is part of HTML.
That makes a lot of sense.
As for the “rule” about not splitting infinitives, that comes from an overly slavish attempt to follow Latin rulz. In Latin and modern derived languages like French, Spanish, etc., infinitives are one word and thus cannot be split.
Strange. I think changing the sentence to “To start with, you can wipe that smile off your face” is the accepted correction to the original sentence. Not so?
That’s all well and good, but I know I got it from some teacher way back in my past. It’s one of those “rules” that is easy to remember in grammar school and it’s never subsequently addressed or even questioned during the later stages of education. Now if we could just get ALL of the grammar school teachers to agree that this is nonsense, we would be in good shape for all of future mankind!!! Even StrTrkr777’s daughter, an English guru, said it’s still a thing.
All of this just means the majority of people in charge of teaching our young impressionable children doesn’t know about the New York Times article or Fowler. Let’s start a campaign to get the word out. Say NO to silly preposition rules!!!
That was funny!!!
or…
A: Where’s it at?
B: Don’t end a sentence with a preposition.
A: That wasn’t a sentence, asshole!
I will be sure to send these links/citations to my daughter so that once she becomes a teacher of the English language she will not propogate this travesty.
(Doing my part to fight the good fight).
Technically, you can’t end a complete sentence with a preposition. It isn’t possible.
That’s because what people think are prepositions in a sentence are actually the particle of a two- or three-word verb. “Put up with” is a verb expressing something very different than “put up” or even “put.” “Up” and “with” are essential to meaning and can’t be taken away from a verb.
So “This is something I won’t put up with” ends with a verb. not a preposition.
I would argue that in a question like “who are you going with?” or “what are you going to cook that in?” the “with” and “in” there are prepositions, and not verb particles in the sense of your examples, which are all phrasal verbs.
I was taught it was BS back in high school, 1989-1993. Same with college. None of the style guides (that I know of) have a rule against it. Why this is still being taught in some quarters is beyond me.
In that case, we might all do better to just convert to (pick an easier language that has fewer idiosyncrasies and nonsensical rules).
What about:
“Why, that wall, did you bang your head against?”:eek:
You might also pass along the usage rule that really matters: “Clarity first.”*
All the other rules about grammar, usage, spelling, punctuation, and so forth are useful insofar as they serve the “Clarity First” rule. If they don’t do that, they are not contributing value to the use of the language. If they result in mangled, awkward, unclear rephrasings, they are actually detrimental.
*I do sometimes extend this to “Clarity first, eloquence second, and everything else a poor third.”
Fixed it for you.
I’ll emphasize this: It wasn’t a rule of English, it was a rule of an artificial language which the 19th Century peevers thought they could turn English into, and they completely failed to do so.
The joke is that the peevers failed to realize this, as they failed to realize so many things about language, so they never joined the ranks of honest conlang (constructed language) inventors, such as Zamenhof and Tolkien, and instead went to their graves insisting that they and they alone knew a language spoken from birth by millions and billions of people.
I always assumed that this rule came from translators. I never had an issue with prepositions at the end of sentences myself, though my english teachers did, until I learned spanish. Once I started automatically translating everything in my head, the preposition just sitting at the end of a sentence would be a kludge.
As I’ve forgotten most of the foreign languages I sued to know, and no longer translate in my head, it doesn’t bother me as much, but it did used to, and that was the reason.
My mother’s mother always said the sentence-ending preposition was ok.
And she knew her stuff. That’s why we called her Grammar.
mmm
To boldly split infinitives that no one has split before!
I thought the book was about Australia.
Darn you to heck, Clothahump, I was going to pop in here with that 5-prep sentence! I first read it in a column by Herb Caen, late lamented humor-and-gossip columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, circa 40 years ago.
He also cited this as a runner-up:
“I’ve got a dinner date tonite. So long, I’ve got to go home and put what I’m going out in on.”
It’s “whom are you going with”.
But yes. It seems like some folks are trying to define the “rules” out of existence. That is something up with which we should not put! If you claim that “Who[m] are you going with” contains the very “going with”, then you are going to have to explain why “I am going with him” does not contain the verb “going with”, and if it does, why? Because then we examine "I am going to the game with him " and “I am going with him to the game”.
Then, of course, we have “to boldly go”. “Boldly go” is not a verb. “Go” is a verb and “boldly” is an adverb.