I didn’t proof - so sue me. Better yet mock me.
I’m curious though, I see typos all the time and they just slide by. Is it because I’m a newby or was it just more poignant in this case?
And The Ryan, what is the rest??? I’m stumped, too.
And as usual, thanks for the answer to this problem I’ve been struggling with.
A couple of years ago, the venerable folks who preside over the Oxford English Dictionary decreed that, finally, split infinitives were acceptable. It was such a relief – me, a dark split infinitive rebel, attaining mainstream respect.
One thing you all might want to consider when you get info from a dictionary is that dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, they do not dictate how people should speak, they attempt to describe the way native speakers of said language speak (and write). Thus, various lingual idiosyncracies do not become “acceptable” when the dictionary decrees it. They become acceptable when they are accepted. It’s as simple as that. However, I, personally, don’t see myself accepting end-of-sentence prepositions in the near future. If others do, that’s their prob-- er, prerogative.
People do it. You can do it. Just not that accepted for schools to teach you to do it.
How about when you work at a store? You say:
"What are you looking for?’
Makes sense, right? You think people have to say:
“For what are you looking?” nope.
Well, Tzel, if into pointless and arbitrary grammar rules you really want to get, this sentence, “Hmmm, some of you claim that it’s rare for someone to actually end a sentence with a preposition,” in one of you’re posts contains a split infinitive. Just thought that you should know. Ooops… that wasn’t a complete sentence.
Oh yeah, and you should have put a question mark at the end of this sentence: “This could become `To whom are you sending that letter.’”
And of course, I have made at least one accidental spelling, grammar, or punctuation error in this post, and you all are free to correct me.
Here’s something interesting. My dictionary – which is 14 years old, by the way – notes that “There is nothing inherently incorrect about ending a sentence with a preposition, although such placement may be awkward or it may provide a weak ending. But often the final position is the only natural one for the preposition.”
It doesn’t have anything to say on split infinitives, though.
I didn’t need Oxford to tell me it was OK. Captain Kirk had already told me to boldly split infinitives whenever I damn well felt like it.
I grew up with the notion that a preposition is followed by a prepositional phrase . … that is, an object it precedes, such as a noun or pronoun, which goes to modify or further explain some other thing. As such, ending a sentence with a preposition seems to defeat the purpose for which the word/grammar structure was invented.
Yeah, that did cross my mind. Captain Picard and the rest of the Next Generation crew kept the split infinitive, too, although the part about “where no man has gone before” was changed to the more progressive “where no one has gone before.”
Churchill must have been preoccupied with prepositions. Another quote attributed to him, in response to someone mentioning this silly rule (also from The Language Instance ): “That is something up with which we should not put”.
Nicely illustrates how stilted and contrived one can sound when fastidiously adhering to this rule.
Shaky Jake
Ummm…
Make that The Language Instinct
In this specific case, because it’s extraneous:
Why not use a preposition to end a sentence?
Why not use a preposition to end a sentence with?
You didn’t need the “with.” I suspect that in many case where a preposition DOES make a sentence look and sound ugly, it’s because it’s extraneous.
BTW, RealityChuck, they didn’t look at the name preposition and decide where to put the thing – they NAMED them prepositions because they preced their objects.
I have to agree with the ‘particle’ theory here – ending a sentence with an actual preposition is unusual, most of the observed instances are really leftover bits of multi-part verbs. And if one’s vocabulary is large enough, such two-part verbs can almost always be (gotten rid of) eliminated, replaced with single part verbs (most of which are not Germanic, but Romantic).
So if nothing else, the proscription against final prepositions might encourage a student to learn more of the wonderfully specific single-word verbs.
I read a book, A MANUAL OF EMAIL STYLE That covers this & whole other bunch of crap they taught you in school you don’t need to follow.
This guy was looking at being accepted into Harvard. As he was being shown around campus, he was asked why he was interested in Harvard. The guy answered, “I’ve always wanted to go to Harvard as it is the most prestigious school I can think of.” The tour guide immediately corrected the guy saying, “Sir, we here at Harvard NEVER end our sentances with a preposition.” The guy apologized and said, “Please let me re-phrase the sentance… ‘I’ve always wanted to go to Harvard as it is the most prestigious school I can think of, JERK!’”
Y’know, Dragwyr, that joke was funny the first time… When Sofa King told it.
Back on topic (approximately): How is the phrase “to boldly go” a split infinitive? “Boldly go” is a verb phrase, equivalent in value to a verb, and “to boldly go” is then the infinitive form of that verb. “Boldly” does not separate the verb from the infinitive preposition “to”, it’s part of the verb.
[sub](waiting for the English majors to rip me a new one)[/sub]
I don’t think so Chronos, I think “boldly” is an adverb. Describing all adverbs as being essentially just “part of the verb” is gonna get you in trouble sooner or later. How about if I say “I will hurriedly, belatedly, but boldly go out to lunch”? That’s quite a verb I’d have there, according to your rule.
That doesn’t make it wrong to stick an adverb into an infinitive just because it’s not “part of the verb,” as others have said. (Though I admit I’m not crazy about split infinitives, but they are far less irritating than the misuse of “whom”. No, I’m not talking about mistakenly using “who” for “whom”, as in “Who did you see?”, which is generally accepted though somewhat informal-sounding IMHO; I mean using “whom” as in “He’s the guy whom I think should be fired.” AAAARGGH! NO! The case of the relative pronoun must agree with its function in the clause, and “I think” is not part of the clause! If you want to use “whom”, make its function in the clause properly accusative, as in “He’s the guy whom I consider eminently expendable,” or something like that. Muddleheaded “whom”-abusers are the writers WHO I think should be shot.)