"Is a preposition a terrible thing to end a sentence with?" Topic

Churchill didn't seem to think so.
Mind you, I would not be so round heeled on this if I were citing Snoop Dog orDoctor Seuss.

I'm still not pulling your finger…..

Better than splitting an infinitive. Ouch!

I've never thought so.

And I've never thought there was anything wrong with starting a sentence with 'and' either.

Or to boldly go and split infinitives either for that matter.

It should be a matter of self-respect for any educated person. Those who do not take sufficient care to spell their thread topics properly are probably content in their linguistically depraved condition.

How the mighty have fallen.

How old are these so-called rules, anyway? I'm sure I remember reading something to the effect that all this nonsense about not ending sentences on prepositions and not splitting infinitives* are only a couple of hundred years old, and that Shakespeare did them plenty of times. If that's true, if it's good enough for the Bard, it's good enough for me to do.

*which is only a "rule" because it isn't done in Latin. Which ignores the fact it can't <.i> be done in Latin.

I see no reason to obey artificial rules added to the language that were contrary to actual usage even at the time when allegedly intelligent people devised them.

How does this relate to TXT-talk and Lolcats ?

It totally screws up everything when you try to diagram the sentence.

Of course you can do it in Latin. You'll just have a hell of a time making sense of the meaning of the sentence if prepositions are not immediately followed by their objects.

I dangled a participle once.
Almost got arrested.

It's a made up rule. Used by Nuns to beat children and TMP members to insult other's IQ.

I never claimed to be "edjicated"; what I am is good at mimicking. If the common vernacular is comfortable with certain ways of turning a phrase, I pick up on that and copycat, or not, depending. Diagramming sentences in junior high school was my sojourn in that "special level of hell" and I did my level best to not inculcate a single thing from it….

I do not blame the failed students. It is their teachers who should be taken to the town square and beaten.

Allen

Churchill was being sarcastic. (Which he was very good at.)

Well, well, well, the OFM has started down the slippery slope. Is there no hope for us, the mere mortals?

This is the sort of pedagoguery up with which we should
not put !

(with thanks to WSC)

Don't you think this would put us into a predicament we do not want to be in???

It is very annoying and distracting. Especially in written material and or when used by those language is their profession e.g. broadcast journalism.

I liken reading a passage or listening to a speaker who uses poor English to strolling through a meadow and stubbing my big toe on a stone.

[It is very annoying and distracting. Especially in written material and or when used by those FOR WHOM language is their profession, e.g. broadcast journalisTS.

I liken reading a passage WRITTEN IN or listening to a speaker who uses poor English to strolling through a meadow and stubbing my big toe on a stone.]

It a darn good thing that I'm not a person for whom writing posts in internet forums is my profession…

Seriously, I do try to be correct and don't mind being corrected at all. Unlike many people who take great offense when shown their errors, I welcome suggestions for improvement. Whether it's painting faces on 28mm miniatures or proper use of language, accepting advice and correction is the path to improvement.

I did not mean to cause offense, and am glad you didn't take any.

I am someone who makes my livelihood by writing, albeit only advertising; nothing of any importance. But I still make careless, stupid, or sometimes ignorant errors when wrestling with copy.

In my job, there is usually the time and motivation to pick them up. That doesn't necessarily apply to my posts on a forum like this.

Of course you can do it in Latin. You'll just have a hell of a time making sense of the meaning of the sentence if prepositions are not immediately followed by their objects.

I was talking about split infinitives when I mentioned Latin. As I understand it, Latin infinitives are one word, and therefore cannot be split.

Split infinities interest me greatly….

I seriously didn't take offense. That aside, I do tend to be understanding in internet forums of slips and misses. Often responses are tapped out in a rapid fashion in the heat of the moment. That's generally not the time I take to carefully proof my writing, so why would I expect it of others.

However, there are some mistakes that are so common in the spoken word that it can be assumed the same mistakes are be reflected in the written word.

I'm sure that we all have tripped over "your" and "you're" many times. "What are you looking for?" is so prevalent that many people probably consider it correct. In fact, I do believe that I may have seen "Is that what your looking for?" once or twice.

To me, an honest attempt at correct usage isn't "putting on airs" or trying to sound educated. Rather, it's a simple matter of decorum. I liken good speach habits to other personal habits. Good langauge usage is a matter of pride in one's own appearance. It's sort of combing one's hair and not being seen in public wearing your night shirt. An like grooming, perfection is not expected, but an attempt at some basic level is much appreciated.

Split infinities interest me greatly….

Split beavers more so.

Infinitely more so….