Tell us something.: This is the first sentence. This is the second of the recommended sentences intended to thwart spam its. This is a third, bonus sentence!
Bloomfield wrote:Lowth...never intended a rule against ending sentences with prepositions (the rule we most likely owe to well-meaning but overzealous school teachers).
Yes, I gathered that from the Wiki article. But you put further meat on the bone; thanks. Given the fundamental realities of English, one person could only suggest such parameters (and how many, such as myself, were or are unaware that that it was only a suggestion intended to support general context!); it would take a population to buy and enact them. Thank goodness we have history to back us when we have occasion to flout that artificial rule.
But, it's undeniable that the nonterminal preposition form is indeed more formal-sounding, and one could thank the flexibility of English for the ability to have such nuances. So it's not all bad. Speech for all occasions.
Chas: nyuk.
"If you take music out of this world, you will have nothing but a ball of fire." - Balochi musician
It drives me crazy when I am reading the news online, and they have something like this example from KREM.com:
Meanwhile, the family and friends of Wheelock continue their search, hoping that they will be able to fine the missing woman before the weather turns cold and rainy Friday afternoon.
I admit that I occasionally find some prepositions at the end of sentences somewhat jarring, but it occurs to me that this is not due so much to the terminal preposition as the redundancy. As in "Where is my dog at?" On the other hand, "Which basket is this in?" is clearly less off-putting than "In which basket is this?"
djm wrote:I love, "Have you a pen?" Everyone is looking for the redundant "got" but slowly recognize that the sentence is complete without it.
djm
Complete, yes. But there's a subtle difference of incidental meaning, of course, not that it's an earthshaking one. For me, to call the latter "redundant" ignores that subtlety, to an extent. Also, among those differences, in the case of the former, is included the one of me sounding like I'm a Monty Python character.
But sometimes that's just the ticket.
"If you take music out of this world, you will have nothing but a ball of fire." - Balochi musician
djm wrote:I love, "Have you a pen?" Everyone is looking for the redundant "got" but slowly recognize that the sentence is complete without it.
djm
I would say either. "Have you got a pen?" or "Do you have a pen?"
"Have you a pen" does feel somewhat incomplete. But on the other hand english is not my native language.
"Have you a pen" sounds somewhat shakespearean to me. In those days "do" was less frequent in the english language.
Here is another language question that has bothered me for years. Most cities in the world for example London is just "London" there is no article attached to "London"! The only exeption i know of is for the dutch city "The Hague". Why?
djm wrote:I love, "Have you a pen?" Everyone is looking for the redundant "got" but slowly recognize that the sentence is complete without it.
djm
I would say either. "Have you got a pen?" or "Do you have a pen?"
"Have you a pen" does feel somewhat incomplete. But on the other hand english is not my native language.
"Have you a pen" sounds somewhat shakespearean to me. In those days "do" was less frequent in the english language.
Here is another language question that has bothered me for years. Most cities in the world for example London is just "London" there is no article attached to "London"! The only exeption i know of is for the dutch city "The Hague". Why?
Because it is called "Den Haag" in Dutch.
"den" is an archaic form of the definite article "de".
falkbeer wrote:
Here is another language question that has bothered me for years. Most cities in the world for example London is just "London" there is no article attached to "London"! The only exeption i know of is for the dutch city "The Hague". Why?
The area began as an Indian home thousands of years before white men came. The Indians called the area Win-Quatt, meaning a place encircled by rock cliffs. . . . .The Dalles was named by French-Canadian trappers. The word meant flagstone, used to flag gutters. In this vernacular the meaning was closer to "a place where water is confined by rocks." The basalt formations nearby no doubt inspired the name. The Grand Dalles referred to the great rapids east of the present town, inundated by the backwaters of The Dalles dam in 1957. At the first the town was called Dalles City, but popular usage was always The Dalles. The post office was established in 1851 with William R. Gibson as first postmaster. On September 3, 1853, the town's name was changed to Wascopum. . . . In March, 1860 the name was changed to The Dalles. In 1966, the name City of The Dalles was officially adopted by city ordinance to conform with popular usage.
I'd say "Wherz 'at pen at? 
