What is your opinion on dangling prepositions?

[Julie Smith]

Are they part of the grammar dark ages? 

[Ellie]

Not necessarily. Sometimes they're really just bad grammar; for example, "Where did you find that at?" is just wrong; you should just say, "Where did you find it?" So is "What did you do that for?" It's better to say, "Why did you do that?"

[Targhee]

 

At about 3:30 is a good answer to your question (warning: language).

Usage of English has on the whole careened away from rules and forms. While I understand language changes, I do see this as a part of the overall decline in the power of English language. It has been denuded by anti-intellectualism, past the point of its intent to remove elitism (which it was not effective in anyway) through to another extreme where the more terse, pithy, or truncated a word or phrase is the better, and to where grammar has been dethroned by “style” and “creativity.”

[Tsuga]

Some find a dangling preposition crass;

some crassly end their sentences with "with".

But English is a language quite alive;

The order has no bearing on the pith.

[Tanaqui]

My opinion - which happens to be identical to the scientific consensus! - is that adult native speakers without any speech disabilities do not habitually make mistakes in their own language. "Where are you at?" or "What did you do that for?" isn't wrong, it's just a different dialect of English. It is just as valid as Standard English and, honestly, just as comprehensible.

[Another Lynn]

Never do it in writing.  It's better not to in speech.  But sometimes it happens.

[KrissiK]

2 hours ago, Another Lynn said:

Never do it in writing.  It's better not to in speech.  But sometimes it happens.

I agree with Lynn.

[SKL]

"Hang them" is all I can think of.

[HS Mom in NC]

Some people want consensus and rules, but only those that happen to match their own personal convictions.  Such is human nature.

If I remember correctly, "no dangling prepositions" is a hold over from classically educated English teachers in the 1800s who were prone to insist that because you can't dangle a preposition in Latin, you can't in English either.  I don't think the rules of Latin should be applied to English just because they're Latin rules.  English has so many different influences (Norman French, Old English NW European, Latin, Greek, and a sprinkling of others) it's irrational to insist on the rules of one to the exclusion of others.  It just has to develop its own standard usage. As much as traditionalists hate to hear it, language does evolve over time-sometimes quickly.  The English you speak today is dramatically different than earlier forms of English.  Some people just struggle with change in general. 

No, I don't think it's categorically wrong.  Sometimes it's redundant like the above example of, "Where are you at?" It flows poorly and are covers location without adding at, but let's face it, this is standard in parts of the Midwest, parts of The South, and probably other places too. These days we prefer more succinct sentences and shorter paragraphs.  Read any C. S. Lewis lately?  Some of his books have paragraphs and are a whole page long and cover more than one general thought, so by today's standards it would be broken up into shorter paragraphs, but in his day it was perfectly acceptable.

American English is quite young and noticeably different from British English.  Maybe those who speak it think Americans are anti-intellectual because of the changes we've made. Imagine what someone from the 1600s in upper society England would think.

[Tsuga]

4 hours ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

. As much as traditionalists hate to hear it, language does evolve over time-sometimes quickly.  The English you speak today is dramatically different than earlier forms of English.  Some people just struggle with change in general. 

 

I couldn't agree with your post more. In addition, I want to point out that this is really not a debate about "tradition" since the tradition of language evolving is as old as humanity itself.

It's a prescriptivist vs. descriptivist debate.

To my mind, language is a natural phenomenon. I'm a hard-core descriptivist. You wouldn't tell a bird their song was wrong if they changed it so if a tribe begins using a new word-order norm, who cases?

That doesn't mean you should not use the language to express thoughts clearly. But there will always be trade-offs. Strict about word order? Without augmenting the average person's computational power, they will compensate by playing fast and loose with things like case. Strict about declensions? People will have fun with word order.

"Thou" no longer is used for "tu". That is a definite loss for English, but we've gained a fascinating library of other social and linguistic cues to indicate respect and social standing.

[MerryAtHope]

OT but the music from those old "cliff hanger" cartoons keeps going through my head now. Thanks!

[Bluegoat]

It doesn't bother me, but it tends to sound casual or less formal.  And I think often it's less elegant, and striving for elegance and beauty is sometimes worthwhile.

I'm not sure I really like the hard line some people take with prescription vs description. I think both are valid, sometimes one more than the other depending on the context.  It's often when rules make us dig deeper that something really wonderful is created - be it clearer thinking or moving words.  That our culture  often sees little value in rules sometimes undermines creativity rather than freeing it.

[Tanaqui]

Quote

It doesn't bother me, but it tends to sound casual or less formal.  And I think often it's less elegant, and striving for elegance and beauty is sometimes worthwhile.

 

This idea that the prestige dialect used by educated people in formal settings is more "elegant" is profoundly classist, and you've got the causation backwards. We think it's elegant because we admire the people who speak that way. When we say other people are not speaking as elegantly or beautifully, that's because we don't think as much of them.

Quote

It's often when rules make us dig deeper that something really wonderful is created - be it clearer thinking or moving words.  That our culture  often sees little value in rules sometimes undermines creativity rather than freeing it.

 

All dialects of all languages follow rules. The person who says "Where you at?" is not just randomly tossing words together. They will never say "At where you?" or "Where where at at?" or "Where you in?" or any of the infinite possibilities that are ungrammatical in that dialect. The implicit claim that non-standard speech doesn't follow rules is both classist and erroneous.

[Targhee]

4 hours ago, Tsuga said:

 

I couldn't agree with your post more. In addition, I want to point out that this is really not a debate about "tradition" since the tradition of language evolving is as old as humanity itself.

It's a prescriptivist vs. descriptivist debate.

To my mind, language is a natural phenomenon. I'm a hard-core descriptivist. You wouldn't tell a bird their song was wrong if they changed it so if a tribe begins using a new word-order norm, who cases?

That doesn't mean you should not use the language to express thoughts clearly. But there will always be trade-offs. Strict about word order? Without augmenting the average person's computational power, they will compensate by playing fast and loose with things like case. Strict about declensions? People will have fun with word order.

"Thou" no longer is used for "tu". That is a definite loss for English, but we've gained a fascinating library of other social and linguistic cues to indicate respect and social standing.

So are you saying that all changes to language are neutral in value? 

[Tanaqui]

That would be the standard view promoted by linguists everywhere, Targhee. If a linguistic change means the language no longer meets the speakers' needs, then either it won't be made in the first place or they'll find a way to adapt. (When we ditched the T/V distinction in English we also lost the singular/plural distinction in the second person, but in many communities there are new words to fill that gap, like y'all, youse, or yinz. And of course some very small communities still retain thou.)

[Targhee]

1 hour ago, Tanaqui said:

 

This idea that the prestige dialect used by educated people in formal settings is more "elegant" is profoundly classist, and you've got the causation backwards. We think it's elegant because we admire the people who speak that way. When we say other people are not speaking as elegantly or beautifully, that's because we don't think as much of them.

 

All dialects of all languages follow rules. The person who says "Where you at?" is not just randomly tossing words together. They will never say "At where you?" or "Where where at at?" or "Where you in?" or any of the infinite possibilities that are ungrammatical in that dialect. The implicit claim that non-standard speech doesn't follow rules is both classist and erroneous.

I disagree. I admire many people, my own extended family, greatly while at the same time not describing their usage/dialect as eloquent. My grandfather was a man of few words, had a basic education, and spent his entire life in a small geographic area where he farmed potatoes and preferred to work in his shop over socializing or other things. I remember him as a grounded, hard working man who possessed a great deal of practical wisdom, and someone I admired and loved very much. I was eager to listen when he spoke. But I wouldn’t describe his speech as eloquent or beautiful. Comfortable, yes. Of value, yes.

[Targhee]

10 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

That would be the standard view promoted by linguists everywhere, Targhee. If a linguistic change means the language no longer meets the speakers' needs, then either it won't be made in the first place or they'll find a way to adapt. (When we ditched the T/V distinction in English we also lost the singular/plural distinction in the second person, but in many communities there are new words to fill that gap, like y'all, youse, or yinz. And of course some very small communities still retain thou.)

I am asking for clarity. I can see the point from a neutral standpoint of watching a natural process, not unlike noting the physical adaptation of say birds beaks as neither good nor bad but serving a purpose.  But if we continue that same analogy, I would mourn over the extinction of beautiful bird, not in the same impassive vein but on an aesthetic level.  To mourn the one does not mean you ascribe no value to the new species who fills the firsts’ niche.

So I suppose I see two different lenses through which this change can be observed - one as a scientific observer and one as a conservationist. Are there not efforts around the world to save the diversity of language at risk of “extinction”? Would the neutral-observer linguist see this “extinction” as a natural, utilitarian process? 

[Tsuga]

2 hours ago, Targhee said:

So are you saying that all changes to language are neutral in value? 

I don't attach value to language structure, no. I do attach value to using a language in the clearest way possible. But I don't think, for example, that Russian is better than Persian because it's synthetic versus analytic. I love the idiomatic and nuanced nature of analytical languages such as English and Persian. I don't think Chinese is inferior to Thai because Thai is an isolating language.

When languages die, it is a sad thing. But that happens when peoples are eradicated. When I see languages pop back up, however changed they are, that brings tears to my eyes. I love language and I love the human mind. German is beautiful, Japanese is beautiful, Nepalese and Yaghnobi and Navaho.

You mention conservation, and I'm pro-conservation. But that's not anti-evolution. Conservationists seek to prevent artificial eradication of species. They do not seek to stop evolution. They create conditions in which ecosystems persist.

In this scenario, it would be as if in the jungle, a new color of green parrot were increasingly able to avoid predation and started to eradicate other parrots. That would be normal. But if we learned it was due to human trophy hunting of colored parrots, we might intervene and say "don't take the colored ones or we will only have green ones left". You wouldn't go about trying to kill green parrots.

We do kill invasive species, however, and I think the closest analogy to that is when native peoples such as the Navaho, or the French, ban English. English itself is invasive. It's the dandelion of global languages. Hardy, adaptable, and literally everywhere. If language conservationists truly care about human language, they will not be worried about prepositions at the end of a sentence. They will be worried about Hollywood dropping English spores in the remote mountains of Kyrghyzstan.

[mamamoose]

Classically speaking, it’s just flat out wrong. I don’t know why we would spend so much time teaching classically and then skip this or overlook it. 

[Tanaqui]

Quote

Classically speaking, it’s just flat out wrong. I don’t know why we would spend so much time teaching classically and then skip this or overlook it. 

 

Classically speaking, it's just a made up zombie rule up with which we should not put. And, like so many of those silly shambling shibboleths, it's of much more recent provenance than you imagine... and has been widely rejected by experts for a lot longer than you imagine too. Surely teaching classically means employing critical thought and considering evidence rather than regurgitating received wisdom? Otherwise we might as well toss up gems like "dinosaurs with feathers are just flat out wrong" or "the idea that Columbus didn't prove the earth was round - and that everybody already knew that already - is just flat out wrong".

But then, most of what people pass off as "grammar instruction" is bunk.

Quote

So I suppose I see two different lenses through which this change can be observed - one as a scientific observer and one as a conservationist. Are there not efforts around the world to save the diversity of language at risk of “extinction”? Would the neutral-observer linguist see this “extinction” as a natural, utilitarian process?  

 

Are you somehow suggesting that supporting minority and stigmatized dialects is akin to supporting language death?

I love diversity of language. That's exactly why I don't love attempts to denigrate nonstandard dialects.

[Tsuga]

1 hour ago, Tanaqui said:

 

I love diversity of language. That's exactly why I don't love attempts to denigrate nonstandard dialects.

 

On the plus side, life finds a way. Language is a biological artifact and it will persist and continue to evolve. It doesn't matter how much one thrashes on about it. Even French changes. And the have an official committee.

[Paige]

4 hours ago, Targhee said:

 

So I suppose I see two different lenses through which this change can be observed - one as a scientific observer and one as a conservationist. Are there not efforts around the world to save the diversity of language at risk of “extinction”? Would the neutral-observer linguist see this “extinction” as a natural, utilitarian process? 

I do not care much about evolution in grammar as long as clarity is retained. I mourn the loss of an entire language, however, because I see it as a loss of ideas, experience, and perspective. I believe there are things which can be expressed in one language that may have no comparable idea in another language. I think when we learn a new language, we may begin to have thoughts that may not have been possible without that language and that which we never knew we didn't know. When a language dies, the collective wisdom of centuries is lost and who knows how long it will be before anyone else stumbles upon that wisdom and those thoughts?

 

[Ausmumof3]

17 hours ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

Some people want consensus and rules, but only those that happen to match their own personal convictions.  Such is human nature.

If I remember correctly, "no dangling prepositions" is a hold over from classically educated English teachers in the 1800s who were prone to insist that because you can't dangle a preposition in Latin, you can't in English either.  I don't think the rules of Latin should be applied to English just because they're Latin rules.  English has so many different influences (Norman French, Old English NW European, Latin, Greek, and a sprinkling of others) it's irrational to insist on the rules of one to the exclusion of others.  It just has to develop its own standard usage. As much as traditionalists hate to hear it, language does evolve over time-sometimes quickly.  The English you speak today is dramatically different than earlier forms of English.  Some people just struggle with change in general. 

No, I don't think it's categorically wrong.  Sometimes it's redundant like the above example of, "Where are you at?" It flows poorly and are covers location without adding at, but let's face it, this is standard in parts of the Midwest, parts of The South, and probably other places too. These days we prefer more succinct sentences and shorter paragraphs.  Read any C. S. Lewis lately?  Some of his books have paragraphs and are a whole page long and cover more than one general thought, so by today's standards it would be broken up into shorter paragraphs, but in his day it was perfectly acceptable.

American English is quite young and noticeably different from British English.  Maybe those who speak it think Americans are anti-intellectual because of the changes we've made. Imagine what someone from the 1600s in upper society England would think.

Interestingly, here, if you asked "where are you?" you'd be asking about location but if you asked "where are you at?" you would be enquiring about what part of the day's plans you were fulfilling.  It might mean location but would also be more leaning toward - are you ready to go out to whatever we are doing next, how long when or where?  It's a question with bigger scope than just "where are you?"

[Bluegoat]

13 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

 

This idea that the prestige dialect used by educated people in formal settings is more "elegant" is profoundly classist, and you've got the causation backwards. We think it's elegant because we admire the people who speak that way. When we say other people are not speaking as elegantly or beautifully, that's because we don't think as much of them.

 

All dialects of all languages follow rules. The person who says "Where you at?" is not just randomly tossing words together. They will never say "At where you?" or "Where where at at?" or "Where you in?" or any of the infinite possibilities that are ungrammatical in that dialect. The implicit claim that non-standard speech doesn't follow rules is both classist and erroneous.

 

You can be elegant in your language use in a dialect form as well.  But you can't be elegant, or really anything else either, if you don't accept a form at all - elegance, poetry, clarity, all happen within the context of a form.  Standard English, just like many other languages and dialects, has forms that are appropriate to all kinds of settings and uses, and claiming that they are all the same diminishes that variety. 

In written output in most settings, most people are going to choose the standard form, which is why I expect people answering a question like this are assuming that is what the OP is talking about.  If she wanted to know what would be the case in Scots English, presumably she'd say so, though I don't know how many useful answers she'd get.

I really have a hard time believing people wouldn't see the difference between content with the same meaning, written in internet post form, academic essay form, or poetic form.  

[Bluegoat]

4 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Interestingly, here, if you asked "where are you?" you'd be asking about location but if you asked "where are you at?" you would be enquiring about what part of the day's plans you were fulfilling.  It might mean location but would also be more leaning toward - are you ready to go out to whatever we are doing next, how long when or where?  It's a question with bigger scope than just "where are you?"

 

It's similar here, though "What are you at?" means "How are you."

[PeachyDoodle]

I'm hyper-sensitive to them ever since my 7th grade English teacher called me out in front of the whole class for using one (in a private conversation with another student, not even as part of class).

But really I don't think they're that big of a deal. I try to avoid them in formal writing, but sometimes, honestly, they actually make the sentence easier to understand.

[Tanaqui]

Bluegoat, you are conflating dialect and register in a way that's difficult to comprehend.

[Bluegoat]

15 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

Bluegoat, you are conflating dialect and register in a way that's difficult to comprehend.

 

That's rather what I thought about what you said.