A preposition is a horrible thing to end a sentence with
If I use my old computer to prop open my door (which is about all the good it is), then doesn't that make it a doorstop?
Well, so consider this sentence: "Engineering is a bad field to go into." It ends in a preposition. Which is bad, I am told. I'm not supposed to do that. It's grammatically incorrect. A preposition is supposed to start a phrase which modifies some other part of speech.
Except for this: if I were to examine that sentence without regard to what is or isn't supposed to happen, I would come to the conclusion that "into" is used as an adverb there. It seems to be modifying the verb "go."
Well, it occurs to me that the argument against this, to wit, "'into' is not an adverb, so you can't use it as an adverb," is fairly silly. If I use "into" as an adverb, then as a matter of practicality, it is an adverb. If it's also used as a preposition elsewhere, then that seems irrelevant to its use here as an adverb.
I'd say, then, that to claim "The language is now used this way, and so to use it some other way is incorrect, and you shouldn't do that" represents a certain inflexibility of thinking. And a denial of practical reality. The underlying assumption there is that language is some monolithic thing which cannot and should not ever change, whereas the fact of the matter is that language does change, continuously. Words do not keep their same meanings and uses forever, but over time acquire new ones. (I am looking squarely at you, you people who argue that "marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, so gays aren't qualified, so they can't get married.")
Yeah, I may be reconsidering that whole grammar-Nazi thing.
Well, so consider this sentence: "Engineering is a bad field to go into." It ends in a preposition. Which is bad, I am told. I'm not supposed to do that. It's grammatically incorrect. A preposition is supposed to start a phrase which modifies some other part of speech.
Except for this: if I were to examine that sentence without regard to what is or isn't supposed to happen, I would come to the conclusion that "into" is used as an adverb there. It seems to be modifying the verb "go."
Well, it occurs to me that the argument against this, to wit, "'into' is not an adverb, so you can't use it as an adverb," is fairly silly. If I use "into" as an adverb, then as a matter of practicality, it is an adverb. If it's also used as a preposition elsewhere, then that seems irrelevant to its use here as an adverb.
I'd say, then, that to claim "The language is now used this way, and so to use it some other way is incorrect, and you shouldn't do that" represents a certain inflexibility of thinking. And a denial of practical reality. The underlying assumption there is that language is some monolithic thing which cannot and should not ever change, whereas the fact of the matter is that language does change, continuously. Words do not keep their same meanings and uses forever, but over time acquire new ones. (I am looking squarely at you, you people who argue that "marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, so gays aren't qualified, so they can't get married.")
Yeah, I may be reconsidering that whole grammar-Nazi thing.
posted by Craig at 9:14 AM
4 Comments:
*snort*
While I appreciate the need for flexibility in language, effective communication also depends on a certain amount of rigidity. Sometimes the structure of a sentence is as important as its content. Now, putting, that point aside, wouldn't it be easier (and shorter) to say, "Ending a sentence with a preposition is horrible?"
While I'm not going to outright disqualify you for it, I'm going to have to call "inappropriate metaphor" on this one.
Whether or not you use your particular computer as a doorstop has no impact on anyone else, and doesn't change anyone else's computer, or their understanding of what is generally meant by either the word "computer" or the word "doorstop."
On the other hand, random fiddlings with grammar do have an impact on the overall medium of communication.
Addressing Melancholypoet's comment: I agree that it's valid to criticize language for its communicative ability, or easiness, or shortness, or longness, or what-have-you.
I suppose my argument here is, criticizing it for not being technically correct seems to miss the point of language somewhat. That point being effective communication. So, did my technically-incorrect usage convey my meaning?
And what about the subtext? Isn't the subtext of my usage a little different from that of the usage Melancholypoet suggested?
As for Pete's comment: point taken about the metaphor. Yes, my (mis-)use of the language does affect the medium as a whole.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? So, maybe the argument should be over whether the effect of the (mis-)usage is good or bad.
Post a Comment
<< Home