You CAN End a Sentence With A Preposition...

...As long as it makes no sense if you remove it.

For example, take "Who are you going with?"

Obviously, if you remove the 'with', it doesn't make any sense.

"Who are you going?" (?)


Yes, one can rearrange the word order to create "With whom are you going?" or something to that effect, but there is NO OFFICIAL GRAMMATICAL RULE THAT STATES THE FIRST ONE IS INCORRECT. This seems to be one of those situations where a falsity is being perpetrated because people like to correct others on it. I am sick of hearing people say you can't end a sentence with a preposition... it's simple not true 100% of the time.

BUT

You should end with a preposition if you are able to remove it without changing the meaning.

For example: "Where are you going to?" should be more correctly put "Where are you going?" or "To where are you going?"


Just wanted to clear this up.

Third to last sentence should be YOU SHOULD NOT END - not - YOU SHOULD END.

My mistake.

Are you coming with?
Kommst du mit?

>> You CAN End a Sentence With A Preposition.. <<

You can begin a sentence with "Aint" if you want too. You can also use double or even triple negatives. That'll show those stupid prescriprivists who's boss! Why bother to follow rules up that prescriptivists have made. As long as you can find just *one* native speaker that has said something a certain way, then you know that it's correct. It doesn't matter if that person speaks African-American Vernacular English or Scots, or was drunk when he said it--it's still correct. Even better if you can prove that Shakespeare or Jesus said something a certain way. They can never be wrong! They speak the Queen's English after all.

" NO OFFICIAL GRAMMATICAL RULE"

There’s no ‘official’ grammar of English. There are just authoritative grammars like Oxford etc.

<<For example: "Where are you going to?" should be more correctly put "Where are you going?" or "To where are you going?" >>

It is correct even if it can be removed without radical change to the meaning.

I have not the slightest problem with "Where are you going to?" For sake were it rearranged as "To where are you going?" you wouldn't require dropping of the preposition "to" as "Where are you going?", although you could...

You want to clear this what?

I think those who insist that it's incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition have no idea how incongruent their beliefs are with the reality of the language and are just spewing this supposed maxim because they think it's a formalism. The "ain't" example doesn't really hold, as there are many English dialects that do not natively use it (mine is one of them). And there is no need for it to be a part of the language. It just developed as a different form. However, there is simply no such thing as an English dialect that does not, at times, put prepositions at the ends of sentences. It's pretty much an intrinsic property of the English language; and because of that, no application of prescriptive rules could change it.

There are many simple sentences that end with prepositions, especially interrogative ones, like, "What are you talking about?" or "Whom are you talking to?" But there are many others, such as this one in a document I received yesterday: "Your ____ is listed below." You can also say things like, "How does ____ taste?" But a slightly different (and more popular) version of the question can also be asked, this one using "like" as a preposition at the end of a sentence: "What does ____ taste like?" Suggesting that any one of these examples I've given is incorrect or substandard English is downright preposterous.

Very good points. Thank you aesthete.

To me, both "To where are you going?" and "Where are you going to?" seem wrong.

<<To me, both "To where are you going?" and "Where are you going to?" seem wrong. >>

I am a native English speaker and I assure you they are not.

Nor are "Whereto are you going?" and "Where to are you going?", they are all grammatically correct.

<<Yes, one can rearrange the word order to create "With whom are you going?">>


Do you native English speakers think this sentence sounds natural really? Isn't "Who are you going with?" more Anglosaxon in some way, more native?

<<I am a native English speaker and I assure you they are not.>>

Well, I have to disagree.

Clearly, "to where" is correct. However, what do you think of sentences like "Where is he at?" Is such a sentence correct?

<<Do you native English speakers think this sentence sounds natural really? Isn't "Who are you going with?" more Anglosaxon in some way, more native? >>

"Who are you going with?" is more casual and more usual, but where do you get "more Anglosaxon" from??? All variations are equally Anglo-Saxon, if that even needs to be brought up :?

"With whom are you going?" sounds more old-fangled, more antiquated, archaic maybe, but it is equally correct. There is nothing un-grammatical about that sentence.

<<To me, both "To where are you going?" and "Where are you going to?" seem wrong. >>

Just because something *seems* wrong does not make it wrong. Take for instnce usage errors--they are wrong but they are not necessarily grammatically incorrect. The above two sentences could never be correctly marked wrong by any English teacher. If you find one who does, please tell me and I will rip him/her a new one ;) Woooff