English grammar: Prepositions at the end of a sentence and other issues

[Luna Azul]

We've all heard that we shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition. That may be the rule, I don't know, but I think it's silly. Everybody does it and it sounds perfectly correct:

Where are you from?

I'd like to see people's faces if I said "From where are you?" (is that the way it's supposed to be?)

Anyway, that's not my question. More and more frequently I've been hearing people using prepositions that, in my opinion, are not needed in the sentence, therefore they must be wrong. The most commonly used:

"Where were you at?"

Why "at"?. "Where" doesn't use a preposition :thinking:. Today I heard on TV --and this is what made me ask the question here-- "where did I put my pepper at?" (Food Channel, of course).

I'm sure this is wrong but I want your opinion. It worries me that this mistake is become so spread, like when I hear young people say "I have came" or "he had tooken".
A few days ago I heard a 20 yr old guy say "We had boughten". I don't even know how to spell that, he meant to say "we had bought".

I know languages are alive and they change, but this is ridiculous, it's not the way it's supposed to be. Someone is murdering the English language:(.

Now I'm angry. I apologize.. I'm ill.

Any comments??

[wrholt]

Everything that you're reporting has been around for a long time in non-standard regional varieties of English, and they have been the bane of public school English teachers everywhere for generations, along with "ain't", double negatives, and any number of other non-standard features.

[chileno]

Sorry. I ain't got no comment.

:rolleyes:

[Rusty]

English sentences can end in a preposition. There is no grammar rule against this. :)

The other substandard usages you mentioned are heard everywhere in epidemic proportions. I'm with you. :mad::mad:

Reversing the past tense and past participle (or inventing a new participle) is a practice I just can't stand. :banghead:

[Caballero]

There is no grammar rule against this.There is. But nobody follows it.
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/churchill.html

If you want your writing/speaking to sound very more formal, you can follow this rule. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.

[Rusty]

Check out the following links. link1 (http://grammartips.homestead.com/prepositions1.html) link2 (http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/ending-prepositions.aspx) link3 (http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/1026513/8910.htm)

It's perfectly fine to end a sentence with a preposition. Churchill was making fun of the nonexistent rule when he rearranged a sentence beyond comprehension.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree that there are times when rearranging a sentence so that it doesn't end in a preposition will make you sound more formal and help you get recognized as someone who has a good command of English.

[Luna Azul]

Everything that you're reporting has been around for a long time in non-standard regional varieties of English, and they have been the bane of public school English teachers everywhere for generations, along with "ain't", double negatives, and any number of other non-standard features.

It may be, but remember I haven't spoken English "for generations". I'm still learning the language, so my question is valid.. Or at least I think so.. :)

As a language 'worshipper' I can't stand it when people murder any language like that.. :(

Ok, I get it. The rule never existed. However, prepositions are used for a purpose. So, what about this specific sentence: "where are you at?". I still can't see the reason for that preposition there. Shouldn't it be just "where are you?

No one would ever say "At where are you?", right?

Thanks for your replies..:)

@ Rusty. Thanks a lot for the links :p. I liked the part that talks about "unnecessary prepositions". That's exactly what I'm talking about even though the examples are different. I had also wondered about "off of" before. Now I know.

[Rusty]

One of the links I posted tells you that the preposition 'at', used in conjunction with 'where', is superfluous. It shouldn't be said.

[Luna Azul]

One of the links I posted tells you that the preposition 'at', used in conjunction with 'where', is superfluous. It shouldn't be said.

I'm glad I was right. Thank you very much, Rusty:p:love:

[Rusty]

You are very welcome. :rose:

[SPX]

So, what about this specific sentence: "where are you at?". I still can't see the reason for that preposition there. Shouldn't it be just "where are you?

No one would ever say "At where are you?", right?

Thanks for your replies..:)



My 2 cents. . . (And this comes from a journalism major who makes a side income writing for about 60,000 people a month. . .)

While it may or may not be technically correct (perhaps there is, or at least was, a rule somewhere) I think that this phrase is so ingrained into common usage that it's nothing to get worked up over. Furthermore, it actually does make a degree of sense.

If someone asks you, "Where were you?" then you respond, "I was AT the store" or "AT the beach" or "AT the movies."

"At" then becomes, at least subconsiously, a designation of location, referring to, well, where a person was at.

"Where were you AT?"
"I was AT the store."

I dunno. I say it all the time so I don't have a problem with it. If I was a student trying to learn English I'd get a lot more upset about homophones and non-sensical idiomatic expressions that are incomprehensible if no one explains the meaning to you.

[Caballero]

It sounds very slangy and informal. I don't hear it very often. Here most people say simply "Where are you?"

As for *"At where are you?" it is never said.

So the best option is to use "Where are you?" as it sounds the most educated, and is acceptable to everyone. "Where are you at?" is acceptable to some people, but not all.