Grammar Puzzle
Jan. 2nd, 2006 11:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alixtiiOkay, in the passive voice prepositions lose their objects, because they end up referring back to the subject.
to yell at someone --> to be yelled at
to shoot at someone --> to be shot at
to whisper to someone --> to be whispered to
to drive by someone --> to be driven by
The only problem is that prepositions have to be followed by their prepositions in English--that'sfrom where whence the rule that you don't end a clause with a preposition comes. (Caught myself just in time there. ETA: Thanks, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
wisdomeagle.) But how do you rewrite "I was yelled at" without ending the clause with a preposition? "I am the person at whom one yelled"? That's converting the sentence back into the active voice, which is not only cheating but also necessitates the clunky "one."
So are these uses of prepositions in the passive voice merely idiomatic usages, and thus exempt from the rule? Or is it simply wrong to use prepositions in the passive voice?
And don't say "the preposition at the end of the clause rule isn't really a rule anymore," because then you'd be precisely the type of people who are murdering the who/whom distinction. Say "to boldly go" all you want, and I won't care, but prepositions are sacred.
Although I do wonder if the preposition-at-the-end-of-a-clause rule comes from the same place as the now-defunct (says I) split infinitive rule: Latin. Just as infinitives in Latin are all one word (as they are in French), do prepositions in Latin have to be followed by their objects? Without positional grammar (as English has), it might be the only way to know which preposition goes with which object, but that would assume a lot of nouns declined in the ablative or the--well, the other preposition declension (my Latin is rusty)--scattered willy-nilly all over the sentence, and how likely is that?
Now I end clauses in prepositions all the time, because the American education system sucks. But that doesn't make it right.
ETA: Now, don't get me wrong. I know that plenty of respected grammarians already say its fine to end a clause with a preposition, and I fully expect "whom" to have disappeared from the language within the next century. Language changes, and it's not possible to create normative laws of grammar. But still!
ETA2: And, obviously, if I have to choose between a clumsy, clunky sentence which is twisted around itself in order to confirm to some rule, and graceful sentence with a preposition at the end, I'm going to go with the latter without all that much thought. It just annoys me that I don't have an option of a sentence which is both graceful and unequivocably correct.
ETA3: Here, here and here are a couple of links which sum up my position pretty well. I think it's a pretty common sensical one, and one that most of you would embrace.
ETA4: Strictly speaking, this type of construction isn't responsible for the murder of "whom," as that always involves a confusion between the subject and object pronominal forms, and in the types of constructions I'm interested in the object of the preposition drops out altogether, becoming the subject.
It's still a good idea to keep the preposition and its object together whenever there is an object, however, and that should be enough to keep "whom" alive. It's much more natural to use "whom" in "To ___ did you whisper" than in "___ did you whisper to?" By this rule, though, it's still perfectly acceptable to keep the preposition at the end, precisely because there's no object to which it needs to be attached.
The problem case in all this is passive interrogatives: is it "Who was shot at?" or "Whom was shot at?" Is it "Who was whispered to?" or "Whom was whispered to?"
ETA5: Actually, now that I think about, these structures aren't in the passive voice at all! The passive voice consists of changing a sentence so that the direct object becomes the subject and that the former subject, if it is retained at all, becomes an object of the preposition "by" ("I was shot by my teacher"). But in these constructions, it's not the direct object which is becoming the subject--it's an object of a preposition! Is it even grammatically possible to do this? Or, more sensibly, given the fact that we use these constructions (idiomatically?) all the time: is it appropriate to use these quasi-passive prepositional constructions in formal writing?
Or perhaps constructions like "shot at" are idiomatic constructions which collectively function as a single verb, in which case the "me" in "shot at me" would be a sort of direct object. In which case of course the "at" would be at the end of the clause in a passive construction: it's part of the verb.
This seems right to me, but I still don't know whether it should be "Who was yelled at?" or "Whom was yelled at?"
ETA6: Asazdak points out, it has to be "Who was whispered to?" One would never say "Him was whispered to (by someone)."
Which implies (to me) that the passive-preposition construction parallels the passive voice, and "whispered to" functions collectively as a single idiomatic verb, taking a direct object and not an object of a preposition at all. As such, it wouldn't follow the usual rules for objects of prepositions (i.e. they should be kept "next"--with adjectives and whatnot intervening as per usual--to their prepositions, which they should).
to yell at someone --> to be yelled at
to shoot at someone --> to be shot at
to whisper to someone --> to be whispered to
to drive by someone --> to be driven by
The only problem is that prepositions have to be followed by their prepositions in English--that's
wisdomeagle.) But how do you rewrite "I was yelled at" without ending the clause with a preposition? "I am the person at whom one yelled"? That's converting the sentence back into the active voice, which is not only cheating but also necessitates the clunky "one."So are these uses of prepositions in the passive voice merely idiomatic usages, and thus exempt from the rule? Or is it simply wrong to use prepositions in the passive voice?
And don't say "the preposition at the end of the clause rule isn't really a rule anymore," because then you'd be precisely the type of people who are murdering the who/whom distinction. Say "to boldly go" all you want, and I won't care, but prepositions are sacred.
Although I do wonder if the preposition-at-the-end-of-a-clause rule comes from the same place as the now-defunct (says I) split infinitive rule: Latin. Just as infinitives in Latin are all one word (as they are in French), do prepositions in Latin have to be followed by their objects? Without positional grammar (as English has), it might be the only way to know which preposition goes with which object, but that would assume a lot of nouns declined in the ablative or the--well, the other preposition declension (my Latin is rusty)--scattered willy-nilly all over the sentence, and how likely is that?
Now I end clauses in prepositions all the time, because the American education system sucks. But that doesn't make it right.
ETA: Now, don't get me wrong. I know that plenty of respected grammarians already say its fine to end a clause with a preposition, and I fully expect "whom" to have disappeared from the language within the next century. Language changes, and it's not possible to create normative laws of grammar. But still!
ETA2: And, obviously, if I have to choose between a clumsy, clunky sentence which is twisted around itself in order to confirm to some rule, and graceful sentence with a preposition at the end, I'm going to go with the latter without all that much thought. It just annoys me that I don't have an option of a sentence which is both graceful and unequivocably correct.
ETA3: Here, here and here are a couple of links which sum up my position pretty well. I think it's a pretty common sensical one, and one that most of you would embrace.
ETA4: Strictly speaking, this type of construction isn't responsible for the murder of "whom," as that always involves a confusion between the subject and object pronominal forms, and in the types of constructions I'm interested in the object of the preposition drops out altogether, becoming the subject.
It's still a good idea to keep the preposition and its object together whenever there is an object, however, and that should be enough to keep "whom" alive. It's much more natural to use "whom" in "To ___ did you whisper" than in "___ did you whisper to?" By this rule, though, it's still perfectly acceptable to keep the preposition at the end, precisely because there's no object to which it needs to be attached.
The problem case in all this is passive interrogatives: is it "Who was shot at?" or "Whom was shot at?" Is it "Who was whispered to?" or "Whom was whispered to?"
ETA5: Actually, now that I think about, these structures aren't in the passive voice at all! The passive voice consists of changing a sentence so that the direct object becomes the subject and that the former subject, if it is retained at all, becomes an object of the preposition "by" ("I was shot by my teacher"). But in these constructions, it's not the direct object which is becoming the subject--it's an object of a preposition! Is it even grammatically possible to do this? Or, more sensibly, given the fact that we use these constructions (idiomatically?) all the time: is it appropriate to use these quasi-passive prepositional constructions in formal writing?
Or perhaps constructions like "shot at" are idiomatic constructions which collectively function as a single verb, in which case the "me" in "shot at me" would be a sort of direct object. In which case of course the "at" would be at the end of the clause in a passive construction: it's part of the verb.
This seems right to me, but I still don't know whether it should be "Who was yelled at?" or "Whom was yelled at?"
ETA6: As
azdak points out, it has to be "Who was whispered to?" One would never say "Him was whispered to (by someone)."Which implies (to me) that the passive-preposition construction parallels the passive voice, and "whispered to" functions collectively as a single idiomatic verb, taking a direct object and not an object of a preposition at all. As such, it wouldn't follow the usual rules for objects of prepositions (i.e. they should be kept "next"--with adjectives and whatnot intervening as per usual--to their prepositions, which they should).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-02 04:30 pm (UTC)Incidentally, that's from where the rule that you don't end a clause with a preposition comes would read better as that's whence the rule, etc. I mean, it's not every day you get to use "whence." One should take advantage of a situation like that. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-02 04:37 pm (UTC)Exactly! But we're so used to using prepositions willy-nilly that people go their entire lives without using "whence." It's a travesty of the American educational system.
Although wouldn't it still have to be "that's from whence the rule..."?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-02 04:47 pm (UTC)Apparently both whence and from whence are okay in some senses, but in my mind from whence sounds wrong.
Check it.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-02 05:11 pm (UTC)Want to trade minds?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-02 04:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-02 05:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-02 04:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-02 05:10 pm (UTC)Besides, if someone uses the indefinite "they" ("They made mistakes") it won't always have the same effect as the passive voice ("Mistakes were made"). I might not think to ask "Who?" in the latter case, but I certainly would in the former.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-02 06:17 pm (UTC)2) This has the added benefit of not actually being passive, which is an awkward construction in fiction unless you want the speaker to be entirely shrouded, in which case, you need to provide more context to the content, and then something else will alight.
3) Alternatively, "there was yelling directed at me."
I agree that grammar is bound by the intention toward clarity rather that strict rules; however, in the end, the passive voice is unclear by design. If you're going to use it, then the clarity of your work is already compromised.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-02 06:46 pm (UTC)My problem isn't that I don't know how to communicate myself effectively, but as a purely academic question I don't quite understand why it isn't possible to rewrite the sentence so that it is a) still passive and b) doesn't end in a preposition. Or rather, I do understand that in the passive voice the object drops out because it is really the subject. But I'm not sure why we can do that or how it works. Is it purely idiomatic?
This tells me that I don't understand my language as well as I like. It's not about effective communication so much as understanding the nitty details of the grammatical structures which influence my thought.
I don't know if I'd say the passive voice is unclear by design, though. Yes, it disguises agency and shifts emphasis, but if the one using it is doing it consciously (perhaps she or he is a politician), then I'd say it was an aid to effective use of language.
And in any case, it is a linguistic option, and I'd like to have a fuller mastery of how that option works. What sort of things is it grammatically possible to say in the passive voice--regardless of whether I would actually want to say them, which is a separate issue--and how do I say them?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-02 08:51 pm (UTC)Oh, well, in that case: the detail is that there are some compound verbs, where even in the infinitive, the verb contains multiple words, including what in other constructions might be considered prepositions, but which, when contained in the verb form, are not actually prepositions: they are part of the verb. However, to yell and to shoot (and to whisper) don't fit this form. You are right that some verb forms are idiomatic in English (many verb forms are ungrammatically compound in ebonics, for instance), but that doesn't make them correct.
Again, "who was whispered to?" is much better rendered as, "at whom was the whisper directed?" The use of specific directionality in verb form for the sake of clarity, rather than the (ungrammatical) shorthand preposition is perhaps clumsier (although I don't find that true), but both grammatically and contextually correct. "At," as do all prepositions, merely describes locational context for verb or object clauses. Similarly, "at whom did the shooter aim?" works much better than, "who was shot at?" (This is, of course, for the purposes of grammar, as you note: for the purposes of intention, in fiction for instance, colloquialisms are accepted.)
(And what I meant by unclear was the intention to disguise agency: clarity of meaning requires that agency be identified, but the passive intentionally upsets this form.)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-02 08:59 pm (UTC)I think my overall conclusion is that passive-prepositionals should be avoided completely in formal speech and writing, and should be treated as an idiomatic single unit in colloquial speech. The phenomenon exists, and is clearly rule-bound in some way, and it seems that those are the rules with which it is most easy to analyse it.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-02 06:58 pm (UTC)Sort of. In prose, prepositions tend to form a clausal unit with their object, so that the preposition comes first, any other information that is applicable to the phrase comes next (adjectives, adverbs, relative clauses [though this might be the sort of rel. clause with a postponed antecdent and those aren't that common in prep. phrases, I think], etc.) and the object would come last. In poetry, it's nearly a syntactical free for all and the preposition and its object can be separated by any number of other constructions for effect, meter, etc. In which case, the preposition could viably come after the object. Also, Latin has some post-positive prepositions that have to follow their objects.
Er. I'm not sure that was at all helpful. A lot of the codification of English (and other languages) grammar is based on the Latin grammar, but there was always this tension, because not many languages (other than Latin) neatly fit that scheme. Though, Old English had a case system similar to Latin, where the prepositions tended to come before their (dative, usually, I think) objects.
Okay, now I'm just musing on prepositions and the such. Sorry if this was useless!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-02 07:05 pm (UTC)Oh, I'm completely musing. It's just that I was musing with my gf over AIM and realized the subject was a little over my head and thought what the heck? and thew it out to my flist.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-02 07:48 pm (UTC)The fact of the matter is that English does allow a lot of constructions that prescriptive grammars won't accept, precisely because they're prescriptive rather than descriptive - attempting to force the language into a particular (Latinate) corset because they find its natural curves unsightly. As you so rightly point out, "I was yelled at" is the only non-cumbersome way of forming the passive voice, and that's the way English does it. And because it is a passive the correct case for the pronoun in the interrogative is nominative - "Who was yelled at?" "I was yelled at!" (Substitute "Me" for "I" and you immediately see that the nominative is the only correct case here).
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-02 08:05 pm (UTC)Here's the rub: while in other cases using "with which" or "whence" or whatnot may feel cumbersome, I can't even think of a cumbersome way of forming the passive voice. "I was yelled at" is really the only option which is truly passive (or quasi-passive). The only other choice is to just not use the passive voice at all.
But after thinking about it for a couple I now feel I understand better why/how the construction works and why it creates these problems and whatnot, which is what I was searching for in the beginning. Now I understand my language that much better.
And you're absolutely right--it has to be "Who was shot at?" Although it might be the case that the popularity of these passive-prepositional constructions (which at this point I'd probably advise be avoided completely in formal writing) does add a little to the murder of "whom": I can see the difference between "Who was shot at (by you)?", "Who was shot (by you)?", "At whom did you shoot?", and "Whom did you shoot?", but I wouldn't want to have to explain it to an undereducated sixteen year old.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-02 08:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-02 08:23 pm (UTC)