More on Prepositions
Jan. 28th, 2006 03:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alixtiiThis post over at Language Log has a few comments which address my relatively recent befuddlement over sentences of the form "Who was whispered to?"
Firstly, a confession (or a reconfession, if you read the original post): in cases where it is grammatically possible for an object to be placed next to its preposition (Mark Lieberman calls these cases "fronted prepositions"), I prefer to do so. "To whom are you speaking?" is better than "Who are you speaking to?" Admittedly, part of this desire is rooted in some type of pretension, but it's also rooted in my parents instilling in me the desire to use "good grammar" even when the grammar they were instilling in me was linguistically confused. In a certain sense, you could say pretension is my native dialect.
Liberman cites a particularly vivid metaphor for the way in which I would "fix" the "wrong" (in the dialect of pretension) stranded prepositions, replacing them with the "correct" (again, in pretension dialect) fronted prepositon:
I have no interest in arguing with Lieberman whether prepositions should or should not be stranded; it's a meaningless discussion. (Should or should not according to whom?) I certainly admit that within a century our language will lack the word "whom," just as currently it lacks "ye" and "thou." (Although I wouldn't mind having those words in the language still, either; it would make our pronoun declension much more systematic.) I just happen to like "whom."
Liberman particularly dislikes the fronted preposition versions of 2 and 3, arguing that "the preposition is closely associated with the verb." I can appreciate this logic, but I still like the sound of "problem with which he lived" better than "problem he lived with" and "comics over which we used to fight" better than "comics we used to fight over."
Which just proves, I suppose, that I was born to be a snotty, elitist, pretentious, pedantic, bourgeoise intellectual. But we already knew that, right?
(Unfortunately, Liberman only briedly addresses the phenomenon with which I was truly interested, those passive prepositionals with which pied-pipering is simply impossible, because the object of the preposition is also the subject of the sentence, by noting: "Note that preposition stranding occurs in other constructions as well, such as passives: 'The region was fought over [ ] by Sweden and Russia for centuries"; and 'hollow clauses': 'The customer service department was difficult to deal with [ ]'.")
Firstly, a confession (or a reconfession, if you read the original post): in cases where it is grammatically possible for an object to be placed next to its preposition (Mark Lieberman calls these cases "fronted prepositions"), I prefer to do so. "To whom are you speaking?" is better than "Who are you speaking to?" Admittedly, part of this desire is rooted in some type of pretension, but it's also rooted in my parents instilling in me the desire to use "good grammar" even when the grammar they were instilling in me was linguistically confused. In a certain sense, you could say pretension is my native dialect.
Liberman cites a particularly vivid metaphor for the way in which I would "fix" the "wrong" (in the dialect of pretension) stranded prepositions, replacing them with the "correct" (again, in pretension dialect) fronted prepositon:
Haj Ross named this process "pied piping", conjuring an image of the wh-word luring the preposition out of its original position, just as the Pied Piper lured the rats and children out of Hamelin.He goes on to scourge those like me who dislike the usage, noting (I am sure correctly) that "it has been used by well-respected writers for centuries." He gives the following examples of sentences with stranded prepositions and with fronted prepositions. In any pair, he prefers the former the sentence; I prefer the latter. (Note that in 2 and 3, "that" and "which" respectively could and probably would be dropped.)
1. I am grateful to the women I have spoken to since the operation. versus I am grateful to the women to whom I have spoken since the operation.Note that in all the former examples Liberman thinks the latter usages (which I prefer) are "awkard [sic] and pretentious-sounding"; I think the former usages whose virtues he extolls to sound plebian. Every time Willow says "who" instead of "whom" (and she does it a lot!) on Buffy I can't help but think "Miss Rosenberg, you should know better!" Of course, I should know better as well and I can't keep myself from using stranded prepositions commonly in regular speech, and my children will no doubt pick up on my usage and use stranded prepositions as well. The fact that I lose sleep over this, wracked by inordinate amounts of guilt, is proof of something (although I'm not sure what).
2. Her father had a similar problem that he simply lived with. versus Her father had a similar problem with which he simply lived.
3. My great-grandfather was a collector of comics and baseball cards, which we used to fight over. versus My great-grandfather was a collector of comics and baseball cards, over which we used to fight.
4. Where does bacon come from? versus From where does bacon come? [This is one of the places, aswisdomeagle pointed out, where we get to use "whence." Liberman might point to our use of "whence" as especially pretentious, which it probably is, but I side with Ari: using "whence" is fun and I'll take any chance I can get.]
5. Which analysts is he talking about? versus About which analysts is he talking?
I have no interest in arguing with Lieberman whether prepositions should or should not be stranded; it's a meaningless discussion. (Should or should not according to whom?) I certainly admit that within a century our language will lack the word "whom," just as currently it lacks "ye" and "thou." (Although I wouldn't mind having those words in the language still, either; it would make our pronoun declension much more systematic.) I just happen to like "whom."
Liberman particularly dislikes the fronted preposition versions of 2 and 3, arguing that "the preposition is closely associated with the verb." I can appreciate this logic, but I still like the sound of "problem with which he lived" better than "problem he lived with" and "comics over which we used to fight" better than "comics we used to fight over."
Which just proves, I suppose, that I was born to be a snotty, elitist, pretentious, pedantic, bourgeoise intellectual. But we already knew that, right?
(Unfortunately, Liberman only briedly addresses the phenomenon with which I was truly interested, those passive prepositionals with which pied-pipering is simply impossible, because the object of the preposition is also the subject of the sentence, by noting: "Note that preposition stranding occurs in other constructions as well, such as passives: 'The region was fought over [ ] by Sweden and Russia for centuries"; and 'hollow clauses': 'The customer service department was difficult to deal with [ ]'.")
