a police van that was used in the past for transporting prisoners in

Forums: English, Grammar, Esl
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In the entry for 'Black Maria':

-a police van that was used in the past for transporting prisoners in

Is IN at the end of the definition optional? Do native speakers casually omit it?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 8 • Views: 1,175 • Replies: 13

No top replies

@WBYeats,

Not optional, but downright wrong, in my opinion.

My old English teacher would spin in his grave if he saw that.

.........for transporting prisoners.

0 Replies

Clauses ending in prepositions are something up with which i will not put!

0 Replies

@WBYeats,

It doesn't bother me. With or without the final "in".

But its inclusion is not necessary for the meaning of the sentence.

0 Replies

So, what's the origin of this prepositional rule, anyway?

Was it an attempt by grammarians to square English grammar with that of Latin, like with the split infinitive rule which is merely a matter of style?

I don't see a sentence like "what time are we going at" to be flawed like "I didn't do nothing!" because, unlike the semantic ambiguity of the double negativity in the second sentence, there is no semantic ambiguity in the first one.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

In fact, early grammars of the English language were written in Latin, and yes, the authors were attempting to shoehorn English into a Latin grammar. Henry VIII had prescribed Lilly's Latin grammar for English schools in the mid 16th century, and although one grammar was written in English, it artempted to show that English grammar was (or should be) based on Latin grammar. Grammars of English were written in Latin for more than a century afterward, with the last English grammar written in Latin being published late in the 17th century.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

My impression from sources I don't now remember is that the "no prepositions at the end of sentences" rule has been, as a rule, overruled by present experts - but that many still abide by it.

My problem with this example is not that in is a preposition, not that it is unnecessary, which it is, but that it leaves me wondering: in where?

1 Reply

Thank you~

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

So, what's the origin of this prepositional rule, anyway?

Was it an attempt by grammarians to square English grammar with that of Latin

I read that it was a silly attempt by John Dryden to make people think that he was a better writer than other writers of his time who did this naturally. Dryden also did it.

It's amazing how people can get wedded to these silly prescriptions.

Quote:

I don't see a sentence like "what time are we going at" to be flawed like "I didn't do nothing!" because, unlike the semantic ambiguity of the double negativity in the second sentence, there is no semantic ambiguity in the first one.

That's not "double negativity", it's negative concord, Infra. Language only exist in a vacuum in grammar books. CONTEXT rules out ambiguity. Had I put, "Yeah right" before this paragraph, it could have been ambiguous.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

In fact, early grammars of the English language were written in Latin, and yes, the authors were attempting to shoehorn English into a Latin grammar.

I don't believe that there was that great an effort to "shoehorn". If that had been/were the case, we would today see a great many more idiotic prescriptions. It's exceedingly difficult to force changes on a language - people just don't cooperate with unnatural rules because their internal grammars doesn't allow it.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Quote:

but that it leaves me wondering: in where?

in the police van, Osso.

It's best that you don't wonder. Your internal grammar knows the rules of English and given that y'all were subjected to a Strunk & White mentality, there's little hope now.

0 Replies

-If there is to be no war, we have to find ways by which war will be avoided.

The awkward form is:

-If there is to be no war, we have to find ways war will be avoided by.

Can I omit BY at the end of this sentence?

2 Replies

@WBYeats,

You can't omit "by."

The better way to write it would be, "If there is to be no war, we have to find ways to avoid war."

0 Replies

@WBYeats,

Quote:

The awkward form is:

-If there is to be no war, we have to find ways war will be avoided by.

Can I omit BY at the end of this sentence?

-If there is to be no war, we have to find ways war [will] can be avoided. by.

0 Replies

a police van that was used in the past for transporting prisoners in

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know