ANSWER: "Is it okay to end a sentence with a preposition?"
Happy first day of June, fandom grammar watchers! We're going to kick off this month by tackling one of the most commonly asked questions about English grammatical rules:
“Is it okay to end a sentence with a preposition?”
To understand this answer, you'll first need to understand the importance of English sentence structure. All complete English sentences include two grammatical elements: a noun (either a subject or an object) and a verb. The sentence informs readers of one of two things: 1) what the subject is doing or being or 2) what is being done to an object. The addition of other elements-prepositions, adjectives, adverbs, etc.-further describes that one basic thought, giving it more meat and making it more interesting. Some examples using the characters of Resident Evil:
A complete sentence: “Helena reloaded.”
A complete sentence with additional elements: “Helena reloaded the shotgun.”
A complete sentence with more additional elements: “Helena reloaded the shotgun with burst rounds.”
A complete sentence: “Shots were fired.”
A complete sentence with additional elements: “Shots were fired as Leon ducked.”
A complete sentence with more additional elements: “Shots were fired as Leon ducked behind a nearby table.”
If you'll notice, another “complete sentence” appears within the more meaty sentences in the second example: “Leon ducked.” All complete sentences that appear above-“Helena reloaded” (which can include “the shotgun”), “Shots were fired,” and “Leon ducked”-are clauses. More specifically, they are main clauses, which means that they can stand alone without any additional elements and their meanings will be unarguably clear. The other two clauses that appear in these sentences, “with burst rounds” and “behind a nearby table,” are subordinate clauses, which means that they cannot stand alone and depend upon being linked to a main clause for their meanings to be unarguably clear.
Subordinate clauses are divided into two categories: conditional and relative. It is the relative clauses where writers typically run into trouble with prepositions. In this type of clause, two main clauses are joined via a word that replaces a subject or object, such as “that,” “which,” “whom,” or “who,” and this clause becomes relative to whatever noun to which the replacement word refers:
Two main clauses: “Ashley picked up the goat insignia. It fit into the puzzle in the main lobby.”
A main clause with a relative clause: “Ashley picked up the goat insignia that fit into the puzzle in the main lobby.”
Two main clauses: “Sherry climbed into the air duct. It was just big enough for her.”
A main clause with a relative clause: “Sherry climbed into the air duct, which was just big enough for her.”
Two main clauses: “In an attempt to shoot Ada, Annette accidentally shot Leon. He'd jumped in front of Ada to shield her from the bullet.”
A main clause with a relative clause: “In an attempt to shoot Ada, Annette accidentally shot Leon, who'd jumped in front of Ada to shield her from the bullet.”
Two main clauses: “Alex is the thirteenth Wesker child. Ozwell Spencer's servant Patrick referred to her in his report.”
A main clause with a relative clause: "Alex is the thirteenth Wesker child to whom Ozwell Spencer's servant Patrick referred in his report."
As shown in the last example, certain elements of a sentence-namely an object replacement's accompanying preposition-sometimes move around to accommodate the transformation of a main clause into a relative one. To leave the preposition in its original place is to “strand” it; thus, the term for doing so is called “preposition-stranding,” and many an English language purist has rued it since the rule against it became the accepted English grammatical standard. According to The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, this rule originated from essayist John Dryden, who slammed the line “The bodies, that those soules were frighted from” in Ben Jonson's 1616 work Catiline his conspiracy: A Tragoedie. The scene describes the slaughter that took place at the end of the Roman Civil War:
“The rugged Charon fainted,
And ask'd a nauy, rather then a boate,
To ferry ouer the sad world that came:
The mawes, and dens of beasts could not receiue
The bodies, that those soules were frighted from;
And e'en the graues were fild with men, yet liuing,
Whose flight, and feare had mix'd them, with the dead.”
Said Dryden concerning his distaste with this line: “The Preposition in the end of the sentence; a common fault with him [Jonson], and which I have but lately observ'd in my own writings.”
Thus far, there is no known work in which the essayist has explained the reason for his distaste for placing a preposition at the end of a sentence (even though he notes that he himself does it). Regardless, many grammarians expressed a similar distaste for the style choice and condemned it, stating that it is less “graceful” and “perspicuous” and thus not suited for instances in which formal English is required. Counted among those grammarians were Robert Lowth, an Anglican bishop, and Henry Alford, a Canterbury Cathedral dean, both of whom supported the shelving of placing prepositions at the end of sentences on the grounds that Latin doesn't allow for such sentence arrangement. Alford's 1864 A Plea for the Queen’s English and, in particular, Lowth's 1762 A Short Introduction to English Grammar wormed their way into school curricula, where whole generations would learn the concept and accept it as the basic grammatical rule “Never end a sentence with a preposition.”
But besides the opinions of Lowth, Alford, and numerous other grammarians, no logic-based reason for the rule exists. Every argument for it (and, likewise, against it) are solely subjective. The truth is, there is no need for the rule. It is not a necessity to clarity of meaning and, in fact, can over-complicate a sentence to the point of losing clarity, as demonstrated by Winston Churchill's rumored reply to a proofreader who edited his sentences to reflect the rule, "This is the sort of English up with which I will not put." Plus, many phrasal verbs include a preposition as its second word (called “prepositional verbs”) that should not be split into two for the purpose of maintaining clarity, such as “to fill out,” “to take off,” and “to stand up”:
Clear: “Rebecca handed in the application form that she'd just filled out.”
Not clear: “Rebecca handed in the application form out which she'd just filled.”
Clear:“Chris ran to the strip from which the plane had just taken off.”
Not clear: “Chris ran to the strip off from which the plane had just taken.”
Clear: "Claire pressed the cut block into the fitted space in the wall, where it stayed up.”
Not clear: “Claire pressed the cut block into the fitted space in the wall, up which it stayed.”
In short: the purpose of all grammatical rules is to express a thought clearly. The rule against using prepositions at the end of sentences, though applicable in certain situations (such as the troublesome line in Jonson's Catiline his conspiracy: A Tragoedie), is not always needed to express a thought clearly. “Alex is the thirteenth Wesker child whom Ozwell Spencer's servant Patrick referred to in his report” is just as clear as “Alex is the thirteenth Wesker child to whom Ozwell Spencer's servant Patrick referred in his report.” In some cases, the rule complicates the sentence more than needed and ends up hindering its clarity instead of helping it.
Therefore, yes, it is absolutely okay to use prepositions at the end of a sentence so long as their placement does not hinder the meaning or clarity of a sentence. The same holds true for not using prepositions at the end of a sentence. Prioritize the prose, not the guidelines.
Sources
Language Log @ the University of Pennsylvania
Oxford Dictionaries
The Smithsonian
Washington State University
“Is it okay to end a sentence with a preposition?”
To understand this answer, you'll first need to understand the importance of English sentence structure. All complete English sentences include two grammatical elements: a noun (either a subject or an object) and a verb. The sentence informs readers of one of two things: 1) what the subject is doing or being or 2) what is being done to an object. The addition of other elements-prepositions, adjectives, adverbs, etc.-further describes that one basic thought, giving it more meat and making it more interesting. Some examples using the characters of Resident Evil:
A complete sentence: “Helena reloaded.”
A complete sentence with additional elements: “Helena reloaded the shotgun.”
A complete sentence with more additional elements: “Helena reloaded the shotgun with burst rounds.”
A complete sentence: “Shots were fired.”
A complete sentence with additional elements: “Shots were fired as Leon ducked.”
A complete sentence with more additional elements: “Shots were fired as Leon ducked behind a nearby table.”
If you'll notice, another “complete sentence” appears within the more meaty sentences in the second example: “Leon ducked.” All complete sentences that appear above-“Helena reloaded” (which can include “the shotgun”), “Shots were fired,” and “Leon ducked”-are clauses. More specifically, they are main clauses, which means that they can stand alone without any additional elements and their meanings will be unarguably clear. The other two clauses that appear in these sentences, “with burst rounds” and “behind a nearby table,” are subordinate clauses, which means that they cannot stand alone and depend upon being linked to a main clause for their meanings to be unarguably clear.
Subordinate clauses are divided into two categories: conditional and relative. It is the relative clauses where writers typically run into trouble with prepositions. In this type of clause, two main clauses are joined via a word that replaces a subject or object, such as “that,” “which,” “whom,” or “who,” and this clause becomes relative to whatever noun to which the replacement word refers:
Two main clauses: “Ashley picked up the goat insignia. It fit into the puzzle in the main lobby.”
A main clause with a relative clause: “Ashley picked up the goat insignia that fit into the puzzle in the main lobby.”
Two main clauses: “Sherry climbed into the air duct. It was just big enough for her.”
A main clause with a relative clause: “Sherry climbed into the air duct, which was just big enough for her.”
Two main clauses: “In an attempt to shoot Ada, Annette accidentally shot Leon. He'd jumped in front of Ada to shield her from the bullet.”
A main clause with a relative clause: “In an attempt to shoot Ada, Annette accidentally shot Leon, who'd jumped in front of Ada to shield her from the bullet.”
Two main clauses: “Alex is the thirteenth Wesker child. Ozwell Spencer's servant Patrick referred to her in his report.”
A main clause with a relative clause: "Alex is the thirteenth Wesker child to whom Ozwell Spencer's servant Patrick referred in his report."
As shown in the last example, certain elements of a sentence-namely an object replacement's accompanying preposition-sometimes move around to accommodate the transformation of a main clause into a relative one. To leave the preposition in its original place is to “strand” it; thus, the term for doing so is called “preposition-stranding,” and many an English language purist has rued it since the rule against it became the accepted English grammatical standard. According to The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, this rule originated from essayist John Dryden, who slammed the line “The bodies, that those soules were frighted from” in Ben Jonson's 1616 work Catiline his conspiracy: A Tragoedie. The scene describes the slaughter that took place at the end of the Roman Civil War:
“The rugged Charon fainted,
And ask'd a nauy, rather then a boate,
To ferry ouer the sad world that came:
The mawes, and dens of beasts could not receiue
The bodies, that those soules were frighted from;
And e'en the graues were fild with men, yet liuing,
Whose flight, and feare had mix'd them, with the dead.”
Said Dryden concerning his distaste with this line: “The Preposition in the end of the sentence; a common fault with him [Jonson], and which I have but lately observ'd in my own writings.”
Thus far, there is no known work in which the essayist has explained the reason for his distaste for placing a preposition at the end of a sentence (even though he notes that he himself does it). Regardless, many grammarians expressed a similar distaste for the style choice and condemned it, stating that it is less “graceful” and “perspicuous” and thus not suited for instances in which formal English is required. Counted among those grammarians were Robert Lowth, an Anglican bishop, and Henry Alford, a Canterbury Cathedral dean, both of whom supported the shelving of placing prepositions at the end of sentences on the grounds that Latin doesn't allow for such sentence arrangement. Alford's 1864 A Plea for the Queen’s English and, in particular, Lowth's 1762 A Short Introduction to English Grammar wormed their way into school curricula, where whole generations would learn the concept and accept it as the basic grammatical rule “Never end a sentence with a preposition.”
But besides the opinions of Lowth, Alford, and numerous other grammarians, no logic-based reason for the rule exists. Every argument for it (and, likewise, against it) are solely subjective. The truth is, there is no need for the rule. It is not a necessity to clarity of meaning and, in fact, can over-complicate a sentence to the point of losing clarity, as demonstrated by Winston Churchill's rumored reply to a proofreader who edited his sentences to reflect the rule, "This is the sort of English up with which I will not put." Plus, many phrasal verbs include a preposition as its second word (called “prepositional verbs”) that should not be split into two for the purpose of maintaining clarity, such as “to fill out,” “to take off,” and “to stand up”:
Clear: “Rebecca handed in the application form that she'd just filled out.”
Not clear: “Rebecca handed in the application form out which she'd just filled.”
Clear:“Chris ran to the strip from which the plane had just taken off.”
Not clear: “Chris ran to the strip off from which the plane had just taken.”
Clear: "Claire pressed the cut block into the fitted space in the wall, where it stayed up.”
Not clear: “Claire pressed the cut block into the fitted space in the wall, up which it stayed.”
In short: the purpose of all grammatical rules is to express a thought clearly. The rule against using prepositions at the end of sentences, though applicable in certain situations (such as the troublesome line in Jonson's Catiline his conspiracy: A Tragoedie), is not always needed to express a thought clearly. “Alex is the thirteenth Wesker child whom Ozwell Spencer's servant Patrick referred to in his report” is just as clear as “Alex is the thirteenth Wesker child to whom Ozwell Spencer's servant Patrick referred in his report.” In some cases, the rule complicates the sentence more than needed and ends up hindering its clarity instead of helping it.
Therefore, yes, it is absolutely okay to use prepositions at the end of a sentence so long as their placement does not hinder the meaning or clarity of a sentence. The same holds true for not using prepositions at the end of a sentence. Prioritize the prose, not the guidelines.
Sources
Language Log @ the University of Pennsylvania
Oxford Dictionaries
The Smithsonian
Washington State University