Talk:Preposition stranding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Controversial" stranded preposition in German?[edit]

This is really a worthless section. Not only are the English translations non-idiomatic, but the "stranded prepositions" listed here only look stranded to a native speaker of English looking for an analogous construction in German, when in fact there is none. However, not only can the da- and wo- compounds be separated, the demonstrative particle can be suppressed in colloquial speech. A woman goes to the butcher shop, points to some ham and says, "Ich kriege 300 Gramm von." Janko 10:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Janko

I don't actually know whether that section is worthwhile, since I don't know German, and don't understand for example how her can mean from and yet not be a preposition. That said, the argument that "the English translations [are] non-idiomatic" is a poor one, since it's easily fixed. Indeed, I just fixed it. Also, I don't see what the suppressibility of da has to do with anything. Please explain further? Ruakh 12:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Analogy to help you understand: German "dabei" equals English "whereat"; they're both inseparable in formal language, but in colloquial German (never in Austria and Bavaria, though), you can often see "da ... bei" or even a complete deletion of the "da-" part. —Nightstallion (?) 16:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I already understood that, but I'm afraid I still don't see your point; why does that make the section worthless? Ruakh 17:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say it was worthless, especially not so after I've corrected it. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 12:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I didn't pay enough attention to the signatures. I don't understand what problem Janko has with the section; hopefully he'll comment back and explain. Ruakh 13:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No harm done, and so do I. —Nightstallion (?) 12:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me try again then. No native speaker of German could possibly understand these constructions as dangling (or stranded) prepositions. There is no such thing in German unless, as I said, you are a native speaker of English searching for analogies in German. But they aren't there. "2 Kilo von" results from the colloquial suppression of the pronomial element in "davon". Rather than say, "I would like 2 kg. thereof," you hear, "I would like 2 kg. of." At most it's an ellipsis. Since the "controversy" rests on a completely false premise, statements about stranded prepositions in German are also false. I prefer making comments on the talk page rather than randomly editing the text. Janko 14:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Janko
But the article isn't talking about the suppression of the da; it's talking about the separation of the da from the von. Ruakh 15:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, so the "controversy" is whether in this dialect form (Baden, Hessen, I think), only found in a very limited number of cases ("von" is quite common, I've never personally heard "bei", but I don't come from Hessen or Baden and I don't live there now), the separation of "da" and "von", such separation otherwise being a common feature of German (separable prefix verbs, archaic "Was er immer sagt"-whatever he says), results in a de facto stranded preposition, a construction otherwise unknown in the language? Janko 08:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Janko
Let me just add that the separation of da and von, for instance, is very much seen as incorrect and a dialectal variety in Austria and Bavaria. No Austrian would ever say "Da hab ich nichts von" or similar aberrations. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 20:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A simple way to sidestep this controversy is just to talk about Dutch instead, where this kind of stranding is completely standard. I hope the section is more "worthful" this way. CapnPrep 12:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit! As it stands, though, the section is hard to understand if you don't speak Dutch. I don't suppose you could supply literal and idiomatic translations for each sample sentence? Also, you talk about replacing neuter pronouns with r-pronouns, but you don't explain what r-pronouns are, nor what the significance is of this replacement. I don't suppose you could add some explanations? Ruakh 18:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I added the glosses and a link to relevant new info in the Dutch grammar article, but my edits probably will not survive long over there… CapnPrep 21:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It is plainly wrong to list German here, even after the corrections. "Davon" is an adverb (as is the English "thereof"), and although etymologically composed of an adverb and a pronoun that doesn't make the separated part in a German dialect a preposition again (as opposed to English). German does separate compound words, most commonly seen in standard German for verbs, as mentioned above. These compound verbs also often involve former prepositions as prefixes. ("ansehen" → "Er sieht es an.") This separation does not however make the separated prefix a preposition. In fact there is no proper word for a prepositon to be 'pre-positioned' to. And before anyone feels tempted to throw in the obvious postposition here ... there are other verbs that have other prefixes which are not derived from prepositions (e.g. adverbs) and still function the same way. Although we are mainly aiming at form here, one must not leave contradictory evidence of function out of the consideration to make it fit another related language that one is familiar with.

So please, someone who is feeling responsible for this article, stop the debate about etymological similarities to English and seemingly parallel constructions. See the facts and cut German out of this article (as I won't do it to prevent any chance of an edit war). We don't have preposition stranding, not even in the mentioned dialects and exceptional separations. It's things like this that ruin our i.e. Wikipedia's standing among academics. --chris 論 10:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The colloquial sentence: Der Mann, wo ich mit gesprochen hab... is just the same as The man (whom) I talked to.... The only differences being that German uses a special pronoun (wo) and that this pronoun can not fall away. So there may not be stranded prepositions in standard German, but most certainly in colloquial German.
The word "wovon" is an adverb, correct. However, it is not an original adverb, but a pronominal adverb formed of a pronoun (wo) and a preposition (von). If we separate these two, we have nothing but a pronoun and a (stranded) preposition. Just because the German stranded preposition has a clearly different genesis than that of English, it doesn't make it less of stranded (= isolated) preposition.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.206.72.206 (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor Edit[edit]

I added the term hanging preposition to the list, as it is commonly used in my area. Is there a way to create a routing page from hanging preposition? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ollock (talk • contribs) .

I've taken care of it, thanks. Ruakh 02:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for and against?[edit]

This article discusses what preposition stranding is, and mentions that some grammarians frown on it, but it does not clarify why those grammarians frown on it, or why those grammarians who don't frown on it differ from those who do. It points to Disputed English grammar, which suggests that the debate will be explained there, but that page, for most disputes, just suggests possible reasons why a dispute might exist on any particular point of grammar. Preposition stranding is actually one of the lucky ones; it's suggested that the distaste for preposition stranding comes from trying to apply rules of Latin to the English language. However, that's all the detail it gives.

I doubt that reasoning because the preposition and object in Latin are linked by case and so do not need to be next to one another unless there are multiple phrases taking the same case. That *is* the reasoning behind avoiding the split infinitive, however, since a Latin infinitive is a single word that contains both parts. See below for the reasons I have heard. -- SoSaysSunny (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the article could be improved if it provided more detail on who has argued for the incorrectness of preposition stranding and who has argued for its acceptability. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, part of the problem is that in some sense, it's really just an urban myth that it's incorrect; tens (or hundreds?) of millions of schoolchildren have been told in school that it's incorrect, and learned such clever mnemonics as "A preposition is a [terrible | bad | horrible] thing to end a sentence with" (which gets 130 Google hits) or such straightforward ones as "never end a sentence with a preposition" (which gets 694). So far as I know, there aren't any very eminent authorities that oppose preposition stranding; one of the twentieth century's greatest prescriptivists, Fowler, writes of "the superstitious avoidance of a preposition at the end"[1], and another, Strunk and White (technically two people, but we'll count them as one for our purposes), seems to avoid the topic altogether.[2] I suppose there are reasons that could be given, but I've never heard a supporter of the rule do so, beyond simply stating that it's a rule and asking what I mean when I ask what makes it a rule. Ruakh 01:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Or (as I was taught) "never use a preposition to end a sentence with", with gets > 1,000 hits as a phrase. EdwardLockhart 17:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the contributors above, and would like to suggest some additions/changes to the article:

I'd like to see the preference against its use mentioned in the lead ... "which is frowned upon by some authorities" ... or somesuch (with refs to them).

I'd like to see the justification for its avoidance mentioned somewhere: Hanging prepositions, like hanging participles, are frowned upon because they can cause confusion in sentences with several nouns and pronouns. If the distance between the preposition and the object is great, the sentence may end awkwardly, leaving the reader trying to remember why the preposition is even there. They often demonstrate the writer's limited vocabulary or lack of creativity in phrasing the sentence. When the preposition is implied and unnecessary it sounds wordy, awkward, an/or uneducated.

I'd also like to see a section with tips on when and how to avoid hanging participles. Maybe something like this:

  • Leave it as is.
Most Wh-constructions and pseudopassives are fine because the sentences tend to be brief and uncomplicated.
  • Omit an implied preposition.
Where do you live at? ..................... Where do you live?
Where do you want to go to? ..................... Where do you want to go?
Never use a preposition to end a sentence with. ..................... Never use a preposition to end a sentence.
  • Move the preposition.
Why did you bring that topic up? ..................... Why did you bring up that topic?
  • Chose a verb that doesn't need a helper.
What did you do that for? ..................... Why did you do that?
What are you talking about? ..................... What are you (plural) discussing? ..................... What do you (singular) mean?
This is the book I told you about. ..................... This is the book I mentioned. ..................... This is the book we discussed.
  • Activate the sentence.
This chair was sat on. ..................... Someone sat on this chair.
  • Rearrange the sentence.
This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.
This is the sort of nonsense I will not put up with. ..................... I will not put up with this sort of nonsense.
Never use a preposition to end a sentence with. ..................... Never end a sentence with a preposition.

What do you think? -- SoSaysSunny (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternatives[edit]

Took me a while, but I finally managed to come up with alternatives to the examples that avoid the stranding:

About what are you talking?

and

This is the book about which I told you.

The pseudo-passive is not really repairable, but it sounds horribly wrong anyway.

These alternatives both seem to be a bit of a mouthful. The first one just sounds stilted and the second one is way too long. If any prescriptivists seriously think these should be embraced, I seriously think they should be shot. 91.0.116.92 18:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that "Of what are you speaking?" is technically preferable to "About what are you talking?" But, "What are you talking about?" doesn't really mean "Of what are you speaking;" it seems to mean "I find your statement is contrary to established facts or expectations."
The moon is made of green cheese.
Of what are you speaking? The moon.
vs.
What are you talking about? Of course it isn't!
75.61.135.243 (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
"What are you talking about?" can also be used in a literal sense, for example when joining a group already deepn in conversation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardLockhart (talk • contribs) 13:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing the literal meaning of "What are you talking about?" with its idiomatic use. Literally, "What are you talking about?" means "Of what are you speaking?", and in most languages only the latter would be possible. But "What are you talking about?" in the sense of "You're nuts." is an idiom, and the non-inverted form does not convey this meaning.

As for the pseudopassives, they're a unique feature of English. English is very reluctant to omit a subject, so an indirect object or prepositional object is pulled in. Other languages would keep the word in its original form, and leave the sentence without a subject.

  • German: Ihm ist geantwortet. / He (indirect object) is answered.
  • Russian: (Can't think of an example, but English "subject + passive" is often translated to "object + impersonal expression with infinitive".)

Sluggoster (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Expansion and cleanup.[edit]

This article is misleading and needs some expansion. First, the dispute among English grammarians is not whether a preposition can occur without an object, but whether a preposition can end a clause and whether a preposition can be separated from its object. A preposition must have an object by definition. In most of the English examples the article provides, the prepositions do have objects, but the objects come before their prepositions in a construction called anastrophe. Consider:

What are you playing with?

The controversy concerning a sentence like the one above is not whether with has an object. Clearly, what is with's object. Rather, the dispute is whether what can be separated from with and whether with can end the sentence. The sentence could be changed and the problem avoided by bringing the preposition and its object together at the beginning of the sentence:

With what are you playing?

A construction in which the preposition has no object is incontrovertibly wrong:

Where are you at?

Where is not the object of at because the prepositional phrase at where is illogical. Just where will suffice:

Where are you?

Formality is another important aspect of the issue. A sentence such as, With what are you playing, may sound overly formal to most English speakers. Phrasal verbs, verbs that change their meaning with the addition of an adverb, are another relevant topic. These adverbs often seem to be prepositions. On ending a sentence with a preposition, Winston Churchill is credited with saying:

That is a rule up with which I will not put.

This construction is very awkward because up with is not a preposition, but rather a phrasal adverb. To put up with means to tolerate and has a very different meaning than to put. There is no question as to whether a phrasal adverb can end a sentence and whether a phrasal verb can be separated from its object. The correct version of the sentence is:

That is a rule which I will not put up with.

Do you think all of these points are valid and should be included in the article?

Mealzwax 02:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I think you're misunderstanding what the first sentence of the article is trying to say; it's not saying the preposition doesn't have an object, but rather that it appears without an object; as in, it appears separately from its object, if it has one. I can see how that sentence lends itself to misunderstanding, though; some clarification might be in order.
Secondly, you're wrong to say that prepositions always have objects; consider "This chair was sat on" (one of the examples given in the article). On is a preposition, but it doesn't have an object; that it's a preposition is clear from the active version ("[Someone] sat on this chair", where "this chair" is the object), but that it doesn't have an object is clear from the fact that the sentence has only one noun phrase ("this chair"), and it's the subject of the verb.
Thirdly, you're wrong to say that "Where is it at?" is wrong; or at least, your argument is unsound, since it would also toss out "Where is she from?".
Fourthly and finally, while you are right that "up" is indeed a particle in the phrasal verb "put up", "with" is nonetheless an ordinary preposition, at least by traditional analysis; the supposedly-correct fronted version would be "This is a rule with which I will not put up." Even this sounds ridiculous, though; in this case, only the p-stranded version sounds sane.
—RuakhTALK 19:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Arguably, in this form, the sentence 'This chair was sat (up)on' is using a preposition only under one form of technical slicing of the sentence. Looking at it from a communication intent point of view, the sentence 'This chair was sat upon' is more akin to 'This newspaper was read.' The verb construct 'sat upon' or 'sat on' is being used in compound as an adjective, as the subject of 'was'. It might be more correct to use it in a hyphenated form ('This chair was sat-upon'), but this could also be an example of hypercorrection as such an approach has largely gone out of use.
In other words, yes, 'on' is a preposition, but in this usage 'sat on' is not.
Consider the extended sentence, 'This chair was sat upon by a fat lady.' Technically, in isolation, both 'upon' and 'by' are both prepositions. However, only the latter of the two, 'by', is actually a preposition in this sentence.
I believe that Mealzwax's argument is actually quite valid and that this article largely misrepresents English P-stranding. P-stranding happens when a sentence has a preposition tacked onto it without a subject, usually a pronoun that is assumed (and would be properly and correctly assumed in many other languages such as Spanish where other indicators in the sentence specifically allow it).
Sentences such as 'This cake has cherries in' and 'She has clothes on' (note the latter is very common in the vernacular) are P-stranding and are considered bad grammar.
Both the above sentences can be corrected by the addition of a pronoun: 'This cake has cherries on it.' and 'She has clothes on herself.' are both correct, though the latter sounds a bit strange because the pronoun is usually omitted.
'Where are you at' is not an example of a sentence that is at issue. It's a bit wordy and uses an unneccesary, gratuitous word ('at', in the same sense that 'You are at where' suffers the same stiltedness), but it's not P-stranding. It's just needless in the same sense as the famous song lyric, 'Do you know where you're going to?' (though the latter at least has a reason--to fit the metre of the song).
By the way, if you are making the argument that Mealzwax misinterpreted the first sentence and that a preposition not appearing with a subject means that the subject is present, just seperated by many other words and perhaps in an unexpected order, then don't just scold Mealzwax about the issue. Change the sentence so that this miscommunication doesn't occur.
Personally, I'm not changing it simply because I don't think that it means what you think it means and I believe that Mealzwax read the sentence correctly, and that the rest of the article is severely challenged.
75.28.41.130 22:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Preposition stranding in non-standard French[edit]

Is the example Qui-ce que tu as fait le gâteau pour? correct? I would have thought it should be Qui est-ce que tu as fait le gâteau pour?. Mooncow 17:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know for sure (I only know French as it's spoken in France), but I believe the article is correct; see e.g. fr:Français Cadien de la Paroisse de Terrebonne#Pronoms interrogatifs. —RuakhTALK 19:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
A good reference, thank you, and it does suggest the article is correct. Mooncow 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Winston Churchill's quote[edit]

I believe it was Winston Churchill who so beautifully summed up how stupid the "no stranded prepositions" rule is:

Putting a preposition at the end of a sentence is something up with which I will not put.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.87.237 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

---check your source. the common story is that someone else tried to correct his stranded preposition,to which he responded "This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put!". 66.73.48.200 21:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Fingal

There is an object[edit]

The lead sentence reads:

Preposition stranding, sometimes called P-stranding, is the syntactic construction in which a preposition appears without an object.

If this is supposed to refer to constructions such as "You don't know what you're talking about", it doesn't make sense: the object of "about" in that sentence is "what". It needs to be reworded.

--207.176.159.90 (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

some issues...[edit]

...in specific and in general.

Mealzwax proposed a while ago: "First, the dispute among English grammarians is not whether a preposition can occur without an object, but whether a preposition can end a clause and whether a preposition can be separated from its object. A preposition must have an object by definition."

Well, there really are two disputes, and they are related. Yes, whether a preposition can end a clause is a matter of (some) discussion, though most grammarians I know (see, for example, the recent Oxford and Cambridge grammars) really aren't so prescriptive as to outlaw such constructions. But Mealzwax is simply incorrect in positing that, by definition, a preposition must have an object. SOME grammarians, and almost all traditional grammarians, would subscribe to this--but plenty of modern grammarians (Huddleston and Pullum, for instance) do not believe in such a definition. And the consequences are clear: if a preposition does not by definition need an object, there can be no stranding. Simple! Of course, such a modification of 'preposition' has far-reaching consequences, esp. for the category of adverbs.

I think the article should reflect these two related matters--one a matter of definition, one a matter of either proper behavior in language or of proper adherence to grammatical rules. I want to tackle this in the near future in this article, and I'll be glad to hear your suggestions. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Theoretical Bias?[edit]

Am I the only one who thinks that sentences like "In Wh-constructions, the object of the preposition is a Wh-word in deep structure but is fronted as a result of the Wh-movement" show a bias towards certain linguistic theories? Not all linguists agree about the existence of such "deep structures". -- Marc André Bélanger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.236.136 (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking exactly the same. Proponents of generative grammar seem to forget quite often it's a theory. fr:user:Leafcat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.93.129.164 (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Il faudra agir selon ("We'll have to act accordingly")[edit]

Is this translation correct? I don't speak French, but I know il is 3sg masc, suggesting that the correct translation is He'll have to act accordingly. I hesitate to fix it because of the possibility that il faudra might be idiomatic. --Unconventional (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The translation is acceptable (if not literal); no need to fix it. CapnPrep (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
"Il" means "he", but it is also used as a subject with some impersonal verbs like "falloir" there; it's equivalent to the "it" in "it is raining". The sentence says something like "it will be necessary to act accordingly", but translating it as "we'll have" is fine if there is actually a "we" in the context. FirefishII (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

is this...?[edit]

is this a dangling preposition? "Pokemon is good as." "He's funny as." you get me? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As what? It's not so much a dangling preposition as an incomplete sentence (and incomplete thought). --Nricardo (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Globalize[edit]

This article claims that P-stranding is common in the North Germanic languages. But there are no examples from Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, or Icelandic to back this up. --Simonsa (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Certain prepositional passives[edit]

Prepositions should be ended sentences with.

This matter should be taken care of.

The first sentence above seems syntactically odd, but is perfectly comprehensible. The second sentence above seems normal, even though it seems syntactically parallel to the first one. I've heard this explained by saying that "take care of" is a phrasal verb.

He slept in this bed.

This bed was slept in.

This is a prepositional passive that doesn't seem odd. A big difference between this and the first example above is that the verb is intransitive. Prepositional passives with intransitive verbs seem standard in English.

Should this article mention prepositional passives? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that we have no article on prepositional passives. This phenomenon came to my attention when I was in eighth grade and I read Dickens' Great Expectations. The escaped convict Abel Magwitch says "I've been done everything to." Michael Hardy (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"Out of" a preposition?[edit]

In the example:

What1 did you bring that book2 that I3 didn't want to be read to___3 out of___2 up for___1?

how is "out of" a preposition? I'd say the preposition is "of", and "out" is an adverb of movement (used in a figurative sense). Consequently, the way to move all the stranded prepositions to the end of the sentence is

What1 did you bring up that book2 that I3 didn't want to be read to___3 from___2 for___1?

217.158.111.130 (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Prepositional Endings in English Usage Guides[edit]

It would be well worth a reference to Fowler on this, see Talk:Preposition and postposition#at the end of the sentenceGraham Fountain 15:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham.Fountain (talk • contribs)

Prepositions immediately following their object[edit]

The term "preposition stranding" properly requires a gap between the preposition and its object, so I have changed the text to "in which a preposition with an object occurs somewhere other than immediately adjacent to its object. This previosly read 'next', but was changed to 'prior'. Huddleston et al. in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language explain preposition stranding thus: "i.e. occur with a gap in post-head complement position" [my emphasis]. They also explain the postpositioning of prepositions at some length. This paragraph refers to Germanic languages, and in German some prepositions often immediately follow the noun they govern. This can also be said to apply in English to prepositions like notwithstanding.--Boson (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The example with three prepositions in a row makes no sense[edit]

The article gives this "example" of "three" stranded prepositions in a row:

"What did you bring that book that I didn't want to be read to out of up for?"

Excuse me, what? I am a native English speaker, and that sounds very wrong. The example is not cited, which is one problem. An additional problem is that it was said by a young child, allegedly. I have no problem believing that a young child said that - I would say that child has not fully learned English grammar yet. I am not being pedantic, I honestly cannot follow that sentence without the subscripts (which I have omitted above). Also, I count more than three prepositions, but the article tries to explain that some of them don't count for some reason.

In contrast, this sentence does make sense to me:

"What did you bring that book up for?"

Does that count as two in a row? "Up" and "for" are two prepositions, by my count. They are both stranded (I think): "for what" and "bring up". Does "bring up" not count, maybe because it is a phrasal verb? I am not a linguist. If "bring up" doesn't count, then I cannot come up with an example of more than one stranded preposition in a row. I can see that "for what" is [preposition] [noun] and "bring up" is [verb] [preposition], so maybe they are different. Fluoborate (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the examples given are not suitable. Similar examples are regarded as jocular, rather than encyclopedic. The statements and the examples have been flagged as needing a citation for verification for several months and the burden of verification is on the editor who wishes to restore the material. I will try to find an example of multiple prepositions (with references).--Boson (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree: Under the premise that preposition stranding is allowed, the sentence is grammatical – it just sounds awkward. However, the classification of some of these words as prepositions is questionable.
  • I didn't want you to read to me out of that book → I didn't want to be read to out of that book → it is the book I didn't want to be read to out of.
  • You brought that book up → You brought that book I didn't want to be read to out of up.
  • Why did you do that? → What did you do that for? → What did you bring that book that I didn't want to be read to out of up for?
However, as used in this sentence, only "to", "of" and "for" are prepositions:
  • A preposition always has an object; "up" doesn't have one here – it is just an adverb denoting the direction in which the book was brought. If OTOH we had said, for example, "brought up the stairs", then it would be a preposition.
  • "Out" doesn't have a direct object here – note "I didn't want to be read to out of that book" not "I didn't want to be read to out that book". Indeed, "out" occurs as a preposition only in informal constructions like "throw it out the window". In standard/formal English, you would always follow it with "of" in such a context.
— Smjg (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

All too confusing[edit]

I was just looking at this assertion from a comment above:

A construction in which the preposition has no object is incontrovertibly wrong:

Where are you at?

Imagine a heist movie, with the usual walkie-talkie banter. 

W: Where are you?    T: I'm three minutes into the sequence.    W: No, where are you at?    T: The south tower.   W: Oh, crap.  Keep your head down, one of the guards was just spotted taking up a position near by.    T: What do you think he's up to?  Does he suspect?    W: So far I've got no idea.

That also pretty much summarizes how I feel about all the ___i? examples which aren't even clearly flagged as being examples of the adduced theory, or of a sentence that the adduced theory deprecates. — MaxEnt 00:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Why are Scandinavian languages unmentioned?[edit]

They're actually the closest to modern English out of all of them when it comes to preposition stranding, making them remarkably similar in syntax.

For example: English: What are you talking about? Norwegian: Hva snakker du om?

Not having these languages mentioned in this article is a grave omission, pls expand Xfing (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Preposition_stranding&oldid=998831488"