I'm a day late with this thanks to another internet failure, but it's stil worth a read: http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINIO...ay/index.html?hpt=C1

Can't wait for Friday! We'll have to celebrate.

quote:

Their website, for example, knocks down two old myths: that you can't end a sentence in a preposition and that you mustn't split an infinitive. Fine English writers have been doing both for centuries.

Funny how so few editors know this. The ending sentences with a preposition has really stuck with many of them. That one hasn't ever made any sense to me.

The ending sentences with a preposition has really stuck with many of them. That one hasn't ever made any sense to me.

And, we know when and by whom this "rule" was invented. Dryden decided in the middle of his life that prepositions could not come at the end of a sentence. He revised his works to apply this rule retroactively. Even Robert Lowth poked gentle fun at Dryden's bugbear. Dryden really does not justify his "rule".

quote:

Dryden really does not justify his "rule".

I was wondering about that. Some of the rules make a little sense to me ("who" and "whom," for example), even though I wouldn't kill someone's work for it. However, a few don't. One is the ending the sentence with a preposition (even though my colleague will kill a publication for it); another is "which" and "that." Sometimes "that" just seems better (or vice versa), even though "which" is required, according to Word.

So do we now know whom the bell tolls for?

I've always wondered: do bells have to pay tolls?