How has Latin affected your writing?

[Pacifica]

I would nonetheleſs feel compel'd to refer to ſame in writing as 'the chair whereon I ſat'.

Oh, I recognize you there. That's the AS we love.

Now I am not ſure if I can blame my bondage to such a rule on my nearly lifelong involvement with Latin

I wouldn't think so, or at least not directly, because Latin has no exactly literal equivalent of "whereon", "thereon", "thereof", etc., which would be *ubiin, *ibiin, *ibide, etc.

 

[Ignis Umbra]

You are certainly that kind of pedants who would say "On what did you step?" or "With whom are you arguing?" I won't give in.

I'm not asking you to "give in". I am asking you, however, to understand that, with one exception, I was speaking strictly about written communication rather than verbal communication. When communicating verbally with my friends, I on the contrary certainly end my sentences with prepositions if they contain any. My writing style is drastically different from my speaking style.

 

[Aurifex]

Although I might ſpeak of 'the chair I ſat on' in ordinary converſation, I would nonetheleſs feel compel'd to refer to ſame in writing as 'the chair whereon I ſat'.

Either you have higher standards than Shakespeare or you see standards where really there aren't any:

The barge she sat in, like a burnish'd throne,
Burn'd on the water: the poop was beaten gold;
Purple the sails, and so perfumed that
The winds were love-sick with them...

Antony and Cleopatra, Act II scene 2.

Such "rule", saying a preposition must not end a sentence, is nonsense.

Is it nonsense, though? Which of these two sentences has the better fluidity?

You are certainly that kind of pedants who would say "On what did you step?" or "With whom are you arguing?"I won't give in.

I'm mystified by the breakdown in communication here.
Ater Gladius' saying the "rule" that a preposition must not end a sentence is nonsense does not amount to a claim that a preposition must on the contrary always do so. So what was the point of the examples, Ignis? And Ater, since you were clearly not asserting that there is a converse rule that a preposition must end a sentence, why did you feel there was something over which you were being required to "give in"?

 

[Ignis Umbra]

Ater Gladius' saying the "rule" that a preposition must not end a sentence is nonsense does not amount to a claim that a preposition must on the contrary always do so.

Right. I never assumed that. I composed the examples solely to illustrate the difference between terminating a complex sentence with a preposition and beginning the question with a preposition succeeded by an interrogative pronoun. As I stated in my latest response to Ater, I am speaking strictly about written communication. Perhaps I failed to specify this in my opening post, but I believed it would be quite clear from the title itself.

 

[Aurifex]

Right. I never assumed that. I composed the examples solely to illustrate the difference between terminating a complex sentence with a preposition and beginning the question with a preposition succeeded by an interrogative pronoun.

Yes, I see that, but why did he need the examples in the first place? He'd never tried to deny that prepositions are sometimes better not placed at the end of a sentence.

 

[Ignis Umbra]

Yes, I see that, but why did he need the examples in the first place? He'd never tried to deny that prepositions are sometimes better not placed at the end of a sentence.

Ater said the "rule" prohibiting prepositions from ending a sentence is nonsense. I interpreted that as "It is perfectly acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition." I could not determine whether he referring to doing so in writing or in verbal communication. I assumed it was the former, hence why I responded in the form of two examples, attempting to explain that when writing, I tend to follow that "rule" and avoid ending sentences with prepositions wherever possible, because I feel as if I appear ignorant otherwise. I will admit, though, that the examples I composed could be a line of dialogue, in which case ending the sentence with "under" does not sound odd.

 

[Imber Ranae]

Ater said the "rule" prohibiting prepositions from ending a sentence is nonsense. I interpreted that as "It is perfectly acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition." I could not determine whether he referring to doing so in writing or in verbal communication. I assumed it was the former, hence why I responded in the form of two examples, attempting to explain that when writing, I tend to follow that "rule" and avoid ending sentences with prepositions wherever possible, because I feel as if I appear ignorant otherwise. I will admit, though, that the examples I composed could be a line of dialogue, in which case ending the sentence with "under" does not sound odd.

But the examples don't prove anything. He's right that either is perfectly acceptable in writing as well as verbal communication. Dialogue isn't necessary.

 

[Ignis Umbra]

But the examples don't prove anything.

...I had no intentions of attempting to persuade, prove, or convince in any way. I merely wanted to ask why Ater thought the rule was nonsense, and I believed providing examples of the distinction would allow him to explain his rationale for his denouncement. My question "which of these has the better fluidity" was not rhetorical; while I have my own opinions, I want to hear those of others.

He's right that either is perfectly acceptable in writing as well as verbal communication.

Of course. Given that Shakespeare himself ended a clause with a preposition, I can't assert that no one does so.

Dialogue isn't necessary.

You've effectively confused me. When I wrote "dialogue", I meant that the sentence I had written could be one someone could speak verbally. Is this what you mean here?

 

[Imber Ranae]

...I had no intentions of attempting to persuade, prove, or convince in any way. I merely wanted to ask why Ater thought the rule was nonsense, and I believed providing examples of the distinction would allow him to explain his rationale for his denouncement. My question "which of these has the better fluidity" was not rhetorical; while I have my own opinions, I want to hear those of others.

At this point I'm just repeating what Aurifex was already getting at, but what difference does it make to the rule's validity whether some of those sentences are better with the preposition before the relative pronoun than with it at the end of the relative clause? Either it's poor style to place a preposition at the end of any relative clause or it isn't. Demonstrating that in some instances it's better not to do so doesn't prove a rule that it shouldn't ever be done in formal writing.

Of course. Given that Shakespeare himself ended a clause with a preposition, I can't assert that no one does so. You've effectively confused me. When I wrote "dialogue", I meant that the sentence I had written could be one someone could speak verbally. Is this what you mean here?

Yes, of course that's what I mean. I'm not sure what's confusing about it.

German, for example, has the trennbare Verben, this means, verbs where the preposition is splitted. So, for saying "He starts his speech" they say: "er fängt seine Rede an". Preposition at the end.

That's a separate phenomenon, though, dealing with verbal prefixes rather than prepositions proper and is more closely related to English phrasal verbs. Standard German requires prepositions to be placed before the relative pronoun just like Latin.

Also, you might recall Shakespeare's very famous phrase "we are such stuff as dreams are made on". And he seems to me an authority regarding the English language.

I might be wrong, as English is not my native language, but I certainly believe that Latin grammar does not necessarily apply to other languages.

Indeed, and that's a sentence which is infinitely better without a relative. "We are such stuff as on which dreams are made" sounds altogether hideous.

 

[Ignis Umbra]

At this point I'm just repeating what Aurifex was already getting at, but what difference does it make to the rule's validity whether some of those sentences are better with the preposition before the relative pronoun than with it at the end of the relative clause? Either it's poor style to place a preposition at the end of any relative clause or it isn't. Demonstrating that in some instances it's better not to do so doesn't prove a rule that it shouldn't ever be done in formal writing.

I don't believe I ever questioned the validity of the rule, but I did question the validity of Ater's statement. Regarding your final comment, I demonstrated nothing other than the same sentence written in two different styles, and sought Ater's remarks on the them. Originally, I had written "rule" in quotation marks to signify that the restriction on preposition placement was not mandatory, rather a guideline suggested to me numerous times. The content and complexity of a sentence determine the optimal placement for a preposition, and I have never attempted to argue otherwise. However, I have stated that in some cases, a preposition at the end of a sentence is awkward.

Indeed, and that's a sentence which is infinitely better without a relative. "We are such stuff as on which dreams are made" sounds altogether hideous.

Of course, that version doesn't make any sense.