re: Bye bye Stallings

Pitt has been ole missed

quote:

---

The "rule" is pure rubbish, probably derived from Renaissance/Enlightenment Latin speakers who refused to treat English as a worthwhile language in its own right. Just phrase things in a manner that sounds best.

---

That's exactly from where it derived -- same with the split infinitive rule. Because in Latin, these phrases are all one word instead of two (infinitives being indicated by their endings rather than the word "to" -- also, we don't decline nouns in English). These rules made it easier to translate English to Latin and vice versa.

And, yes, colloquial expressions have evolved that feature prepositions at the ends of sentences. And, yes, everyone will understand what you're trying to say. But nine times out of ten you can easily put the preposition before its object and every time it'll be a better and more precise use of language.

It's a far more valid rule than the splitting infinitives myth, which serves no function in English now.

quote:

---

It's a far more valid rule than the splitting infinitives myth, which serves no function in English now.

---

I completely agree with this, and I have had the extreme misfortune of studying English in grad school.

Only in a Vandy thread would one find such an in-depth discussion of grammar.

Anthony Grant would fit in nicely

quote:

---

It's a far more valid rule than the splitting infinitives myth, which serves no function in English now.

---

But neither is valid, so I don't see how a comparative relationship applies. We can discuss the fungibility of equivalent sentences with or without a terminal preposition, but no-one has given a compelling and unambiguous reason why there should even be a rule in English in the first place. Most modern grammar guides eschew this idea. I even have a Fowler's lying around somewhere and I imagine that he would concede that it's a useless rule. If ending a sentence with a preposition works just fine, do so without reservation. As far as I can tell, there's nothing inherently better about (to pick one of the most commonly corrected examples) "To whom are you speaking?" than "Who[m] are you speaking to?" Both convey the question with equal precision and completely indiscernible elegance. One might prefer a given phrasing, but unless the diction actually muddles things, that's a purely subjective response and, as such, doesn't warrant a "rule" to govern usage.

Granted, torturous attempts to avoid this situation were my bane when I was doing post-grad and trying to teach freshmen to write at a college level, so I'm particularly set against what I consider misguidedly doctrinaire adherence to the principle.


Also, I'm still ambivalent about Stallings leaving. I won't weep, but I'm not gung-ho about it either.

quote:

---

It was time for a change for both him and Vandy. Vandy, go hire a solid coach. Bill Self is probably ready for a change.

---

I'll take Cal just to help y'all Wildcat fans out. Aren't you tired of the constant barrage of questions regarding whether he's a great coach or just a great recruiter? If he succeeds here, y'all will have a retort and we'll have a successful coach. Win-win, right?

Wade has only been at VCU one year. Who's the backup plan if he stays put?

quote:

---

Will Wade is the top target I think. Young Nashville guy and childhood Vanderbilt fan that's had success everywhere and landed an extremely highly ranked recruiting class at Harvard. Everything fits.

---

I kept getting thrown off when people kept bringing up Harvard, and then I realized that he hasn't been at Harvard in many years.

He would be a great hire for Vandy given his successes as a HC at Chattanooga and VCU.

If only we had 40 immortals to sort this out.