On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:34:27 +0100, scott wrote:

>>>> >>"The apple was beside." - that's a sentence fragment that ends in a
>>>> >>preposition.  It's completely unclear what the apple was beside.
>>> >
>>> >But the reason for it being unclear was not that it ends in the
>>> >preposition. It's because it lacks something.
>> Yes, it lacks the object that is referenced.  Now you tell me how to
>> construct that sentence with the missing object*without*  putting the
>> missing object ahead of the preposition.  Oh, and it has to make sense,
>> too.;)
> 
> Whether it ends in a preposition or not is irrelevant to whether the
> sentence makes sense. The reason "The apple was beside." doesn't make
> sense is not because it ends in a preposition, but because there is some
> part missing from it. I could easily have said "I moved the box that the
> apple was beside." and that would be fine.

Yes, that would be fine, because you've defined the object.  As I said, 
*generally* when you use a preposition, the object that is related is 
after the preposition, but not always.  Which is why it's a "rule of 
thumb" or a "guideline".

Jim

Post a reply to this message