As would make the world Quake to look on Prepositions, those words that show relationships between nouns and other words in a sentence, such as about, above, over, and under, have been a cause of confusion among writers, teachers, and students for several hundred years, and there is little evidence that this confusion is waning here at the end of 20th century. I'm referring to the that won't die that says writers must not put prepositions at the ends of Grammar books don't advocate it, usage mavens don't favor it - but some teachers apparently do permit it, and the question is why? Are teachers in secondary schools, and colleges at fault? And, if so, how are they being indoctrinated? Just recently on a college classroom blackboard adjacent to my office, a professor wrote this among a list of things students should follow when writing a paper: and no preps at the ends of sentences. When I mentioned this to William Zinsser, whose classic On Writing is now in its sixth edition, he said, Well that's just horrible. blackboard message may indicate a mindset that led Winston Churchill years ago to exclaim: is the sort of English up with which I will not put. I wondered if any instruction came with the professor's admonition. For surely there are sentences ending in prepositions that are abominable, just as inept hands can make almost any clear, concise sentence clumsy. For example, Where is she at? certainly would grate on the ear of a discerning reader or listener. But many sentences end pleasantly, effectively, and forcefully with prepositions, and most of the great writers of English have known this for 600 years. Who would quibble with this Shakespeare line? And do such bitter business as the day Would quake to look on. Yet, put that line in your Macintosh and activate the grammar function, and it will tell you, Consider rephrasing to avoid ending this sentence with a preposition. Do teachers of writing - no matter the level -- provide clear details and examples, showing when it works and when it doesn't? long-standard Harbrace College Handbook states clearly, The preposition may follow rather than precede its object, and it may be placed at the end of the sentence. Yet, if you ask students, you find out quickly that most think that the is an absolute. Unfortunately, once the rule gets implanted in students' heads, the idea can be stifling to them as writers at best and tediously British in the John Dryden tradition at worst. Those who have been indoctrinated with this belief and there are many - never seem to know with certainly where they learned it, and although they say they think it is a good rule, they rarely follow it. You simply need to look at almost any piece of student writing to see this. What may be happening is that their own good sense takes over when they write. James J. Kilpartick, in a recent column, wrote: is a rule implanted by ignorant pedagogues of another time. supposed rule is no rule at all. late New York Timesman Theodore Bernstein in his book Miss Thistlebottom's Hobgoblins despaired of the issue long ago. So many authorities on usage have tried to correct the impression that [the rule]...is wrong ... that I almost feel as if I am flogging a dying horse ..., he wrote. The origin of the misguided rule is not hard to ascertain. To begin with, there is the meaning of the word 'preposition' itself: stand before. The meaning derives from Latin, and in the Latin language, prepositions do usually stand before the words they govern. But Latin is not English. In English, prepositions have been used as terminal words in a sentence since the days of Chaucer, and in that position they are completely idiomatic. Bernstein wrote this in 1971 and few, it seems, have taken much heed during the 27 years since. This became apparent when I surveyed several of my journalism classes this year. …