In today's AWAD, Anu states; "Prepositions don't get much respect. Nouns, verbs, adjectives... those are the words we usually pay attention to."
Hasn't he just broken a 'golden rule' regarding prepositions?!

I was taught, "A preposition is something you NEVER end a sentence with".

And I gotten my face slapped because I keep forgetting that, "A proposition is something you never end a sentence with."

Hasn't he just broken a 'golden rule' regarding prepositions?!

Not hardly. The not-ending-a-sentence-with-a-preposition "rule" was invented out of whole cloth by just one man, John Dryden, for just one reason, he didn't like ending sentences with prepositions. People have been placing prepositions where they fit best for many hundreds of years before or after Mr Dryden elevated his quirky style to a "grammatical rule".

[link and link]

Thanks for those links, zmjezhd! I do like a bit of grammar myself, and I must say that my strictest instruction in grammar, particularly punctuation, came during the time I wrote limericks for OEDILF (under the name of Recumbentman). Nobody is as particular about correct usage as a correct American, I found.

As an admirer of Wittgenstein I regard grammar as important, but I agree that many shibboleths grew from a misplaced wish to import Latin grammar into English. The English saw themselves in the 17th century as heirs of the classics, particularly Dryden, who wrote in praise of Milton: "Three poets in three different ages born, Greece, Italy, and England did adorn. . . "

Curiously, Dryden wouldn't have got away with that comma between subject (three poets) and verb (did adorn) in OEDILF; at the least he would have been requested to add another comma after 'poets', making 'in three different ages born' into a proper subsidiary clause.

I often put Anu's 'Thoughts for Today' into my collection of quotes; today I snipped his wisdom about prepositions:

I must say that my strictest instruction in grammar, particularly punctuation, came during the time I wrote limericks for OEDILF.

Oh, spelling and punctuation have nothing to do with grammar. That's another nit I have with the so-callled experts. And before another flame war starts, let me explain. Saying that grammar, spelling, and punctuation are separate entities does not mean that the latter two or any less important than the former. When I speak about grammar, I use the definition that most linguists (professional academics who study language systematically rather than inventing or passing along silly rules). Spelling and punctuation are attempts, however flawed, to add a sort of sugar coating to language. Language existed before writing. English spelling is a joke. It is a non-system, compared to something like Spanish or Korean. I have seen the "rules" of punctuation change in my lifetime. Many of the punctuation rules I learned in grammar and high school have been modified and superseded.

Wittgenstein does have some keen insights into language, especially seeing it as a kind of game. (He was the first philosopher, one of whose works I read.) Heidegger also had some worthwhile ideas about language. My favorite Wittgensteinian aphorism is: "philosophische Probleme entstehen, wenn die Sprache feiert" (Philospophical problems occur when language goes on holiday).

(And don't get me started about Oedilf; that lot has sucked the joy out of language and poetry.)

About spelling: Wittgenstein disliked rationalised languages like Esperanto, largely because the curiosities of spelling were lost. Each word that has a strange spelling carries part of its history along with it. He likened languages to cities, with an idiomatic ancient centre full of seemingly inexplicable corners, and new suburbs (like scientific language) laid out in straight lines at right angles.

About punctuation: what you say is interesting, but I have always regarded punctuation as an essential element of grammar. Of course this is a recent development, tied to writing rather than speech, but very important, and now surely indispensable.

Old punctuation puzzle:

Caesar entered on his head
A helmet on each foot
A sandal in his hand he held
His trusty sword to boot

Funny one.

About punctuation: what you say is interesting, but I have always regarded punctuation as an essential element of grammar. Of course this is a recent development, tied to writing rather than speech, but very important, and now surely indispensable.

I stand by what I wrote. Spelling and punctuation are important, but not a part of grammar.

The thing about the old puzzle you pose is that it can be understood without any punctuation at all.

"Caesar entered. On his head a helmet, on each foot a sandal, [and] in his hand, he held his trusty sword."

There is nothing ungrammatical about the unpunctuated version. If I reformatted it in a difficult to read font, it would still be grammatical. Also, the sentence "Caesar entered on his head, a helmet on each foot, a sandal in his hand he held. His trusty sword to boot." is also grammatical but improbable.

Agree; reading text without punctuation is funny and understandable. But for convenience' sake punctuation in books and letters can prevent certain misunderstandings (it reads more fluent)and it adds rhytm, music to the text. Part of the game.
Language is a game and communication, but also cadence, music.
In spoken language you hear punctuation too, some languages sing, some shout, some stammer to our ears.

I saw on the travel channel the other day that there is a language of whistles. It's in some really mountainous area--possibly Romania but I really don't remember--and the people of different villages whistle back and forth to each other across the valleys. It was described as an actual language, not a code or anything.

Silbo Gomero?

The human need to communicate, whether the information being sent is vital to survival or not, is strong enough to overcome almost any obstacle.
Very cool.

Saint Lawrence Island

Turkey

There are more claims to it.
My grandfather had a canary that was very communicative.

It is sometimes connected, as for example in the possessive apostrophe, especially in the neuter singular, it's v. its - that is a case of the two being intertwined. But I would tend to agree with zmjezhd, generally speaking they are distinct entities.

The problem with ending a sentence with "at" is usually not because it's a preposition, but because it's already been either stated or implied. Example: "Where is he at?" The word "where" means "at what place".

And we all know what an abomination redundancy is.

Yeah, redundancy is terrible.

specially when people keep on repeating it over and over.

And doesn't it bug you when they say it again and again, and then one more time, just for repetitive measure?

Yeah! Take the noun phrase "three dogs". You don't need that s on the end of dog, the three already shows that it's plural! Nobody misunderstands the phrase "three dog night". Don' need no stinking s on the end of that dog.

The where ... at construction is discussed in the MWDEU (link and link).

I always thought it had a hyphen, though, as in "three-dog night". The band can be forgiven for leaving it out... :0)

Funny. I never hear the hyphen when folks say it.

I suppose that someone would almost run the words together - circa "threedog night" - if they were actually using the term rather than the band name, but I've never heard anyone actually say it.

Where ... at? only bothers me in only in online circumstances where people are being as brief as possible and then add that extra in, e.g. "where r u at" or even worse "wr u at". ;-)

Of course I can imagine grammar without punctuation, but we have become hooked on writing and it has come to affect our speech. Just as any Western melody from Bach to pop 'implies' a sequence of chords, anything we say implies its written appearance.

Just because the punctuation only adds convenience, I don't find that it follows that it is not an integral part of our grammatical constructions. This sentence implies a semicolon after its ninth word it looks odd without it. It would be worse if we did away with full stops and capitals; the grammar could be otherwise perfect but confusion would surely set in.

I've heard/read that whistles are/were used in the Canary Islands because it carries better than voice because of the volcanic rock(?). Haven't verified it (I read it back in the days when you could trust what you read, at least in the Weekly Reader :-E)