Avoiding dangling prepositions when using the passive voice
I'm aware that many people say it is perfectly fine to end a sentence in a preposition. Let's just say that I accept that. However, a preposition should imply the existence of a prepositional phrase, which should be identifiable (even if the object of the preposition is somehow merely implied). I should be able to take a sentence that ends in a preposition and recast it so that it no longer ends in a preposition.
So, here is my sentence:
"Discrepancies should be accounted for."
My goal is the recast the sentence and to satisfy all of the following conditions:
1. I want to maintain the passive voice.
2. I want "discrepancies" to be my subject. Since I'm in the passive voice, the subject is receiving the action of the verb.
3. I want to refrain from ending the sentence in a preposition.
4. I want to use "accounted" or "be accounted" or "should be accounted" or "account" as a verb. I do not want to use the word "account" as a noun.
5. If I use a preposition, I want to be able to identify the object of the preposition.
6. It has to feel right.
Is this even possible?
Can I simply say, "Discrepancies should be accounted"? That doesn't feel right. I feel like accounted has to be followed by a preposition.
The closest I can seem to get is: "Identifiable causes should account for discrepancies."
I'm no longer in the passive voice, and discrepancies is no longer my subject. However, this sentence satisfies desires #3-6 and is certainly grammatically correct. There is a cause / effect thing going on here. I want the effect to be the subject (passive voice), and I am implicitly requesting the identification of the cause. So, would the cause then be the object of my preposition?
"Discrepancies should be accounted for identifiable causes."
This doesn't seem to work, because causes account for effects. Effects do not account for causes. But maybe it does work, since I am in the passive voice.
I could say, "Identifiable causes should account for any significant discrepancies." But I want to say, "effects are accounted for by causes." But there again, I'm using the preposition "for," but the preposition has no object to go with it, since I'm also inserting the preposition "by" directly after "for."
Can I just say "Discrepancies should be accounted by identifiable causes"? If this is right, then "Discrepancies should be accounted" is also right (since the prepositional phrase is optional). But it doesn't feel right. It seems like the verb "accounted" demands to take with it the a preposition when the sentence is cast in the passive voice.
"Discrepancies should be accounted for" feels right, which leaves me right back where I started! Are the causes of the discrepancies the implied object of the preposition "for" in a manner similar to the understood "you" in imperative sentences?
I think I can say "Discrepancies should be accounted by identifiable causes."
What say you grammarians?
prepositions passive-voice
asked yesterday
Dan HillmanDan Hillman
1
New contributor
Dan Hillman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I'm aware that many people say it is perfectly fine to end a sentence in a preposition. Let's just say that I accept that. However, a preposition should imply the existence of a prepositional phrase, which should be identifiable (even if the object of the preposition is somehow merely implied). I should be able to take a sentence that ends in a preposition and recast it so that it no longer ends in a preposition.
So, here is my sentence:
"Discrepancies should be accounted for."
My goal is the recast the sentence and to satisfy all of the following conditions:
1. I want to maintain the passive voice.
2. I want "discrepancies" to be my subject. Since I'm in the passive voice, the subject is receiving the action of the verb.
3. I want to refrain from ending the sentence in a preposition.
4. I want to use "accounted" or "be accounted" or "should be accounted" or "account" as a verb. I do not want to use the word "account" as a noun.
5. If I use a preposition, I want to be able to identify the object of the preposition.
6. It has to feel right.
Is this even possible?
Can I simply say, "Discrepancies should be accounted"? That doesn't feel right. I feel like accounted has to be followed by a preposition.
The closest I can seem to get is: "Identifiable causes should account for discrepancies."
I'm no longer in the passive voice, and discrepancies is no longer my subject. However, this sentence satisfies desires #3-6 and is certainly grammatically correct. There is a cause / effect thing going on here. I want the effect to be the subject (passive voice), and I am implicitly requesting the identification of the cause. So, would the cause then be the object of my preposition?
"Discrepancies should be accounted for identifiable causes."
This doesn't seem to work, because causes account for effects. Effects do not account for causes. But maybe it does work, since I am in the passive voice.
I could say, "Identifiable causes should account for any significant discrepancies." But I want to say, "effects are accounted for by causes." But there again, I'm using the preposition "for," but the preposition has no object to go with it, since I'm also inserting the preposition "by" directly after "for."
Can I just say "Discrepancies should be accounted by identifiable causes"? If this is right, then "Discrepancies should be accounted" is also right (since the prepositional phrase is optional). But it doesn't feel right. It seems like the verb "accounted" demands to take with it the a preposition when the sentence is cast in the passive voice.
"Discrepancies should be accounted for" feels right, which leaves me right back where I started! Are the causes of the discrepancies the implied object of the preposition "for" in a manner similar to the understood "you" in imperative sentences?
I think I can say "Discrepancies should be accounted by identifiable causes."
What say you grammarians?
prepositions passive-voice
asked yesterday
Dan HillmanDan Hillman
1
New contributor
Dan Hillman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Discrepancies should be counted (explained, justified).
– Rusty Core
yesterday
1
Dictionaries give discrepant information on what "account for" is. For example in defining "account" Collins says (usu. fol. by for) and M-W says (used with for), whereas American Heritage and Oxford Living Dictionaries don't list such meaning of the verb "account"; they consider "account for" as a phrasal verb. If viewed like that then you can't exactly treat "for" as a preposition you can shift around. However if it isn't, your question is like asking how to move the final preposition "to" in "Your brother should be apologized to" while maintaining all 6 of your conditions. I doubt you can.
– Zebrafish
yesterday
First, the 'dependent preposition' an arbitrary (and fussy) rule, which is a matter of style (and so of taste) than of grammar. Second, it does not always work out well, as in the child's cross complaint: "What did you bring that book I didn't want to be read to out of up for?". "For what did you bring up that book out of which I didn't want to be read...to?" is no better: it is worse. The final preposition is unavoidable, and the whole sentence. sounds stilted. The (or my) standard answer is to use a different word - like 'explain'. Then the problem is gone.
– Tuffy
yesterday
Winston Churchill on the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition: This is the type of errant pedantry up with which I will not put.
– Barmar
yesterday
Accounts should be given for discrepancies?
– Jason Bassford
18 hours ago
add a comment |
I'm aware that many people say it is perfectly fine to end a sentence in a preposition. Let's just say that I accept that. However, a preposition should imply the existence of a prepositional phrase, which should be identifiable (even if the object of the preposition is somehow merely implied). I should be able to take a sentence that ends in a preposition and recast it so that it no longer ends in a preposition.
So, here is my sentence:
"Discrepancies should be accounted for."
My goal is the recast the sentence and to satisfy all of the following conditions:
1. I want to maintain the passive voice.
2. I want "discrepancies" to be my subject. Since I'm in the passive voice, the subject is receiving the action of the verb.
3. I want to refrain from ending the sentence in a preposition.
4. I want to use "accounted" or "be accounted" or "should be accounted" or "account" as a verb. I do not want to use the word "account" as a noun.
5. If I use a preposition, I want to be able to identify the object of the preposition.
6. It has to feel right.
Is this even possible?
Can I simply say, "Discrepancies should be accounted"? That doesn't feel right. I feel like accounted has to be followed by a preposition.
The closest I can seem to get is: "Identifiable causes should account for discrepancies."
I'm no longer in the passive voice, and discrepancies is no longer my subject. However, this sentence satisfies desires #3-6 and is certainly grammatically correct. There is a cause / effect thing going on here. I want the effect to be the subject (passive voice), and I am implicitly requesting the identification of the cause. So, would the cause then be the object of my preposition?
"Discrepancies should be accounted for identifiable causes."
This doesn't seem to work, because causes account for effects. Effects do not account for causes. But maybe it does work, since I am in the passive voice.
I could say, "Identifiable causes should account for any significant discrepancies." But I want to say, "effects are accounted for by causes." But there again, I'm using the preposition "for," but the preposition has no object to go with it, since I'm also inserting the preposition "by" directly after "for."
Can I just say "Discrepancies should be accounted by identifiable causes"? If this is right, then "Discrepancies should be accounted" is also right (since the prepositional phrase is optional). But it doesn't feel right. It seems like the verb "accounted" demands to take with it the a preposition when the sentence is cast in the passive voice.
"Discrepancies should be accounted for" feels right, which leaves me right back where I started! Are the causes of the discrepancies the implied object of the preposition "for" in a manner similar to the understood "you" in imperative sentences?
I think I can say "Discrepancies should be accounted by identifiable causes."
What say you grammarians?
prepositions passive-voice
asked yesterday
Dan HillmanDan Hillman
1
New contributor
Dan Hillman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I'm aware that many people say it is perfectly fine to end a sentence in a preposition. Let's just say that I accept that. However, a preposition should imply the existence of a prepositional phrase, which should be identifiable (even if the object of the preposition is somehow merely implied). I should be able to take a sentence that ends in a preposition and recast it so that it no longer ends in a preposition.
So, here is my sentence:
"Discrepancies should be accounted for."
My goal is the recast the sentence and to satisfy all of the following conditions:
1. I want to maintain the passive voice.
2. I want "discrepancies" to be my subject. Since I'm in the passive voice, the subject is receiving the action of the verb.
3. I want to refrain from ending the sentence in a preposition.
4. I want to use "accounted" or "be accounted" or "should be accounted" or "account" as a verb. I do not want to use the word "account" as a noun.
5. If I use a preposition, I want to be able to identify the object of the preposition.
6. It has to feel right.
Is this even possible?
Can I simply say, "Discrepancies should be accounted"? That doesn't feel right. I feel like accounted has to be followed by a preposition.
The closest I can seem to get is: "Identifiable causes should account for discrepancies."
I'm no longer in the passive voice, and discrepancies is no longer my subject. However, this sentence satisfies desires #3-6 and is certainly grammatically correct. There is a cause / effect thing going on here. I want the effect to be the subject (passive voice), and I am implicitly requesting the identification of the cause. So, would the cause then be the object of my preposition?
"Discrepancies should be accounted for identifiable causes."
This doesn't seem to work, because causes account for effects. Effects do not account for causes. But maybe it does work, since I am in the passive voice.
I could say, "Identifiable causes should account for any significant discrepancies." But I want to say, "effects are accounted for by causes." But there again, I'm using the preposition "for," but the preposition has no object to go with it, since I'm also inserting the preposition "by" directly after "for."
Can I just say "Discrepancies should be accounted by identifiable causes"? If this is right, then "Discrepancies should be accounted" is also right (since the prepositional phrase is optional). But it doesn't feel right. It seems like the verb "accounted" demands to take with it the a preposition when the sentence is cast in the passive voice.
"Discrepancies should be accounted for" feels right, which leaves me right back where I started! Are the causes of the discrepancies the implied object of the preposition "for" in a manner similar to the understood "you" in imperative sentences?
I think I can say "Discrepancies should be accounted by identifiable causes."
What say you grammarians?
prepositions passive-voice
prepositions passive-voice
asked yesterday
Dan HillmanDan Hillman
1
New contributor
Dan Hillman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Dan HillmanDan Hillman
1
New contributor
Dan Hillman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Dan HillmanDan Hillman
1
New contributor
Dan Hillman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Dan HillmanDan Hillman
1
asked yesterday
Dan HillmanDan Hillman
1
1
New contributor
Dan Hillman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Dan Hillman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Dan Hillman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Discrepancies should be counted (explained, justified).
– Rusty Core
yesterday
1
Dictionaries give discrepant information on what "account for" is. For example in defining "account" Collins says (usu. fol. by for) and M-W says (used with for), whereas American Heritage and Oxford Living Dictionaries don't list such meaning of the verb "account"; they consider "account for" as a phrasal verb. If viewed like that then you can't exactly treat "for" as a preposition you can shift around. However if it isn't, your question is like asking how to move the final preposition "to" in "Your brother should be apologized to" while maintaining all 6 of your conditions. I doubt you can.
– Zebrafish
yesterday
First, the 'dependent preposition' an arbitrary (and fussy) rule, which is a matter of style (and so of taste) than of grammar. Second, it does not always work out well, as in the child's cross complaint: "What did you bring that book I didn't want to be read to out of up for?". "For what did you bring up that book out of which I didn't want to be read...to?" is no better: it is worse. The final preposition is unavoidable, and the whole sentence. sounds stilted. The (or my) standard answer is to use a different word - like 'explain'. Then the problem is gone.
– Tuffy
yesterday
Winston Churchill on the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition: This is the type of errant pedantry up with which I will not put.
– Barmar
yesterday
Accounts should be given for discrepancies?
– Jason Bassford
18 hours ago
add a comment |
Discrepancies should be counted (explained, justified).
– Rusty Core
yesterday
1
Dictionaries give discrepant information on what "account for" is. For example in defining "account" Collins says (usu. fol. by for) and M-W says (used with for), whereas American Heritage and Oxford Living Dictionaries don't list such meaning of the verb "account"; they consider "account for" as a phrasal verb. If viewed like that then you can't exactly treat "for" as a preposition you can shift around. However if it isn't, your question is like asking how to move the final preposition "to" in "Your brother should be apologized to" while maintaining all 6 of your conditions. I doubt you can.
– Zebrafish
yesterday
First, the 'dependent preposition' an arbitrary (and fussy) rule, which is a matter of style (and so of taste) than of grammar. Second, it does not always work out well, as in the child's cross complaint: "What did you bring that book I didn't want to be read to out of up for?". "For what did you bring up that book out of which I didn't want to be read...to?" is no better: it is worse. The final preposition is unavoidable, and the whole sentence. sounds stilted. The (or my) standard answer is to use a different word - like 'explain'. Then the problem is gone.
– Tuffy
yesterday
Winston Churchill on the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition: This is the type of errant pedantry up with which I will not put.
– Barmar
yesterday
Accounts should be given for discrepancies?
– Jason Bassford
18 hours ago
Discrepancies should be counted (explained, justified).
– Rusty Core
yesterday
Discrepancies should be counted (explained, justified).
– Rusty Core
yesterday
1
1
Dictionaries give discrepant information on what "account for" is. For example in defining "account" Collins says (usu. fol. by for) and M-W says (used with for), whereas American Heritage and Oxford Living Dictionaries don't list such meaning of the verb "account"; they consider "account for" as a phrasal verb. If viewed like that then you can't exactly treat "for" as a preposition you can shift around. However if it isn't, your question is like asking how to move the final preposition "to" in "Your brother should be apologized to" while maintaining all 6 of your conditions. I doubt you can.
– Zebrafish
yesterday
Dictionaries give discrepant information on what "account for" is. For example in defining "account" Collins says (usu. fol. by for) and M-W says (used with for), whereas American Heritage and Oxford Living Dictionaries don't list such meaning of the verb "account"; they consider "account for" as a phrasal verb. If viewed like that then you can't exactly treat "for" as a preposition you can shift around. However if it isn't, your question is like asking how to move the final preposition "to" in "Your brother should be apologized to" while maintaining all 6 of your conditions. I doubt you can.
– Zebrafish
yesterday
First, the 'dependent preposition' an arbitrary (and fussy) rule, which is a matter of style (and so of taste) than of grammar. Second, it does not always work out well, as in the child's cross complaint: "What did you bring that book I didn't want to be read to out of up for?". "For what did you bring up that book out of which I didn't want to be read...to?" is no better: it is worse. The final preposition is unavoidable, and the whole sentence. sounds stilted. The (or my) standard answer is to use a different word - like 'explain'. Then the problem is gone.
– Tuffy
yesterday
First, the 'dependent preposition' an arbitrary (and fussy) rule, which is a matter of style (and so of taste) than of grammar. Second, it does not always work out well, as in the child's cross complaint: "What did you bring that book I didn't want to be read to out of up for?". "For what did you bring up that book out of which I didn't want to be read...to?" is no better: it is worse. The final preposition is unavoidable, and the whole sentence. sounds stilted. The (or my) standard answer is to use a different word - like 'explain'. Then the problem is gone.
– Tuffy
yesterday
Winston Churchill on the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition: This is the type of errant pedantry up with which I will not put.
– Barmar
yesterday
Winston Churchill on the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition: This is the type of errant pedantry up with which I will not put.
– Barmar
yesterday
Accounts should be given for discrepancies?
– Jason Bassford
18 hours ago
Accounts should be given for discrepancies?
– Jason Bassford
18 hours ago
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Dan Hillman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f489877%2favoiding-dangling-prepositions-when-using-the-passive-voice%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Dan Hillman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Dan Hillman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Dan Hillman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Dan Hillman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f489877%2favoiding-dangling-prepositions-when-using-the-passive-voice%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Discrepancies should be counted (explained, justified).
– Rusty Core
yesterday
1
Dictionaries give discrepant information on what "account for" is. For example in defining "account" Collins says (usu. fol. by for) and M-W says (used with for), whereas American Heritage and Oxford Living Dictionaries don't list such meaning of the verb "account"; they consider "account for" as a phrasal verb. If viewed like that then you can't exactly treat "for" as a preposition you can shift around. However if it isn't, your question is like asking how to move the final preposition "to" in "Your brother should be apologized to" while maintaining all 6 of your conditions. I doubt you can.
– Zebrafish
yesterday
First, the 'dependent preposition' an arbitrary (and fussy) rule, which is a matter of style (and so of taste) than of grammar. Second, it does not always work out well, as in the child's cross complaint: "What did you bring that book I didn't want to be read to out of up for?". "For what did you bring up that book out of which I didn't want to be read...to?" is no better: it is worse. The final preposition is unavoidable, and the whole sentence. sounds stilted. The (or my) standard answer is to use a different word - like 'explain'. Then the problem is gone.
– Tuffy
yesterday
Winston Churchill on the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition: This is the type of errant pedantry up with which I will not put.
– Barmar
yesterday
Accounts should be given for discrepancies?
– Jason Bassford
18 hours ago