Ending sentences with prepositions

From a Sentenceparts reader:

Help!

What is correct English? "Of what animal is this a part?"

"What animal is this a part of?"

or...something else altogether?

Thank you for rescuing me one more time, and Happy Thanksgiving.

Francoise

Francoise,

Each, IMO, are correct. It's a question of usage which involves a value system. The value in this case is that the normal prescription discourages ending a sentence with a preposition. However, avoiding this may lead to very awkward alternative constructions such as the one you gave.
The often over-quoted complaint by Winston Churchill goes: "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put" points out the pitfalls of sometimes not ending a sentence with a preposition.

Happy Thanksgiving,
Jack Sands

Joe Lieberman asks: What is the chair worth?

In an article relating to the status of Independent/Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the headline for Andrew Taylor's piece on Yahoo! News read:

McCain backer Lieberman may keep committee chair

Does Taylor mean chairmanship, Lieberman acting as chairman, or chairperson?

No, the journalist meant to say "chair," a term that has been applied over the past few decades to mean "position of authority." The word is a metaphor, a form of metonymy, a kind of figure of speech, "in which a thing or concept is not called by its own name, but by the name of something intimately associated with that thing or concept" (Wikipedia).

Chairmanship is archaic, as is, I suppose chairman, chairwoman, or chairperson. Chair is gender neutral, particularly if you are thinking of a conventional place upon which to place your own seat.

Still, to say that Senator Lieberman may keep (in fact, he has kept it) the committee chair makes one think, at least fleetingly, of a stool or a pew, a seat upon which to sit. It might even suggest an image of the senator's own stately behind, which has been in "hot water" lately because of Lieberman's support of Republican Senator John McCain in the recent National Election for the highest office.

Chair may also be used as a verb. Senator Lieberman chairs each meeting of his committee. That is, Lieberman presides over each meeting, he directs each meeting--even if he has only two legs himself.

More from Guy Geldworth, Market Bull

Life is jittery in the office these days. Just trying to take care of our clients' portfolios. We emphasize uncorrelated measures as we try to moor assets in safe harbors, yet it appears there's nowhere to hide. I have to say it, the deregulated market seems to have been the tipping point of the end of a thirty year growth market dominated by the bulls. No more, it appears. (These words are ineffable in the office, of course. It took forever just to admit we were in a recession.) Are we heading for a "deep recession" or a depression? A depression!? That's what some bold technicians are saying as they see strong parallels in the charts comparing the 1929 market and today's.

But what really prompts this posting (Thank you Jack Sands, for the space) is the ignoble way some in the media are already undermining an authority not yet manifest in going after president-elect Obama. "Obama recession," they're saying. Huh?! Obama is just now putting his cabinet in place, is just barely ascending the "bully pulpit," and Wall Street is already discounting equities, and projecting blame on the newly elected. Oh well, as they say in Britain: (President) Bush is forgotten but not gone."

I understand the wealthy (many of our clients) want a flat tax rate, nothing progressive for them, a 17% flat tax rate would do. That saves them a bundle, but what about the middle class? The poor? I understand the fear they have of a "leftest" increase in the capital gains tax rates. All personal perspectives, mind you. Very personal. To heck with the rest of the culture "out there." "We have to protect our own." The phrase my fellow Americans takes on a whole new meaning.

But to the point of this posting. Below, I list quotations issued from a few bright minds concerning unrestrained capitalism and the unwholesome mixing of private capital with government. Notably, in their recent campaigns for presidency, Barack Obama and John Mccain spent nearly $1 billion. Who'd they get these sums from? What may these contributors want and get from the future president? Worse yet, consider the use of public funds to heal the wounds of private capital--the current use of public money as a "back stop" to bail out corrupt investment bankers. Most importantly, see Thomas Jefferson's concern over the dangers of a politically uninformed body politic.*

I am in accord with all expressions below, particularly those emphasizing the responsibility of citizens to inform themselves, then to act.

I might have my CFA, but I'm also, it turns out, a believer in a democratic republic, one who, nevertheless, will try to keep his rich clients rich, hopeful that they share my values, even as I remain dubious of that possibility in the near future. I'm perhaps like many of you, still a few feet away from becoming a Public Citizen.

In 1816 Thomas Jefferson warned of "a single and splendid government of an aristocracy founded on banking institutions and moneyed incorporations" which would mean "the end of democracy and freedom".

A few decades later in 1864, Abraham Lincoln warned: "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." Thirteen years later, the Gilded Age commenced, a period of growth and vast corruption.

Albert Einstein: "... under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. "

Noam Chomsky: "The press is owned by wealthy people who only want certain things to reach the public."

Jefferson again: "Ignorance and sound self-government could not exist together: the one destroys the other. A despotic government could restrain its citizens and deprive the people of their liberties only while they were ignorant."

*Jefferson could never completely separate education from government. With the fullest faith in the ability of man to govern himself, Jefferson nonetheless realized that self-government could be assumed successfully only by an enlightened people.

More market bull from CNBC's Ratigan and company

Dylan Ratigan and his colleagues on the CNBC financial program "On the Street" asked a day after the election of Barack Obama: What can Obama do to stem the financial tide (downward)? We will better refer to this downward "financial tide" as the negative domino effect of the deregulated financial markts stemming from the Clinton period through the current Bush period.


Beneath the image of the august, all-knowing group, a graphic read:

"Breaking News! Obama Honeymoon Over, 12th Largest Point Drop in Dow"

What is the implicit statement of cause and effect being made here? Obama's election causes a one-day market decline? Not one of the experts on Ratigan's panel even mentioned the name President Bush, whose policies remain in force and, who, let us recall, is still in office. Eerily, no one mentioned former Bill Clinton administration members Robert Rubin or Larry Summers, the former a "financial guy" with Goldman Sachs, the latter an esteemed academic and economist, both of whom helped dismantle the Glass-Steagall Act, Depression-era legislation which until 1999 (see further down) helped stabilize the banking system, ridding it of the corrupt practices incubated in "modern" legislation they helped foster: the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act of 1999 which deregulated the financial world and created the casino world of corrupt Derivatives Markets, Credit Default Swaps, and Collateralized Debt Obligations. Welcome to collapsing markets, particularly you poor folks and struggling middle class folks with shaky loans spinning off of those heady financial instruments.

To reassert: The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act resulted in a catastrophic deregulation of the Financial Services industry. To his credit Obama had criticized the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 before the dramatic decline of the market:

  
"By the time the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999, the $300 million
lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers
than creating an efficient regulatory framework.... The regulatory environment
failed to keep pace." (Cheyenne Hopkins,"Regulatory Revamp Newest Plank In
Obama's Platform," American Banker, 3/28/08)

While we should be worried that Obama is being consulted by Robert Rubin and Larry Summers among others, the suggestion that the market is already "punishing" Obama "policies" is absurd, as those policies are not yet manifest. All the speculation is abstract as it comes during an immature moment in Obama's not-yet-acted-out presidential term. The president-elect has yet to install a cabinet or formulate specific strategies to tie in with his platform. No official, in-office policy stated, yet he's being punished (skilfully manipulated?) by financial pundits already. Phew! Let the rhetoric commence. We suppose you must say something when you get paid to be a Talking Head, even if it formulates to empty rhetoric.