Can you grammatically end a sentence with "with"? For example, in "Do you want to come with?"

Question

Do you want to come with?

Can I come with?

I seem to hear this construction more often in recent years, but it still grates on my ear.

I know it's often said that one shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition, but I class that rule along with split infinitives (i.e. — pedantic tosh).

Is it always informal/casual speech to end a sentence with "with"? Was it ever thus?

Its Midwest via Scandinavia ; there's a famous paper by John Spartz and I'm getting out of the way before I'm trampled by linguists :-) — cindi, Nov 23 '11 at 16:38
"Who do you want to go with?" is a perfectly fine construction for most English speakers. However, "come with", as in "Do you want to come with?" is a construction that is only used regionally in some parts of the U.S. If it's from Scandinavia, that probably means Minnesota and environs. — Peter Shor, Nov 23 '11 at 16:42
oic. Spartz says it's a standard and grammatical utterance in the Upper Midwest dialect of American English, but I can't dig any deeper without actually buying a copy of his dissertation. — FumbleFingers, Nov 23 '11 at 16:44
I can attest to usage ("Do you want to come with?") in south Jersey and Phila area (but not standard) by people who have no connection with Scandinavians nor the Midwest. — horatio, Nov 23 '11 at 18:24
Quotation attributions on the Internet are notoriously hard to track down. (Lincoln) — kojiro, Nov 23 '11 at 20:48
Strictly speaking finishing a sentence in English with a preposition is frowned upon, even if it happens alot in speech. The correct (if old-fashioned) way to ask the question is "With whom do you want to go?" — Pete855217, Nov 24 '11 at 14:06
@Pete855217: I think there are more people today who will accept sentences ending in prepositions than will accept alot as a single word! :) — FumbleFingers, Nov 24 '11 at 14:26
As I just mentioned on a comment to "What are the limitations on the “needs washed” construction?", where the comments went onto a tangent about precisely this usage, "Do you want to come with?" and "I'll come with" are forms I've heard in British English. Whilst they'd be considered (very) informal, I think they'd be widely understood. — Owen Blacker, Feb 26 '12 at 00:35
(If it makes a difference, my native British English is likely to be skewed to West Country dialects, where it's relatively common for the preposition to to be added to then ends of sentences, eg "Where did you get that to?", so it might just be a function of that dialectic usage.) — Owen Blacker, Feb 26 '12 at 00:39
@GEdgar: The misattribution to Churchill is no longer to be put up with. — RegDwigнt, Aug 21 '12 at 13:55
In relation to Peter Shor's comment, "Who do you want to go with?" should not be seen as acceptable, "you" is the subject, so "whom" must used not "who". — , Nov 29 '12 at 03:56
"Who do you want to come with?" makes sense in a variety of scenarios: If the asker is the person throwing the party. Or if the asker is asking you about your sexual preferences. Meaning doesn't exist on its own. The meaning of a phrase is its use in a language game. — nomen, May 29 '14 at 19:19
The Pacific Northwest also seems to have a fascination with "Do you want to come with?" Drives me crazy, like I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. — , Jul 12 '14 at 21:30

score 15 · Answer 1 · edited Jun 15 '20 at 07:40

15

It's perfectly fine to end a sentence with a preposition, don't believe any fear-mongering to make you believe otherwise.

enter image description here

Sometimes it may sound awkward, sometimes it's more suitable for informal writing, but there is no prohibition against it.

Having to read comics about grammar jokes, I guess that's something I could live with.

However, the examples you cited don't sound like correct grammar to me. It's not because they end with with, it's the fact that they omit the personal pronoun:

Do you want to come with us?

Can I come with you?

They're informal speech patterns, and yes, there are grating, kind of like asking "How are you?" and getting "Thanks, I'm doing good."

edited Jun 15 '20 at 07:40

Community

1

answered Nov 23 '11 at 16:16

The English Chicken

8,480

+1 for "bulletproof" example of sentence ending with "with". But I'm not sure it's specifically the missing personal pronoun that bugs me in the usage under scrutiny. I have no problem with, for example, "You go first and I'll come after". – FumbleFingers Nov 23 '11 at 16:38
1

I've primarily heard this construction from people coming from South Africa, where (I believe) it's a literal translation of Afrikaans. – Lunivore Nov 23 '11 at 16:39
6

I say to accept this answer and get it over with – Nov 23 '11 at 17:15
@Scott: It's not exactly "news" to me, but Barrie has already pointed out that we accept dropping the "object" of on, off, without, as well as after. And I'm not going to take issue with John Spartz saying it's "grammatical" in Upper Midwest dialect. What I'd still really like to know is whether there's a general trend towards this kind of "ellipsis", or is a just a kind of dialectal hangover. So I'll wait a while, if you don't mind. – FumbleFingers Nov 23 '11 at 18:16
@FumbleFingers: I don't believe it's an ellipsis. I think what may be happening is that "with" is acceptable as an adverb in these regions, whereas (according to the dictionaries I've checked, at least), "with" is not an adverb in most of the U.S. or in the U.K. – Peter Shor Nov 23 '11 at 18:48
3

@Peter Shor: oic. You mean they think of it as on a par with "Do you want to come along?". That makes a lot of sense to me - I can't casually see "with" as an adverb myself, but logically it ought to be possible with the right attitude! – FumbleFingers Nov 23 '11 at 19:27
1

@FumbleFingers I wasn't really saying to accept this answer, it's your choice, of course. It was a little bit of wordplay on your question but it must've been a little wide of the mark. – Nov 24 '11 at 11:12
@FumbleFingers: To expand on what I've said in another comment, the OED has citations for the adverbial use of 'with' up until the mid-fifteenth century ('Defende and kepe þe soule of þy‥seruant‥and, þy grace goyng wiþ'), so to that extent it does have some legitimacy. – Barrie England Nov 24 '11 at 11:41
@Scott: soz for the deadpan reply - it was a neat and apposite wordplay, thanks. But Peter's later comment (and even later backup from Barrie) are genuinely enlightening to me, so I'm glad to see the issue still "live". – FumbleFingers Nov 24 '11 at 14:33
@FumbleFingers No worries :-) – Nov 24 '11 at 14:34
2

@FumbleFingers How about this one: "The specials tonight are sword fish and honey baked chicken." / "What does the chicken come with?" / "It comes with a side of your choice and a soup or a salad." – CoolHandLouis May 18 '14 at 08:06

Barrie England · Accepted Answer · 2011-11-23T17:23:32.823

7

I’ve heard of it, but never heard it. The absence of a direct object after a phrasal verb that normally has one is not unprecedented. FF has already mentioned come after, but there are other examples. You can get on or get off a bus, or you can just get on or get off. You can go without dinner, or you can just go without. I don’t imagine anyone objects to those now, if they ever did. I suspect the only thing intransitive come with can be charged with is being new.

I wouldn’t be surprised if, as Lunivore says, it’s a construction found in Afrikaans. German has the cognate separable verb mitkommen (although admittedly that occurs only intransitively).

edited Nov 23 '11 at 17:23

answered Nov 23 '11 at 17:10

Barrie England

140,205

1

Is this because "on", "off", and "after" can be adverbs, while "with" generally can not? – Peter Shor Nov 23 '11 at 18:50
@PeterShor: They’re prepositions when followed by a noun, just like ‘with’: ‘jump on a bus’, ‘stay with you’. When not followed by a noun, they are adverbs, again, just like ‘with’: ‘I have to get off now’, ‘Can I come with?’ The OED records this use of ‘with’ as an adverb meaning ‘with it (me, them, etc.)’ as obsolete, but it seems to be making a comeback. – Barrie England Nov 23 '11 at 19:47
It might seem a bit harsh on @The English Chicken, but I'm going with this one even though everything here seems to be covered by his (or comments thereto). It's short and to the point, and seems to cover everything important. And - amusing as it may be - I'm not sure the pbfcomics strip was exactly central to the usage come with that I was asking about. – FumbleFingers Jan 15 '12 at 01:13
1

I've occasionally heard "Can I come with?" in the UK. It could be a German borrowing, although it is of course common across languages for prepositions to be transitive or intransitive and for there to be a little bit of variation in frequency of these uses among speakers. To give you an example from a different language family, you'll occasionally hear French speakers say "Tu viens avec?"; "Il faut faire avec" (meaning "Il faut faire avec ça" = "You have to cope/make do with it") is more or less standard. – Neil Coffey Nov 29 '12 at 04:39

score 2 · Answer 3 · answered May 19 '23 at 03:49

"Verb + with + [nothing]" is a dialect feature that is widely accepted in America. The Yale Grammatical Diversity Project (YGDP) has a great article about it. (This is different than the inversion we see in questions and similar constructs, where there is a proper prepositional phrase instead of "nothing": "Who will you go with?" => "go with who". For that, see When is it appropriate to end a sentence in a preposition?)

In sentences like "Can I come with?" context determines the exact meaning: Who's leaving? That's who the speaker wants to go with.

There are at least 6 verbs that can work like this, mentioned by Spartz (2008): come, go, ride, bring, take, and carry; a listserv suggests that be is also possible ("A friend was with and she drove me home"). Not all verbs are equally acceptable, however. Consider this map (created by Jim Wood on Oct. 11th, 2019, based on YGDP's data):

Can you grammatically end a sentence with "with"? For example, in "Do you want to come with?"

3 Answers3

Linked

Related