What for? For what?
What for?
For what?
I think I have seen both of them but I am not completely sure. Are they possible?. And what about these others?
From where?
Where from?
Thank you in advance.
10 Answers
Technically, in English, according to the grammar police, every preposition is supposed to be followed by the object of the preposition.
I'm not quite sure who the "grammar police" that you speak of might be, and even though I believe that this was said somewhat tongue in cheek, I would prefer that nobody read this and be left with the impression that in all cases it is grammatically incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition (i.e. not follow a preposition with its object)
This type of construct, often called preposition stranding, can often be found in grammatically sound constructs such as the following:
Wh- questions
• What are you looking at? [not - At what are you looking?]
• Who are you laughing at? [not - At who are you laughing?]
• What is that gun for? [not-For what/Why is that gun?]
• What did they charge him with? [not - With what did they charge him?]
Prepositional passives
• He was laughed at. [never - At he was laughed]
• They were shot at [never - At they were shot]
At the same time, I understand the aversion to phrases that use any type of "What...for" construction (often the aesthetics of such constructs evoke in me a similar sensation to running your nails down a chalkboard) because there are almost always better ways to say the same thing using "Why" in it's place (Why do you need that gun? - infinitely more specific than the "What...for" phrase). On the other hand, these types of constructs (Wh- questions) are quite common and more importantly quite sound, grammatically.
I've heard all of them except for "Where from?"
Someone says, "Call your mother." You might answer, "What for?"
Someone says, "This sponge is for cleaning the counter." If you don't understand, you might say, "For what?"
Someone says, "I'm from Texas." If you don't understand them you might say, "From where?"
Are you trying to say that "what for" and "for what" are interchangeable? or do they have a different meaning according to the context?
I would say that in most cases the two can be used in the same context, but they do generally carry slightly different connotations.
What for - generally is the same as asking the question, "Why?" or "For what purpose?"
For what - when you place "what" at the end of a sentence like this, it is usually to emphasize the fact that you are asking for either an explanation or repetition of what was said previously.
In context, suppose that your husband told you that he was going to the store to get some milk, here are some example responses and what they might imply:
For what?
1) I didn't hear that last bit, what are you going for again
2). Incredulously - you didn't just say milk did you. We still have 3 gallons left in the refrigerator
What for?
1). For what reason/why are you going to buy milk? Did you have a craving or were you planning on baking something?
Speaking merely as one who uses the language, I would say For What? might indicate a level of exasperation or angst not converyed by What For?
I do agree that they could be used interchangeably.The form makes sense either way.
Nila said
Grammar police, I do not understand.
Hi Nila
These are Grammarians", so called experts in grammar or linguistics. I believe they would insist on what is called "Received Pronunciation" or more informally, King´s/Queen´s English and sometimes called Oxford English. The link below gives more details.
As Izanoni said, they are often used interchangeably. Technically, in English, according to the grammar police, every preposition is supposed to be followed by the object of the preposition. "What for?" is grammatically incorrect. "For what?" is the correct way to say it.
"Ending a sentence with a preposition is an error up with which I will not put." jaja
Here the grammar police really do object. "with whom" Nonetheless, this use of "who" is very widespread. - samdie
Samdie, please, could you put any examples? - nila45
Strictly speaking, the word "whom" represents the objective case of the word who. So any situation which requires that the pronoun refer to the object of a verb or a preposition should, strictly speaking, employ the word "whom" and not whom. This would be the "grammar police" version of the story.
On the other hand, the use (misuse) of the word "who" in the objective case is so widespread at all levels of speech that it is usually overlooked.
Examples:
• This is his game [his - object of the verb]
• To whom does this belong/Whom does this belong to? [whom - object of preposition; preferred by the grammar police but not as common to hear]
• Who does this belong to? [objected to by the grammar police but very common to say]
• He ate the cheese [He - subject]
• Who ate the cheese? [Correct case]
• Whom ate the cheese? [incorrect case because He is not the object of a verb or preposition.
• Her friends are coming with her [her - object of a preposition]
• With whom is she coming/Whom is she coming with? [whom - object of preposition; preferred by the grammar police but not as common to hear spoken]
• Who is she coming with? [objected to by the grammar police but very common to say]
Does this help to clarify?
Izanoni, I was about to ask more questions about this same subject when I read your answers. Definitely, you have read my mind.
Anyway, I suppose that the examples will be the same with:
With who?
Who with?
Who are you going to the cinema with?
Is that it?
"Grammar Police" is a tongue in cheek way of referring to certain grammar experts or often so-called/self-proclaimed grammar experts. It is often said in either a playful or condescending manner.
Another similarly formed expressions is fashion police
Are you trying to say that "what for" and "for what" are interchangeable? or do they have a different meaning according to the context?
