Language Stories: “Up With This, I Will Not Put”

In the annals of linguistic anecdotes, few stories are as enduring, entertaining or illuminating as the exchange attributed to the irrepressible Sir Winston Churchill about the pedantry of language, specifically the idiosyncrasies of English grammar. While the story is famously linked to the debate over whether to end a sentence with a preposition, it’s much more than a grammar lesson. It’s a vivid testament to the way language can be used as a tool of wit and persuasion, especially by someone as eloquent and shrewd as Churchill himself.

A Primer on Prepositions

To fully appreciate this anecdote, a rudimentary understanding of English grammar, and prepositions in particular, is essential. Prepositions are little words such as ‘on’, ‘in’, ‘at’, ‘of’ and ‘with’ that typically express relationships of place, time or manner between different parts of a sentence.

For example, in the sentence ‘The cat sat on the mat’, ‘on’ is a preposition linking ‘the cat’ to ‘the mat’. For many years, traditional grammar rules said that a preposition was not an appropriate word to end a sentence. This so-called rule arose from an attempt to apply Latin grammar standards to English, an endeavour fraught with complications given the fundamental differences between the two languages.

But in common usage, especially in more informal contexts, ending sentences with prepositions is almost inevitable. This is especially true of conversational English, which reflects how people actually speak. Despite this naturalness, some grammarians have persisted with the ‘no terminal prepositions’ rule, often leading to debates about its relevance and practicality.

Churchill’s Ingenious Retort

This brings us to the story of the formidable statesman and master orator, Sir Winston Churchill. The story has been told many times, with minor variations, but the essence remains the same.

Churchill, a Nobel Laureate in Literature and celebrated for his powerful speeches that boosted British morale during the darkest days of the Second World War, is said to have once been corrected by an overzealous editor or bureaucrat (depending on who is telling the story). This person took the liberty of revising a sentence in Churchill’s writing that ended with a preposition.

The exact sentence is not known, and over the years, many phrases have been suggested. In one account, it was something akin to “This is the sort of English up with which I will not put”. Upon receiving his edited work, Churchill, irked by the pedantic correction, scribbled a note in the margins of the document. His retort was a sardonic imitation of the hypercorrected English that the no-terminal-preposition rule often yields. His note famously read: “This is the sort of pedantry up with which I will not put!”

The Significance of the Anecdote

This anecdote is brilliant on multiple levels. First, it showcases Churchill’s remarkable wit. The phrase “up with which I will not put” is a delightfully absurd inversion of the idiomatic phrase “I will not put up with this.” It abides by the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition but at the cost of sounding utterly unnatural, thereby proving Churchill’s point that sticking rigidly to such a rule can lead to ridiculously convoluted language.

Secondly, it demonstrates the quintessentially English brand of humour that Churchill was known for: understated, sarcastic and sophisticated, punctuating a nuanced argument with a pithy punchline. It shows that language is not just a vessel for communication, but also a playground for wit and humour, a stage for intellectual showmanship.

Finally, it embodies a larger lesson about language and its rules. The anecdote underlines the point that language is not an immutable set of rules, but a living, evolving entity shaped by its users. Rules are important for coherence and mutual understanding, but they should not stifle the creativity and dynamism at the heart of language use. If rigid adherence to a rule leads to awkward, stilted communication, it may be time to re-evaluate the rule, or at least its application.

The Legacy of Churchill’s Wit

While it is important to note that this anecdote, like many involving famous figures, may be apocryphal, its enduring popularity is a testament to the power and playfulness of language. Whether or not the exchange took place exactly as described is less important than the enduring fascination with Churchill’s linguistic ingenuity.

The story continues to be invoked in classrooms, language forums and popular culture. It’s used by teachers and language enthusiasts alike to illustrate the fine balance between adherence to grammatical rules and the importance of fluency, creativity and the inherent musicality of language.

The Churchill anecdote serves as a reminder that language should be a bridge, not a barrier. As much as it is a tool for expressing ideas, language is also an art form, a canvas for creativity, humour and personal style. Even the most complex grammatical structures and rules should not stifle the simple joy of crafting a sentence, a joy that Churchill clearly possessed and demonstrated throughout his life.

And as the debate on ending sentences with prepositions continues, the “Churchillian rebuke,” as it has come to be known, is a witty and wise counsel to pedants: Language rules are important, but so is the naturalness of expression. In the end, “up with this, we should put!”