Do you cringe when people say: Where is he at?

Question

I've noticed that using "at" incorrectly is acceptable these days. Is it? Or do we just not care anymore?

yes Steve V, it is

Answer 1

Sorry, being Hoosier, I will be saying it until I die. Yep, know the "at" is unnecessary, but that is a colloquialism that is not going to die easily. But, if this makes you cringe, you must spend one heck of a lot of time shuddering, considering the state of the American language today. There was a time when the use of "who," when "whom" was called for, would leave me wondering where the speaker was schooled..but today, "whom" is all but an extinct word. This reminds me of a line from My Fair Lady, "there even are place where English has completely disappeared.....in America, they haven't used it in years!"

Answer 2

Using 'at' or 'to' in the sense of 'where is he' ('where is he at/to') is NOT incorrect, it is dialectical. English is a dialectical language with many variations which persist despite the levelling influence of the media and narrow-minded English teachers. This has always been the case because we are a very mixed race. If you doubt me, compare the language of Chaucer with that of Piers Plowman. Chaucer was an educated Kentish man, while the writer of Piers Plowman was a no less educated Worcestershire man. They each wrote good English in their own dialect.

One can still hear 'Where's 'e to, then?' in the West Country (and if you don't phrase it so, you are immediately singled out as 'Thee bisn't from round 'ere, then?')

Please don't knock proper dialect ... making fun of it, of course, by using it irregularly or improperly, is just as bad. To say 'Where is he at?' is just as correct grammatically, however, as 'Where is he?' The test of grammatical correctness is to turn the question into an answer ... 'He is [where]' or 'He is at [where]' are both perfectly acceptable Standard English constructions. I will grant that 'He is to [where]' is still dialectical, but certain meanings of 'to' and 'at' are expressed identically in many other languages.

What always has made me cringe, however, is being addressed (as a complete stranger) as 'ducks'['dooks']. 'loov' ('oo' as in 'look'), 'muy luverr' ['a' tending to 'ah' as opposed to 'uh' and the 'rr' indicating a rolled 'r'] (in various parts of the country). That seems to me to debase very good terms of endearment in the same way that McDonalds, Starbucks and others have debased the wish that one might 'have a nice day' ... when 'nice' has already been brutally raped!

The crime of ending a sentence with a preposition is something which was invented by 19th Century English teachers. You can read (and yawn to) the results of their teachings in many 19th and early 20th Century writings. The important elements of language are (1) that it should be clear and comprehensible and (2) that it should be elegant and pleasing to the ear. There are occasions when to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition sounds false and stilted and interrupts the flow of the language. There are some things up with which we should not put.

The advantage of 'Where is he at?' against 'Where is he?' is probably a matter of emphasis. It may not be so much a question in some mouths as an expression of exasperation (and therefore rhetorical). I love English for it's richness and its variety ... and sometimes for the way that we can misunderstand each other. A polite English guest's request of 'May I help you wash up?' or a host's 'What time shall I knock you up in the morning?' may be seriously misunderstood by ... or at least cause a double take to ... the most refined American!

Edit: I particularly like John Piranhafishgato's philosophy (below me), and I think I agree that what is acceptable to some is not acceptable to others. It does depend on the society which we move in. ... (OR 'in which we move')

Answer 3

I don't like it. I don't use it. I wouldn't write it. But it's simply an understandable dialectical variation of American English. Around the world, we humans change our usages and languages and grammars, evolving constantly. The only place that usage is "incorrect" is when you're speaking or writing among folks who don't like your usage, but with whom you want to make a good impression (that includes a standardized test where your response would be marked wrong).

Me, I try to receive the meanings and filter out what I feel are "ugly" sounds...
"I'm LIKE...I'm SOOO picky about standard and nonstandard usage."
"What up wi'CHOO? You like hip-hop rap lingo?"

Nonstandard American English irritates me too.
But I find Korean English in Korea interesting and lyrical.
It's probably familiarity, training, habit, social conditioning, and prejudice that causes this effect.

If we can't care in a positive way feeling wellbeing, maybe we're better off not caring about it, just ignoring it, to keep our own peace of mind. Communication is more important than usage.

Answer 4

Yes. I cringe inside. I cringe worse when I hear " I had went there" Getting used to bad grammer living where I am at. (Ha.Ha). Couldn't resist it, don't cringe too much Daisy.

How about this: I done too much today.

Answer 5

It does make me cringe, but sometimes it is hard not to end a sentence with a preposition.

Answer 6

That phrase really bugs me, but I don't care about others like:

What are you afraid of?

That seems natural and not annoying. I think avoiding ending ANY sentence with a preposition is a little to far, but "where he at" is just dumpy.

Answer 7

I used to cringe at "do lunch", "take a meeting" and the one that sends chills up my spine was"lookit".

Answer 8

Sho 'nuf.

Of course, wouldn't our parents have cringed at the way WE talk?

Answer 9

I have been guilty of this, and try my best not to. My Dad would always say between the a and the t.

Answer 10

This, to me, is a little more cringe-worthy than "kids"