I know that sentences like "It is done", "She could be heard" are right, because it conforms to passive voice rules. So, I have compared "Smokers should be got rid of" with such examples. It seems to me to be right, because here I have used past participle form of the verb "get", but I am not sure if I have put the last preposition in right place. On the whole, it appears to me to be weird. Is this sentence correct at all?

  • 2
    Well it's okay, but what do you mean by 'got rid of'? It's not the most natural thing to say. And when you 'get rid of' a person or a thing you usually throw it away or eliminate them somehow. – AmE speaker Jun 19 '17 at 14:11
  • Negative externalities associated with smokers should be eliminated. – Jim Jun 19 '17 at 21:20
  • 'Faulty electric blankets should be got rid of' is a less contentious example; it's fine in an informal register. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 19 '17 at 21:41

It's perfectly good. Some would not approve of it in writing, mostly because of the colloquial phrase "get rid of".

[A few dinosaurs still object to the preposition at the end, but that so-called rule was nonsense when it was invented, and is now mostly recognised as nonsense].

  • 2
    Be gotten rid of is nearly as common as be got rid of in American English these days. – tchrist Jun 19 '17 at 13:37
  • @Yoqubjon Jo'rayev I don't mean to challenge that fine progressive thinking; but why stand by this phrase "should be got rid of"? Isn't it at least distracting? A simple passive verb -- Smokers should be exiled, or banished, or killed, or forbidden, or barred or expelled or something -- would be a step in the right direction; and an even simpler active voice -- We should forbid smokers, we should slaughter smokers, etc. -- would be even better. No? – Chaim Jun 19 '17 at 15:56
  • 2
    @Chaim: better by what criteria? Of your "exiled, or banished " etc, some are inappropriate, and some are needlessly specific. If the writer wanted the vagueness of "got rid of", what is wrong with that? And again, of course it could be put in the active, but in what way would that be "better"? – Colin Fine Jun 19 '17 at 16:42
  • We are in no position to judge the propriety or needed specificity, since the example has no context. Of course I was trying to be funny in offering such persuasive methods, but each of those words is appropriate to some context, and Yoqubjon knows the facts better than you and I. Sometimes specificity is good. But do you think that an active construction (We should get rid of smokers.) is as likely to distract Yoqubjon and all other sensitive readers as the original one (Smokers should be got rid of.)? I don't think it is. – Chaim Jun 19 '17 at 16:49
  • I totally disagree with you, and believe there was every good reason for a rule which proscribed prepositional endings. They are the fag ends of language. Of smokers, we (the world) should be rid. (No pun intended). – WS2 Jun 19 '17 at 17:50

protected by Community Aug 1 '17 at 16:26

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.