Every book on grammar, written either by accredited grammarians or renowned linguists, argues the rule on not “ending a sentence in a preposition” and all the other “bogus rules”.
The debate is four-hundred-years old, and has been buried a long time ago. The majority of prescriptivists have conceded, but Mr. Mcintyre resuscitates it, along with the “split infinitive rule”, because it’s a rule that has been dismissed by almost everyone, but constantly rehashed by descriptivists. Must I remind everyone that there are far more egregious solecisms in today’s language that need more attention?
There is not a scintilla of originality in his piece concerning “bogus rules”. Every book I’ve read on linguistics and grammar dedicate a chapter or two on these--what is considered-- archaic rules. The tautological premise is debatable, but frankly there is absolutely nothing original or constructive that can be articulated in favor of or in opposition to these rules.
However, there is a slight falsity to Mr. Mcintyre’s position, (and to the many linguists who concur with his stance) on why he adheres to grammatical rules rather than defy them. He adheres to them because intrinsically he understands their importance and that correctness is predicated on “proper grammar”. Furthermore, Mcintyre postulates that he follows grammatical rules when he finds the occasion needed; in other words when he wants to be understood and to convey a specific academic impression.
I would think this has a taint of hypocrisy.