Starting a sentence with a conjunction

Forums: And, But, Conjunctions
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Moved from:

http://able2know.org/topic/175991-13#post-4706359

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Here's a tip:
the word "and" is a conjunction; (its to CONJOIN things together)
i.e., its like glue or Scotch Tape to attach a sentence fragment
to the rest of the sentence. For years and for CENTURIES people have been starting sentences with conjunctions,
but it is against logic to do that because if u do, the sentence becomes a SENTENCE FRAGMENT.

If u do it, u will probably be able to get away with it,
but it does not make u look like a logical person to do that.

I most respectfully suggest that u don 't start a sentence with "and" or "but".

As we move along in what promises to be an ongoing discussion of English grammar and how language is actually used in all the different registers - casual speech, newspapers, academic, fiction/novels - it will become abundantly clear to everyone that OmSigDavid hasn't the foggiest notion of how to explain English or its grammar.

All he is doing is repeating worn out old prescriptions that he read/heard in his youth. His silly notions find no support in tradition, in modern use or in the field of language science.

Here's two examples. The second source is an out of date resource and even that one points out how silly Om's idea is. OmSig's idea of proof is to loudly declare that such and such is against logic.

Quote:

Starting a sentence with a conjunction
Occasionally I come across an adult who still thinks it’s improper to start a sentence with a conjunction. Others think that starting a sentence with a conjunction is an innovation and should be done only sparingly, if at all. For those folks, I offer this passage from the King James Bible (circa 1611). I’ll put the passage in blue and the first word of each sentence in red.

And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

Luke 2:6–14.

By my count, there are nine sentences; eight of them begin with a conjunction.

http://raymondpward.typepad.com/newlegalwriter/2007/02/starting_a_sent.html

Quote:

A frequently asked question about conjunctions is whether and or but can be used at the beginning of a sentence. This is what R.W. Burchfield has to say about this use of and:

There is a persistent belief that it is improper to begin a sentence with And, but this prohibition has been cheerfully ignored by standard authors from Anglo-Saxon times onwards. An initial And is a useful aid to writers as the narrative continues.

from The New Fowler's Modern English Usage
edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996.
Used with the permission of Oxford University Press.

The same is true with the conjunction but. A sentence beginning with and or but will tend to draw attention to itself and its transitional function. Writers should examine such sentences with two questions in mind: (1) would the sentence and paragraph function just as well without the initial conjunction? (2) should the sentence in question be connected to the previous sentence? If the initial conjunction still seems appropriate, use it.

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm

I purposefully chose the second source to show that even a website filled with errors about English knows that this old canard is nonsense.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 3,860 • Replies: 14

No top replies

Hobgoblins
February 24, 2009 @ 2:13 pm · Filed by Mark Liberman under Humor

« previous post | next post »

According to this morning's After Deadline post, that's what Philip B. Corbett at the New York Times calls "rules that aren't", following the lead of Theodore M. Bernstein:

Another pet peeve of some After Deadline commenters is the use of “but” or “and” to begin a sentence — as in the third sentence of the previous section. Obviously, I don’t share their aversion.

It shouldn’t be overdone, but using coordinating conjunctions this way can provide a handy and very efficient transition. “But” is certainly preferable in many cases to the stilted “however,” and “and” is simpler than “in addition” or similar phrases.

I’d put this objection in the category of “Miss Thistlebottom’s hobgoblins.” That’s how the former Times language guru Theodore M. Bernstein described overly fastidious rules and usage myths a grade-school English teacher might invoke to keep her pupils’ prose on a very narrow path. (Familiar examples include “Never split an infinitive” and “Never end a sentence with a preposition.”)

Mr. Corbett is being polite to his commenters, I think, by calling these strictures "overly fastidious" (as opposed, say, to "preposterous fabrications").

Arnold Zwicky has suggested the term "Zombie Rule" for things like this — see "When zombie rules attack", 8/26/2008, and "However, …", 11/1/2006, and "Five more thoughts on the that rule", 5/22/2005. In a comment, Language Hat once mentioned "Aloysius Thistlebottom and his fellow half-dozen members of the Preserve English the Way it Was in Queen Victoria's Time (But Not Much Further Back Because Then It Gets to Be Too Much Trouble) Society", so apparently the Thistlebottom family has more than one member in this line of work.

Perhaps Miss Fidditch, who would "rather parse than eat", is a relative. (She's the patron saint of computational linguistics, or at least she should be. Don Hindle named a parser after her, about 20 years ago, but she's been neglected in recent years. )

February 24, 2009 @ 2:13 pm · Filed by Mark Liberman under Humor

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1177

0 Replies

Does God want you to use more initial conjunctions?
November 9, 2009 @ 7:05 am · Filed by Mark Liberman under Humor, Linguistic history, Prescriptivist Poppycock

« previous post | next post »

In the comments on yesterday's post, Ran Ari-Gur raised the possibility that sentence-initial conjunctions are verbally and plenarily inspired of God, just as singular they is. Ran's evidence came from a sample consisting of the first 80 verses of Genesis in the original Hebrew and in the King James translation. I decided to check more systematically, and so this morning I downloaded the entire KJV and (wrote a script that) counted.

Out of 791,524 total words, there appear to be 12,846 instances of sentence-initial and, for a frequency of 16,229 per million. This is more than four times the rate of sentence-initial and in the COCA "spoken" section (4,048 per million), and more than 60 times the pathetic 263 per million of secular academic prose:

Read on at,

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1876

0 Replies

Dealing head on with OmSigDavid's zombie rule.

Quote:

Initial coordinators in technical, academic, and formal writing
November 8, 2009 @ 11:04 am · Filed by Mark Liberman under Prescriptivist Poppycock

« previous post | next post »

Yesterday, I quoted someone writing on the nanowrimo forum ("Also, check the back seat", 11/7/2009), who offered an apparently irrefutable argument in favor of "No Initial Coordinators" (NIC), the zombie rule that forbids us to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as and or but:

[Usage standards and grammar] are related but not identical. Grammar deals with categories such as parts of speech, and the logical rules of syntax for constructing sentences. Grammatically, conjunctions link words, phrases, or clauses. So from a grammatical standpoint, a sentence beginning with a conjunction is a fragment, and hence ungrammatical.

The lovely thing about this argument is the universality of its structure. We stipulate that the role of X is to perform functions A, B, or C; since D is not in our list, it follows logically that X cannot legitimately perform the function D. To add to its lustre, this particular instance of the argument is self-refuting as well as circular, since some expressions of the "No Initial Coordinators" pseudo-rule include so in the taboo list.

Having conceded that initial coordinators are in common use, despite being (in his opinion) deductively ungrammatical, our grammatical zombie offers this generalization:

Although beginning a sentence with a conjunction is acceptable in fiction (there is wide agreement on this), it is not acceptable in technical, academic, or formal writing.

If generations of Hollywood movies have taught us anything, it's that you can't reason with zombies. That's why yesterday's post quoted Zombieland rule #22, "When in doubt, know your way out". But zombie logic from self-appointed authorities often lures innocent youth into the clutches of the undead, so I'm going to devote a few minutes this morning to examining the facts of initial-conjunction usage, in the hopes of inoculating a few I. Y. against this particular strain of the zombie virus.

Continued at,

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1875

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

As we move along in what promises to be an ongoing discussion of English grammar and how language is actually used in all the different registers - casual speech, newspapers, academic, fiction/novels - it will become abundantly clear to everyone that OmSigDavid hasn't the foggiest notion of how to explain English or its grammar.

And this is a surprise why?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

It may well turn out that it is only a surprise to OmSigD, Joe.

0 Replies

@JTT,

There appears to be something deep in your mind
in rebellion against simple, sound reasoning.
From your posts, it sounds emotional.
I can't be much more specific than that.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Odd that you should say that, Dave, instead of laying out your reasons for maintaining such a nonsensical position. I'm not rebelling against anything. I'm describing how language actually works. You can see it all around you. Language scientists attest to this.

You wrote;

Quote:

Here's a tip:
the word "and" is a conjunction; (its to CONJOIN things together)
i.e., its like glue or Scotch Tape to attach a sentence fragment
to the rest of the sentence. For years and for CENTURIES people have been starting sentences with conjunctions,
but it is against logic to do that because if u do, the sentence becomes a SENTENCE FRAGMENT.

As the Stanford professor, Arnold Zwicky says,

"If you're going to wield technical terminology in a critical way, you really should know how to use it correctly."

Starting a sentence with a conjunction does not make a sentence into a sentence fragment.

"Sentences with initial coordinators are not sentence fragments on that account."

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1817

You expressed the same yourself above. See underlined.

Sentence fragments are not ungrammatical. Sentence fragments are in common use. Everybody [that's notionally plural, Dave] uses them, all the time.

In another column on the same issue he notes,

"Two things here. First, Opal's attention to the conventions of writing, including her awareness of the stupid No Initial Coordinators advice about written English. Opal is 5, in kindergarten (which she started last month), and is writing on her own, "

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1817

1 Reply

Linguist, Mark Lieberman of UPenn on Sentence Initial Coordinators aka Starting a sentence with a conjunction

Quote:

STEP ON A CRACK, BREAK A GRAMMAR RULE

...

The usage note in the American Heritage Dictionary's entry for and says that

It is frequently asserted that sentences beginning with and or but express “incomplete thoughts” and are therefore incorrect. But this rule has been ridiculed by grammarians for decades, and the stricture has been ignored by writers from Shakespeare to Joyce Carol Oates. When asked whether they paid attention to the rule in their own writing, 24 percent of the Usage Panel answered “always or usually,” 36 percent answered “sometimes,” and 40 percent answered “rarely or never.”

This is wild. There is nothing in the grammar of the English language to support a prescription against starting a sentence with and or but --- nothing in the norms of speaking and nothing in the usage of the best writers over the entire history of the literary language. Like all languages, English is full of mechanisms to promote coherence by linking a sentence with its discourse context, and on any sensible evaluation, this is a Good Thing. Whoever invented the rule against sentence-intitial and and but, with its a preposterous justification in terms of an alleged defect in sentential "completeness", must have had a tin ear and a dull mind. Nevertheless, this stupid made-up rule has infected the culture so thoroughly that 60% of the AHD's (sensible and well-educated) usage panel accepts it to some degree.

Imagine something like this happening in another domain. For example, someone decides that stepping on sidewalk cracks puts your spine out of alignment and tends to cause bad posture and muscular weakness. No evidence is provided, and the idea is widely ridiculed by biomedical researchers, but all the same, after a few years, 24% of a panel of family doctors say that they "always or usually" pay attention to this rule in their own perambulations, and 36% say that they "sometimes" do.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002224.html

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

And I can see no good reason why not to start a sentences with a conjunction. But what do I know? And if I'm not allowed to end a sentences with a preposition, what shall I end it with?

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Odd that you should say that, Dave, instead of laying out your reasons for maintaining such a nonsensical position. I'm not rebelling against anything. I'm describing how language actually works. You can see it all around you. Language scientists attest to this.

What makes language right or rong is the accuracy of its underlying reasoning, NOT
the way people who shoud (hopefully) know better screw it up.
I hold people directly responsible for their articulated words, NOT
for what I suspect thay might secretly be thinking.

When I needed the professional services of an abdominal surgeon,
if he had spoken in an illogical fashion:
I 'd wonder how DEEP resided his confusions.
I 'd prefer to choose one with demonstrably better organized thought processes.
I 'd not accept one who contradicted himself in his speech patterns.

Years ago, when I was hiring both professional staff and support staff
for my law firm, if an applicant arrived with stains on his clothes,
or who spoke in a disordered, illogical fashion:
in selecting the winners from the pool of applicants,
those flaws were taken into consideration.

I 'll get back to u.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I 'll get back to u.

Yeah, right, Dave. Where have we heard that one before? What could you possible be getting back to us with? It's going to be interesting to see how you defend a brain dead zombie rule like this?

You've written the claptrap found in this post of yours a number of times. What silly sense of logic makes you think that your badly skewed opinions would determine how language is used? You've illustrated your "logic" for us a couple of times and it's been shown to be silly as all get out.

These people who "should know better"; do you mean like that found in Shakespeare and in "the usage of the best writers over the entire history of the literary language"? Even 5 year old Opal has a firmer grasp on what constitutes logic than you do.

Quote:

What makes language right or rong is the accuracy of its underlying reasoning,

Next you're going to tell us that logic determines this until you get to the point where you find yourself lost and you can't defend a usage that even you follow. Then you will come up with the lame nonsense that grammar is mostly sensible EXCEPT for those instances where YOU can't explain why it isn't sensible.

Abdominal surgeons, like everyone else on the planet, uses rules for English that are natural. They don't follow made up zombie rules. Corpus studies tell us this over and over and over again. Numerous studies illustrate that the very idiots who tout these artificial rules don't follow the "rules" themselves. Why? Because they are artificial, made up nonsense.

In your case, nonsense from a person who knows next to nothing about how language works. You, the fount of grammatical wisdom, rarely participate in discussions on language because you can't explain yourself on language.

The only time we see your "wisdom" expressed is when you rant, the same tired old rant every time, [as in this post of yours] attempting to defend a "rule" that comes not of your own thinking, but, as has been noted, you, just repeating someone else's zombie thinking/logic.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

But what do I know?

Obviously, a whole lot more than Dave, LA.

0 Replies

@JTT,

I 'll get back to u, again.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

And furthermore Om, misspelling "you" and "should" is a grave threat the king's English has faced since you left school.
But we can adapt can't we?

0 Replies

Starting a sentence with a conjunction

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know