Twilight
discussion
Grammatical Errors
While I realize you asked me not to point out any links, the one I did was a .edu domain ("only post-secondary institutions and organizations that are institutionally accredited by an agency on the U.S. Department of Education's list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies are eligible to apply for a edu domain.") so I think that should be taken into consideration and urge you to do a .edu search of your own and let me know if you find out something to the contrary.
I thought I said that I wasn't interested in trading links, Will. We both know that we can find plenty that support our views. My main point of contention is that linking two sentences with a conjunction at the beginning of the second sentence sends a mixed message grammatically. What exactly is the relationship between the two? Are they closer than if a semicolon was used? Why put a period (which implies a full stop) and then immediately join the two parts?
It's simply not grammatically sound. That being said, I regularly use both conjunctions at the beginning of sentences. I think it's acceptable, but I don't think it's grammatically correct.
"I thought I said that I wasn't interested in trading links, Will."I addressed this in my follow-up post (it was a .edu link). How are either of us to convince the other without referring to educational sources?
I am just telling you what the universities (including the one I went to) teach now. There are many times where beginning with And or But places the right amount of emphasis and creates a certain, worthwhile effect.
"Many of us were taught that no sentence should begin with "but." If that's what you learned, unlearn it—there is no stronger word at the start. It announces total contrast with what has gone before, and the reader is primed for the change." - William Zinsser (former teacher of writing at Yale)
I could go on and on quoting those with the credentials to examine this point, but I guess you could just call that an appeal to authority.
I would argue that if it's acceptable at every level of writing to start a sentence with a conjunction (when it's use is appropriate), then it IS grammatically correct. Obviously not in every case, as it is still wise not to in most cases.
I've started entire paragraphs with "But" in formal Essays in my university English classes at several different times and under several different professors. Not one pointed out that I shouldn't do it. Either they were incompetent (I'd like to hope not as they were thorough in pointing out other errors), or it is grammatically correct in certain cases, especially if the effect you are trying to convey is emphasis.
"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."-Mark Liberman, linguistics professor at the University of Pennsylvania
Okay okay, I'll stop appealing to authority! Sorry!
I hate to tell you unpleasant truths you may not have come across before, Will, but just because your university accepts it doesn't make it grammatically correct. I discussed this pages before and I don't feel like rehashing, but grammar isn't taught much or well. Universities are used to getting students that don't know grammar, and many students leave in the same state. My objection doesn't center around the things you are filling your replies with, Will. It's not about whether it's widely used (because I know it is) or whether there are sufficiently impressive people who use it (because I know there are). My objection centers on the fact that the practice contradicts itself on a basic level. If you think that your job is to convince me (BTW, I don't share this view), I would think a little more of your approach.
Why I usually end up using an "and" or a "but" at the beginning of a sentence has to do more with the preceding sentence length. If it is getting long, I'll end it formally, while still linking it with a conjunction. (It's really a sneaky way of continuing the same sentence while not seeming to.) I also think most people will get lost in a long sentence, and they generally pay more attention to the beginning of sentences than the end, so it pays to put main points in smaller sentences while still keeping a connection to the longer train of thought.
I don't know about the practice of starting off a paragraph with "But". That seems a little clumsy to me, although perhaps it wasn't. I don't know how that could be seen as emphasizing a point.
Will wrote: "The object is understood. If you want a more formal correction, it would be, "I really don't think it is as horrible as you are dramatizing it to be."Substitute to see what I mean, "I really don'..."
Oh my god, really???? Now my sentence construction on an online discussion forum is being picked apart? Sure wish people would have better things to do with their lives.
When writing comments on Goodreads requires a sophistication of grammar expected at an ivy league school, it's time I quit visiting this forum. I'm really quite offended that my one sentence was hacked apart by two individuals when I have witnessed countless times that "texting" language and shorthand were used by many posters. I'm getting ripped to shreds over a preposition? Will and Baylor - you know where you can shove that preposition. Get off your high horse.
@Amy, I didn't mean to draw anything out that made you feel that you were being singled out. I just don't like people correcting others and being snide when they can't be bothered (or don't know enough) to be accurate themselves.
Everyone's grammar is imperfect. To point out another person's grammar mistakes is weak. We're all here to have our say and listen to other's points. If you're here to play grammar police, I think your contribution won't be conducive to quality dialogue.
Amy, Hahaha, you asked what was wrong with it! I was merely sparking an interesting conversation. If you took offense by it, that's completely on you. In no way did I criticize you (I acknowledged the informal setting and merely pointed out that there was in fact a flaw; nothing wrong with that)!Mickey, this contradiction "on a basic level" that you speak of is simply not there. Conjunctions connect ideas, phrases, words, etc. IN NO WAY are they restricted to being inside of a sentence. Never has this been established as a rule of formal grammar. If you would like to show where this is not true, then show me, please, but just because you think it contradicts some fundamental rule doesn't make it. Basically, show, don't tell. I have provided you with declarative statements on this topic by those that are in authority to establish these very rules (editors of dictionaries, lexicographers, etc). Conjunctions simply connect, and, if used properly, they can show a contrast, further emphasized by beginning a sentence with one. It's not clumsy in many cases, and I think I have thoroughly shown this.
"Will, but just because your university accepts it doesn't make it grammatically correct."
I acknowledged this possibility; however, who has authority in this? Who do I go to to find out if my University was mistaken, or if it was me? I went to dictionaries that confirmed my position (from the Oxford to Websters), I went to lexicographers (who's job it is to show these rules), and I went to the author of more than a dozen widely used and accepted grammar guidebooks (H W Fowler).
Since these sources all confirm my proposition, how then can you show that starting a sentence with a conjunction "contradicts itself on a basic level?"
I am eager and willing to hear your case, but know that your own thoughts on this, thus far, have gone against the prescriptions of those that establish and present the grammatical rules themselves.
"If you think that your job is to convince me (BTW, I don't share this view), I would think a little more of your approach."This is disturbing so I wanted you to clarify. Are you saying you aren't willing to be convinced otherwise? You are then admitting close-mindedness?
I'm not accusing, only asking for elaboration, as this is a deeply disconcerting statement. We should all be willing to change our views if confronted with logic and evidence.
Mickey wrote: "@Amy, I didn't mean to draw anything out that made you feel that you were being singled out. I just don't like people correcting others and being snide when they can't be bothered (or don't know ..."
I didn't mean you at all - you defended my informal use. I was talking about Baylor and Will.
Will wrote: "If I could pop in here, the grammatical error in the sentence "I really didn't think it was as horrible as you are dramatizing about." is not the preposition being at the end, it's the actual prese..."By the way, if you had read my whole post, my use of "didn't" versus "don't" was correct as far as I can tell. I was referring to the past when I had read it - meaning, at that point in time years ago, I did not recognize horrendous grammar use. I shouldn't feel the need to defend myself, but I pride myself in skills many, many people do not have any more.
Will said: actually widely accepted at the university level and beyond now that you CAN start a sentence with And or But.I'm sorry, but it's never acceptable to use And or But at the begining of a sentence formally, expecially in Univ! I've gone through two degrees (one in eng, one high school edu) and I didn't get that message. Two of my friends are also doing their phd's in Eng and failed to recieve this "new" grammar rule. I've also worked closely with a well established canadian editor(has done work with atwood and big cana. poets) and she never said it was okay to use And or But at the begining of a sentence. She also helped edit my Eng hons thesis as well and never told me the "new" rule about And or But. I'm going to grad school next year for my MA in Eng and again, never got that note.
If it is correct: it doesn't work well in formal papers, things do not flow right. It looks wrong too. Not only that, a lot of people are told that And or But are usually used after commas, etc, so it's even more werid to see it at the begining of a sentence. This is another reason why I would still refrain from using it as well.
The examples you use (Yale prof and other exapmples) are more of an aesthetic value, rather than what is gramatically correct. It's a big difference. Formally, its incorrect, but informally or for aesthetic purposes it's correct. Also, people who have a high amount of Edu can whip around words like it's their job--which it is. Students don't get the same ease of access to "try on" new words in their works, unless you have a very forgiving prof, or he/she likes 'new' aesthetic ways of creating prose. I'm not saying your wrong, but formally I would never in all my dreams use And or But in an academic paper, unless it was there for an aesthetic purpose, but I don't feel as through I have enough authority academically to do so.
Perhaps its different in twilight where we are reading informal thoughts through bella. That would make sense to some degree. SInce bella is a flawed character it only makes sense that her prose is flawed. This is why wrting first person is tricky.
Not that I mind having such an interesting debate but might I suggest that for those people interested in the discussion on correct grammar usage it be continued on a more appropriate thread? Perhaps on a book similar to "Eats Shoots and Leaves"? I only suggest this as I have seen issues with other threads when conversations tend to go off topic!
Kristen wrote: "Hylian Princess wrote: "I find grammatical errors in many books I read; I find typos too. We're all human and it just..."Yep.
Has anyone seen this?
"Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uine..."
I've seen that, I love it! It always makes me smile.
Also, if you want to see really bad grammar in a book, check out 50 Shades of Gray.
Lastly, the phrase is "a lot," not a singular word "alot." IJS...
Amy wrote: "By the way, if you had read my whole post, my use of "didn't" versus "don't" was correct as far as I can tell. I was referring to the past when I had read it - meaning, at that point in time years ago, I did not recognize horrendous grammar use. I shouldn't feel the need to defend myself, but I pride myself in skills many, many people do not have any more."You're right, no need to get defensive about it at all. I was merely taking up the challenge you posed when asked what was grammatically wrong with the sentence. I never would have pointed it out if it hadn't been brought up and you really shouldn't feel offended by it. The sentence could have been written by Einstein and if someone said, "can anyone find anything grammatically wrong with this sentence?" I will be the first to raise my hand and say "oh, me! me!" because that's just the way I am. I accepted the challenge.
As far as didn't/don't, I think you are are pretty much right. Don't works better because it implies you haven't changed your mind, so it's a stronger statement, but "didn't" does work, like you say, if you are saying, "At the time, I didn't think it was..."
Natalie wrote: "I'm sorry, but it's never acceptable to use And or But at the begining of..."Natalie, the examples I bring forth, which are from the people who write the books on the rules of grammar, do not mention it being an aesthetic rule only. I am merely quoting what the top level of authority in this subject are saying. I can almost guarantee that every book you've ever read has at least one sentence and paragraph starting with But or And.
This includes formal essays as well.
I have in front of me Immannuel Kant's essay Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals/On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns. In it, on page 8, Kant begins a paragraph, "But there is something strange in this idea of absolute value of mere will..." What a great start to a paragraph! Don't you want to see what the rest of the sentence says? But okay, you might be saying, that's a translation! Aha! Okay, let me pull out the next closest essay I have on my bookshelf:
In Thomas Paine's Common Sense, the 6th paragraph begins: "But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling."
These are just the two formal essays I have close by and I am only giving the first two I came across! They are both littered with it! Some more from Common Sense:
"When the world was over run with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated."
"Absolute governments (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine."
Here, read for yourself, check out paragraphs 19 and 22 in the first section also. In section 2, check out paragraphs 2, 9, and 16 for a few more examples. It goes on and on! http://www.bartleby.com/133/1.html
Needless to say, you have completely missed out on the "rule" simply not being a rule at all! ALL of the greatest writers (2 of which I have cited as examples) do not follow this made up rule. Go ahead, do some digging for yourself. I can go on and on quoting famous writer who start with And or But in FORMAL ESSAYS!
It's simply not a rule, and when you say "formally I would never in all my dreams use And or But in an academic paper" you are holding yourself back!
Of course, in saying this, there are proper times to start sentences with And or But, and there are times when it's extraneous, unnecessary, and choppy. It takes a fair amount of wise judgment to discern when it is acceptable, and even more to discern when it is preferred.
I rest my case!
:)
Carina wrote: "Not that I mind having such an interesting debate but might I suggest that for those people interested in the discussion on correct grammar usage it be continued on a more appropriate thread? Perhaps on a book similar to "Eats Shoots and Leaves"? I only suggest this as I have seen issues with other threads when conversations tend to go off topic!"
I appreciate what you are saying, but most topics evolve as the discussion continues, and most people don't want to keep discussing the same topic. Soon, this one will fade out and another will take its place. This is just a natural progression of discussion.
Don't fret, though. There will still be comments that only address the OP's first post, and the original topic will continue as well.
I just wanted to point out these two sentences by Thomas Paine again because it was a phenomenal way to end a paragraph and perfectly exemplifies ways in which starting a sentence with But can be extremely effective, especially in a formal setting!"When the world was over run with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated."
Wow that guy was a great writer, wasn't he?
Will wrote: "Natalie wrote: "I'm sorry, but it's never acceptable to use And or But at the begining of..."Natalie, the examples I bring forth, which are from the people who write the books on the rules of gra..."
...This is not to say I never use the words And and But in my essays, so let’s smooth that bump over. Of course I use those words, although I do not use them at the start of my sentence.
Yes, I know books do this. I’m not voicing an opinion about Fiction.
I’m speaking from a contemporary point of view, not Kant’s or Paine’s life.
I don’t know why you are quoting from scholars? I understand your point without you having to quote from them. I’ve read both essays years ago....I understand people use And or But at the beginning of a sentence. This is not news to me.
I know “great” writers use this form. I don’t need to do some “digging” thank you, I have two degrees and beginning my masters this year. This is a bit insulting.
You nor anyone (except my editors and English advisors) have no authority to say whether or not I’m holding myself back by not using And or But at the beiging of a sentences. I’ve presented academic papers at many conferences throughout the years and i’ve yet to be told i’m being “held back”. Perhaps in a reading response I would informally use And or But in an assignment, but it’s not my style to use it in academics. The flow isn't quite there...
Your last sentence I agree with, which is why I stay away from it. Also, I’ve been told by numerious people within the English faculty, editors, and collogues that it’s not proper to use And or But. I don't care if scholars from yale write books on why its okay to use it. I daresay you will find more people who will not use it than people who will. Perhaps one day the function of prose will shift and we will see this being taught in the school systems and perhaps see it in undergrad papers.
There is such thing as academic authority and I daresay a lot of people who use these words in an essay have this authority.
And yes, I consider using And or But as an aesthetic move in some instances. Not to say Twilight is what I call aesthetic, but we can see how And or But is used to show that the words are an extension of Bella's mind, therefore it will be fragmented at times (since we all know bella is a fragmented character), etc. Another reason I see it as aesthetic is because my area of work/study is the manifestation of form in Modern Fiction (and I also specialize in contemporary, but more so modern), so this is entirely up my ally. A lot of modernist would have done this for reasons they chose for aesthetic purposes. So yes, I may have learned this from modern works of art (which might impact my understanding of how people use And or But), athough, I still would not use it unless it's in a piece of fiction or creative piece.
You don’t have a case because it’s obvious that this is a subjective issue which is why I am not going to press on...
Why do people always take such offense! I will never understand...I never meant any offense in making my case, only to provide my evidence! When I quote from Paine, I'm not suggesting you've never read him, or that you are ignorant! I am merely presenting my case!
The reason I presented such a long case, is because you started off with "I'm sorry, but it's never acceptable to use And or But at the begining of a sentence formally, expecially in Univ!" And this is the only thing I was trying to argue against! I pretty much agree with everything else you say.
"You don’t have a case because it’s obvious that this is a subjective issue which is why I am not going to press on..."
If you had said this from the beginning, instead of, "it's never acceptable to use And or But at the begining of a sentence formally" then I might not have had to present a case in such a way that you interpreted it as me talking down to you (which I promise, I wasn't; I was merely trying to be thorough in stating my case).
So, if you claim it's subjective, then yes, I don't really have a case, only an opinion, but I think I could present a pretty strong and thorough case against the claim that starting a sentence with And or But is never acceptable in formal writing.
"You nor anyone (except my editors and English advisors) have no authority to say whether or not I’m holding myself back by not using And or But at the beiging of a sentences."
What I meant by this, is if someone were to see this as an actual rule (which it isn't, you won't find it in any modern grammar texts), then they might, when writing, find themselves stumbling across a sentence that begins with a But and think, "Oh, even though this sentence sounds great and works perfect like it is, it's always bad grammar to start a sentence with a But, so I should change it." That one sentence I quoted by Paine is a great example of a sentence that would lose it's power and effect if the But at the beginning was edited out. It doesn't matter if it's modern or not.
Since you are well read, and quoting will only insult you, I suppose I merely have to point out that modern as well as ancient scholars of the written formal essay have and do and will use But and And to start sentences when it suites their purpose, from all levels of academia. If you still want to avoid it in every case when writing something formal, that's your prerogative and I have no problem with it, but I think it's an unnecessary restriction.
Okay, now I'm just repeating opinion, haha. I'm satisfied with calling it a subjective issue!
Will, I am not fretting - believe me I find this discussion much more interesting. I just thought I would point it out due to some responses I have seen on other threads where the discussion has veered away so much.Tehreem, I think that is an excellent way to put it.
Let it go, people. The best and most succinct explanation of this debate can be found in the movie Finding Forrester. Now let's move to something important like commas. We'll never get that one resolved. [And just for fun, have you ever heard two professors argue about the use of "you" in papers? I assure you, it's lots of laughs and often pointless.]
I really agree with you some of the mistakes were definitely an eye sore I really dont think that was publicity move I dont see how
Don't blame Meyers too much. Editors and proofreaders are getting paid to guide the publication process. Unless Meyers demanded to be sloppy, it's not her fault. We live in a time when carelessness is vogue. I had one student tell that he had a grammar book that said he did not have to capitalize the pronoun "I." [e. e. cumings'?] Another told me that his computer would not let him capitalize "I." I think this occurs because it takes two fingers to do it, and many might think you have to be ambidextrous to accomplish this feat.
Just an after thought: I wonder when these books were translated did they keep the errors intact?
Don't blame Meyers too much. Editors and proofreaders are getting paid to guide the publication process. Unless Meyers demanded to be sloppy, it's not her fault. We live in a time when carelessness is vogue. Exactly. There are kids writing books on their iphones, apparently - and well, using text or net-speak. They basically abbreviate everything.
People have become rather lazy writers - due to the increased use of blackberries and smart phones to communicate. Those tiny buttons aren't exactly conducive to good grammar and not everyone has a spell/grammar check on their phone. Plus phones have a tendency to throw out the wrong word.
Meanwhile Publishing houses really don't copy-edit that much any longer. E-books barely get it at all.
Ann Rice stopped being edited years ago (and yes, you can tell - her books are a mess). Stephen King? Same problem. James Patterson...sigh. And I think Stephenie Meyers and the people in her writer's workshop...followed the style they read - which is Dan Brown, Danielle Steele, and James Patterson.
These guys often aren't even copy-edited any longer - they are so successful, that the publishing houses don't appear to bother.
This was not the case 20 years ago. I'm not sure its fair to compare Twilight to Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises. Harry Potter - on the other hand - is a fair comparison as is the Hunger Games, which in my opinion were better written. As was the novels by Jim Butcher. Not to mention Ann Rice's earlier Vampire novels, when she still had an editor.
Mickey wrote: "If you think that your job is to convince me (BTW, I don't share this view), I would think a little more of your approach.""Will wrote: "This is disturbing so I wanted you to clarify. Are you saying you aren't willing to be convinced otherwise? You are then admitting close-mindedness?
I'm not accusing, only asking for elaboration, as this is a deeply disconcerting statement. We should all be willing to change our views if confronted with logic and evidence."
It's interesting to me how you chose to interpret this. I was responding to your idea that our main aim is to convert each other from your post which stated: "How are either of us to convince the other without referring to educational sources?" It's not my goal to convince you of my opinion and I don't believe in having that goal. I was saying if you have the goal to convince me, you have to think of your audience, because you are trying to persuade me of the rightness of your position. I was being helpful by giving you pointers. I told you that your posts heretofore did not deal with my problems with the practice, and if you wanted to have any hope in convincing me, you should think about the objections I had and concentrate on those.
You still haven't addressed these, except to say "Mickey, this contradiction "on a basic level" that you speak of is simply not there. Conjunctions connect ideas, phrases, words, etc. IN NO WAY are they restricted to being inside of a sentence. Never has this been established as a rule of formal grammar." This is hardly adequate to convice me, because you basically just state a different opinion. Hardly a good argument or one likely to change someone's mind.
CD wrote: "Their are to many errors in book like this sort of.( :large silly grin: )
This was the best bad grammar I could generate this morning. Yikes, there I go again."
so you mean to say that there are "TOO" many errors.. right?
William wrote: "I had one student tell that he had a grammar book that said he did not have to capitalize the pronoun "I." [e. e. cumings'?] Another told me that his computer would not let him capitalize "I." I think this occurs because it takes two fingers to do it, and many might think you have to be ambidextrous to accomplish this feat."I think this anecdote illustrates the problems I have accepting some of the quotes showing famous writers breaking the rules. All the teachers on this thread who've corrected their share of student papers understand that, for the ordinary person, grammar rules are important for clarity. If you've ever been confronted with a paper with no complete sentences or without any commas or all one long paragraph, you know that they are fairly painful and almost unintelligible.
Great writers are a special breed. They understand how to work with words in a way and have reached a level where they don't need to follow the rules that help the rest of us form coherent and acceptable sentences. It's not so much that great writers don't know the rules, or just choose to disregard them, but they have the ability to transcend the problems that arise from the rule-breaking.
The problem with using the words "and" and "but" at the beginning of a sentence is that it continues the previous sentence. A few of these in a row will turn writing that could be sharp into a ramble. When this is done sparingly for effect, it looks and functions differently than someone who hasn't developed a different language for writing than they have for speaking. Without real completions for sentences or paragraphs, the structure of the writing will suffer.
When people without this natural dispensation break rules, their writing suffers. Learning that a sentence should be a complete and independent thought is an important part of developing a good writing style, partially in order to counteract the natural tendency to speak in incomplete sentences or half-formed thoughts. Written words need to be more organized and controlled than other forms of expression. Grammar rules have an important function in helping us write clearly so that we can be understood and also understand other people's writings.
Mickey wrote: "You still haven't addressed these, except to say "Mickey, this contradiction "on a basic level" that you speak of is simply not there. Conjunctions connect ideas, phrases, words, etc. IN NO WAY are they restricted to being inside of a sentence. Never has this been established as a rule of formal grammar." This is hardly adequate to convice me, because you basically just state a different opinion. Hardly a good argument or one likely to change someone's mind."Haha, you haven't given me anything that I need to overcome! You are the one making the claim that "the practice contradicts itself on a basic level." Where? Show me so that I can present a case that counters this claim.
You haven't shown this to be true at all. The very definition of a conjunction is "the act of joining." Where is this "basic level" that says one can only use a conjunction within a sentence?
You are the one making a claim that there is a rule, whether inherent within conjunctions, or established therefrom, that you cannot begin a sentence with one. No such rule exists.
The very people that establish grammar rules and publish the books that are used as grammar guides for the English language state that there is no such rule. It is a case-by-case issue, not an established rule. In some cases, it's frowned upon and can come across as lazy. In others, it can be a powerful opener to a sentence or even an entire paragraph, in formal settings as well as informal.
Here is the main problem: "I told you that your posts heretofore did not deal with my problems with the practice"
You haven't even begun to show how there is a problem with the practice (or make clear what your objections might be). The only thing I have to go on is a vague claim of some sort of inherent contradiction "on a basic level," but at it's most basic, a conjunction merely connects.
"There is a widespread belief—one with no historical or grammatical foundation—that it is an error to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as 'and', 'but', or 'so'. In fact, a substantial percentage (often as many as 10 percent) of the sentences in first-rate writing begin with conjunctions. It has been so for centuries, and even the most conservative grammarians have followed this practice." - The Chicago Manual of Style
The Chicago Manual of Style, I might add, is the most popular Grammar guide I know of behind the MLA. MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing states no such rule about conjunctions in their guides. Neither does the The Associated Press Stylebook 2009, nor The Elements of Style, et al.
"The problem with using the words "and" and "but" at the beginning of a sentence is that it continues the previous sentence."This is just a flat out false claim. Completely and utterly not true. I know of no other way to show this than to list every single grammar manual that is in use today and point out that none of them agree with you. Some flat out disagree, and most do not even mention anything of the sort.
Get off your high horse, Will. You're right. Isn't that enough? After all, some suggest using a ";" before "and" if the main clause contains commas, and a "." = a ";". [sorry about putting the period outside of the quotation marks, but I thought it would make it clearer.
My high horse? What are you talking about? In no way do I think I'm "better" or "above" the people I'm talking to in this discussion, and in no way have I shown this. I respect their views and opinions, hence why I'm having a discussion with them. It's odd that stating my case is considered a form of arrogance.
Mickey wrote: Great writers are a special breed. They understand how to work with words in a way and have reached a level where they don't need to follow the rules that help the rest of us form coherent and acceptable sentences. It's not so much that great writers don't know the rules, or just choose to disregard them, but they have the ability to transcend the problems that arise from the rule-breaking. The problem with using the words "and" and "but" at the beginning of a sentence is that it continues the previous sentence. A few of these in a row will turn writing that could be sharp into a ramble. When this is done sparingly for effect, it looks and functions differently than someone who hasn't developed a different language for writing than they have for speaking. Without real completions for sentences or paragraphs, the structure of the writing will suffer.
Yes, yes, and yes
"Great writers are a special breed." You are correct. They have an academic authority that many people never achieve.
Will, are you saying that starting sentences with the conjunctions "and" and "but" have never been considered grammatically incorrect? I actually have discussed my problems with the practice of starting sentences with conjunctions. In fact, I've now done it so many times that I am putting my foot down and not repeating myself yet again.
If you need to figure out what the basic functions of sentences and conjunctions are, look it up. It would be helpful to you to look up what an incomplete sentence is as well. I don't need to do that for you.
The ten percent you cite includes other conjunctions, I take it, than "and" or "but", which isn't considered a problem, so you're either knowingly misrepresenting or you aren't reading carefully enough.
I said from the beginning: I'm not interested in researching or trading links and quotes, particularly since yours aren't focusing on my problem, which you don't seem to understand for some odd reason. I don't feel the need to convince you of anything or defend my view. I think you've had enough feedback to realize that my view is not unusual or eccentric.
Your views have already been contradicted. You claim (still!) that there was never a rule about using "and" and "but" at the beginning of the sentence, and you've had people contradict that. Most people have been taught this rule. I was taught this rule and I understand the reasoning behind it, because I've had experience with the alternative.
I'll give a typical example of what I'm talking about:
Yesterday, my cat ran out the door. And I went running after her. But she ran under the car. And I couldn't get her out.
This is an example of starting sentences with "and" or "but". It doesn't work well. There are actually fewer natural sentences here and the typical pausing after sentences makes this choppy. I think combining works better than simply accepting these as grammatically good sentences.
Will wrote: "It doesn't matter if it's modern or not.I don't think you understood me correctly. I was saying how modernist influeced my understanding of aesthetics. It is within this context where I see And or But differently bescides the fact that I was told it's not good to teach students to use And or But at the High School level (from all my BEd profs)
Not to mention that I've been taught all my life to never use And or But at the begining of a sentence. The only people you claim that do this are "great" writers, and as Mickey said, they are "a special breed",which is essentualy what I have been saying all along in regards to academic authority(some profs have this impression that undergrad students do not hold much authority). It's a big risk to use And or But at the begining of a sentence if you're not sure your prof is gonna' put a big X on it, especially if you are in your undergrad and do not have that academic authorty. The outcome is that it looks sloppy. Perhpas if there were a prof that agreed with using And or But at the begining of a sentence you wouldn't have this issue, but I'm afraid many profs would not welcome this. Perhaps at grad school level..?
I don't doubt that you are incorrect about And or But, although it's not practiced at the very basic level which is why many people do not use it. Also, if someone is a sloppy writer and they were taught to use And or But, than it would be even worse. Oh the horror of marking all those papers. Gives me the heebie jeebies lol.
Will wrote: "This is just a flat out false claim. Completely and utterly not true."You're being ridiculous, Will. Starting a sentence with "and" does not join it to the previous sentence? Please explain how it does not in my "cat" example. The "and" means it cannot stand by itself, because it is not complete in itself.
Mickey,You've completely lost me now. I've quoted what you've said the problem was, that it is a contradiction on a basic level. I've shown this to be false, even though it's extremely vague.
Just because you were taught it is a rule (I was too) does not make it one. You should know this, and now it just seems like you are trying to have the last word or something. You even said yourself that the educational system can be abysmal. Well, this is clearly evident as it has convinced you of a rule that does not exist anywhere.
Stating examples where starting a sentence with And or But is grammatically incorrect in no way shows that it is always incorrect, or that it is a rule. In fact, I've clearly stated that, more often than not, beginning a sentence with a conjunction is a bad idea.
"If you need to figure out what the basic functions of sentences and conjunctions are, look it up."
Thank you for the suggestion. I did just that. No where was such a rule stated. Conjunctions connect. Simple as that. In the grammatical definition of conjunctions itself, it's stated they can be used to connect sentences.
"The ten percent you cite includes other conjunctions, I take it, than "and" or "but", which isn't considered a problem, so you're either knowingly misrepresenting or you aren't reading carefully enough."
I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here.
"I think you've had enough feedback to realize that my view is not unusual or eccentric."
This means nothing. 99% of the general public can agree with you, doesn't make them right. I'll side with those that establish the rules and lay them out in grammar manuals.
Mickey wrote: "You're being ridiculous, Will. Starting a sentence with "and" does not join it to the previous sentence? Please explain how it does not in my "cat" example. The "and" means it cannot stand by itself, because it is not complete in itself."It connects. Sometimes, starting a sentence contrasts an idea from a previous sentence or paragraph. If you want to call this a "continuation" (which I don't think you meant this, but correct me if I'm wrong) then I agree. In that sense, an entire book is connected. Every sentence connected to the previous.
Natalie wrote: "I don't doubt that you are incorrect about And or But, although it's not practiced at the very basic level which is why many people do not use it. Also, if someone is a sloppy writer and they were taught to use And or But, than it would be even worse. Oh the horror of marking all those papers. Gives me the heebie jeebies lol."I agree that at a basic level, it should be discouraged, as it takes time for a young person to grasp these ideas. But it also should be pointed out that, when done right, there is nothing wrong with it, and I think the effect can be highly productive in advanced writing.
Just to be clear, this is my entire argument:There is no established rule that beginning a sentence with a conjunction is always incorrect grammar, despite what any of us (including myself) may have been taught while growing up.
Will wrote:"I've quoted what you've said the problem was, that it is a contradiction on a basic level. I've shown this to be false, even though it's extremely vague."When did this happen? I don't recall you doing anything but stating an opposing view. You haven't made a cogent argument about how it isn't a contradiction.
You must be one of those people that ends discussions through claiming victories that are largely in your head.
Claiming something and actually doing something are two completely different things.
BTW, you haven't answered my question, although you skirted around it: You are saying that it is not and has never been a rule that you should not start sentences with "and" or "but". Is that correct?
When they talk about connecting sentences, they are talking about taking complete sentences and combining them into one sentence through a conjunction. Such as taking the sentence "I wrote a letter to my aunt" and joining it to another sentence "My mom mailed it yesterday" into "I wrote a letter to my aunt, and my mom mailed it yesterday". It does not mean "I wrote a letter to my aunt. And my mom mailed it yesterday."
Mickey: My objection doesn't center around the things you are filling your replies with, Will. It's not about whether it's widely used (because I know it is) or whether there are sufficiently impressive people who use it (because I know there are). My objection centers on the fact that the practice contradicts itself on a basic level.I've stated clearly that this objection is not true. This statement is extremely vague, I think. Since the purpose and very definition of conjunction is "to connect," there is no contradiction. It is quite easy to connect two separate sentences. Just showing ONE example where two separate sentence are connected by a conjunction in which the second sentence begins with a conjunction and is still grammatically sound, throws this claim right out the window. If there was an inherent contradiction, we would expect that no such example could be given. I've clearly given several examples where starting a sentence with a conjunction is not only correct, but preferred.
"BTW, you haven't answered my question, although you skirted around it: You are saying that it is not and has never been a rule that you should not start sentences with "and" or "but". Is that correct?"
I didn't mean to skirt around it, but you seem to be playing semantics. Just because a teacher claims it is a rule, does not make it one. So yes, I am saying that, in order for you to show that it's a rule (or ever was), I'll need to see a respected and used grammar guide that sates there is (or ever was) such a rule. If I can be shown this, I will acknowledge that that point is not correct, but will still stand by that it is no longer a rule if it ever was.
Basically, I am establishing that a "rule" in this case, is a statement made by an authoritative grammar manual, or else just about anything could be called a rule.
My argument is directly analogous to "ending in a preposition." While it was common to be told this was a rule, it actually is not an established rule in any sort of grammar manual.
I've dealt with connecting sentences through conjunctions in my last post. I've not seen an example of a sentence that starts with "and" or "but" that is demonstratively correct or preferred. (I wonder how you think you've proved that?)I'm just making this clear. You think this passage is grammatically correct?
Yesterday, my cat ran out the door. And I went running after her. But she ran under the car. And I couldn't get her out.
A. Safdar wrote: "I agree with Antoinette. Meyer raped the poor thesaurus, neglected the dictionary, and failed to perform the task at hand: a productive plot. Obviously, it was the pleasantries that kept adolescent..."this critical analysation is crap, reading his (i think) analysis and the way he would change the lines takes away any element of suspense. i didnt read all of it but i did get through the prologue, who would ruin the story by telling you exactly who is trying to kill bella and exactly who she is trying to protect? creating suspense doesnt mean she is being "coy". all the ridculous questions he poses such as "why did she move in with him if she finds it awkward" are all answered later in the story, the author isnt just going to spill everything in the first paragraph, because then it would be a summary and not a novel.
although i didnt love this book to bits, and will agree this isnt the best book ever. this "analysis" is ridculous. it amuses me an editor with "low level editing experience" says "This is how I would have edited the first two pages of Twilight." maybe there was a good reason he DIDN'T edit it.
Mickey, "When the world was over run with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated."
What a beautiful sentence.
Let me approach this a different way, if I may. If I wanted to find out if there was a grammatical rule about not doing something, how would I go about finding out if such a rule exists?
I can't go by popular opinion, which, historically, the populous can be shown to hold fallacious ideas. I can't go by a teacher, since they can make shit up, or be ignorant themselves. Where else should I turn to but the very books which lay out the rules themselves?
The only thing I have ever tried to establish in my argument is that there was never such a rule that stated "It is always grammatically incorrect to start a sentence with And or But." Much like the ending in a preposition rule.
That's it.
On a lighter note, there's another grammatical misconception we were taught growing up. The "i before e except after c" rule! There are actually more exceptions to this rule than the rule itself, by a large margin!
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Associated Press Stylebook 2009 (other topics)
The Elements of Style (other topics)
Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals/On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns (other topics)
Common Sense (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing (other topics)The Associated Press Stylebook 2009 (other topics)
The Elements of Style (other topics)
Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals/On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns (other topics)
Common Sense (other topics)
More...
Agreed, it is an ever evolving entity.
I must take issue with this And or But topic, now. While I grew up being told not to start a sentence with And or But, it is actually widely accepted at the university level and beyond now that you CAN start a sentence with And or But.
If you do a google search and refine your results to educational sites only (.edu) you will see that it is now acceptable to start a sentence with and or but.
R.W. Burchfield (a lexicographer and an editor to the Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary) says, "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."
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/...