Grammatical Errors

[William]

Your profile says you're "arrogant." No problem. I actually like that. But you're whipping a dead horse.

[Will]

William wrote: "Stop it! It's getting ridiculous."

No, thanks. And others have been vocal in stating that this discussion we are having now is interesting.

No one is forcing you to participate or even click on this thread.

[Will]

William wrote: "Your profile says you're "arrogant." No problem. I actually like that. But you're whipping a dead horse."

Really? Where on my profile does it state I am arrogant?

[Mickey]

Will wrote: ""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."

That's funny you would call that a sentence. Don't you mean two sentences? Aren't you saying it wouldn't work as well as one sentence would?

You haven't proven that it is correct or preferable, which is what you claimed.

Are you avoiding my cat passage? I keep asking you, but you won't answer.

[William]

Fine. Stop pontificating! There are so many rules to break, some effectively, some clumsily. I don't even like the Twilight series. I am not a teenager.

[Will]

Mickey wrote: "That's funny you would call that a sentence. Don't you mean two sentences? Aren't you saying it wouldn't work as well as one sentence would?"

I was specifically pointing to the second sentence. And no, making it one sentence would distort the meaning, as the previous sentence is a slightly tangential point, and the last sentence concludes the paragraph completely separate from the previous sentence. In this way, the But contrasts with the sentence that actually comes one more sentence before: "That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted."

And even if you could combine them and keep the meaning (which would love to see), you would still have to show that combining them would actually IMPROVE the writing, or that the last sentence is grammatically incorrect.

Here, it is better understood in context. Here is the entire paragraph:

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. 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.

[Mickey]

No, it actually works better as one sentence. It's also more grammatically correct as one sentence. I think you are responding more to the words than the structure. Try a simpler example:

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.

[Will]

Mickey wrote: "No, it actually works better as one sentence. It's also more grammatically correct as one sentence. I think you are responding more to the words than the structure. Try a simpler example:"

Go for it. Improve upon Mr. Paine's structure! I am eager to read it.

"Try a simpler example:

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."

I don't want to try a simpler example. We could provide examples of poor grammar all day. I could show you instances where ending in a preposition actually IS bad grammar. That doesn't show anything other than you are capable of constructing an example with poor grammar.

[Mickey]

There is nothing wrong with the passage I gave you but the conjunctions at the beginning of the sentences. If starting sentences with conjunctions is grammatically correct, then there's nothing wrong with that passage.

[Will]

Um, okay?

Of course there is something wrong with your examples. It's poor grammar and it's sloppy, obviously. Your point? That you are capable of constructing a clumsy fragment with a conjunction at the beginning?

[Mickey]

What's wrong with the passage grammatically, besides the conjunctions? There's no fragments there.

[Will]

She frowned beans. He jumped smiles. You listen to brightness. I can do it too!

[Mickey]

What's wrong with the passage grammatically, besides the conjunctions? There's no fragments there.

[Will]

No fragment, I was wrong in that, but right in everything else. "It's poor grammar and it's sloppy."

You are asking the wrong question. You are completely missing my entire point, and I think you are doing it on purpose. You are attempting to build a strawman argument. NEVER have I said that you can or should ALWAYS start a sentence with a conjunction (I've said the opposite, in fact). Or that it's not possible to construct a sentence that starts with a conjunction that is poorly worded and doesn't sound good. These are not my arguments so I have no clue what you are attempting to prove other than the obvious.

At this point, the discussion has diminished to tangent arguments that have nothing to do with my point, which is still: "There is no established rule that beginning a sentence with a conjunction is always incorrect grammar."

If you cannot show this to be false, then there is nothing to argue against, as that is the crux of my position.

[Natalie]

Will wrote: "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 h..."

Yes, I don't recall a rule, I just know from being told that it's incorrect (as you also stated as well). I see where you are headed now. This makes much more sense, although I still say nay to And or But, unless it's fiction/creative/aesthetic pieces(It can add a nice flavor to works).

I can't say I would advise people to use it in their academic work because it may hinder what they are saying because a lot of people do not think it is proper. For this reason alone I would refrain, unless you are one of the brillant peoples of the past who can whip around And or Buts like it's their job. Someone like Don Delillo would be able to use And or But in his essays; mostly because he crafts his works through from, like a sculpture. He's fantastic.

But I see what you mean. Technically, there is no written rule. It is assumed by the other rules written. (below is the "other" rules written)

I also was taught that And or But joins a sentence. In my essay guide The Clear Path: A Guide to Writing English Essays third ed. it says: (and all quoted)

Joining Indipendent Clauses

-Independent clauses can be joined in three ways: The comma and construction

Example: The book is written in dialect, and it has a first-person narrator.

The coordinating conjunction and, preceded by the comma, correctly joins two independent clauses.

There are seven coordinating conjunctions--and, but, or, nor, so, for, and yet-- and all can be used together with a comma.

-------

It goes on to explain how to join multiple independent clauses, etc, but it is within this context that we can see how And or But is being used. You’re right when you say there is technically no rule stating how to use And or But, but I just thought id point out of how we are mostly taught through grammar books how to use words, such as And,But, or, etc by only joining clauses (and perhaps other ways). Although, it never says to use it at the begining of a sentence, but rather to join. Yet there is never a point where it says we can't start a sentence with Or, And, But, So, etc. I'm not sure if thats becaue it's assumed that it's only for joining clauses. Nonetheless, it's not written when we cant use these words. hmmm

So, you can see how this And or But thinger is tricky based on how grammar is explained and how they use And or But, yet not in the manner in which you suggest. Tricky tricky.

[Mickey]

Will wrote: "No fragment, I was wrong in that, but right in everything else. "It's poor grammar and it's sloppy.""

I'm still waiting for an explanation from you about what exactly is grammatically wrong with that passage, if the conjunctions at the beginning are not the problem.

[William]

Originally grammar was "descriptive": showing how language was actually used, primarily in Shakespeare and the King James Bible. Since the original grammar rules, it has been taught "prescriptively": this is the way it is; so do it right. This inflexible set of rules creates a number of problems for modern thought, and many authors have experimented with molding a sort of new grammar.

[William]

Will wrote: "William wrote: "Your profile says you're "arrogant." No problem. I actually like that. But you're whipping a dead horse."

Really? Where on my profile does it state I am arrogant?"

Sorry, maybe I had you confused with MacGregor, but you do seem a little arrogant. Nonetheless, I like it. Strongly held opinions are important. With that said, I shall withhold any further comment on this discussion as you suggested.

[Will]

Mickey wrote: "I'm still waiting for an explanation from you about what exactly is grammatically wrong with that passage, if the conjunctions at the beginning are not the problem."

Strawman argument that has nothing to do with anything I am saying.

Tell me what is grammatically wrong with this passage, "He jumped. She followed. They were jumping. They laughed. She left. He frowned." (That was rhetorical) There are no fragments or run-ons. Each sentence contains a verb and a predicate.

[Will]

Natalie, that is basically all I'm saying. It's a matter of when it's practical and when it's not. Mickey is pushing an example of where it is obviously not practical, and I have shown many many ways in which it can be practical and even preferred. Like yourself, I think many people avoid it simply because they are afraid of a teacher marking it as a mistake, but if that happened to me, I would take it all the way up the ladder of administration in order to make my case.

I'm really glad my university professors didn't keep this rule. No doubt if I had used a conjunction to start a sentence that made the flow choppy, I would have had points marked off. But as it stands, there is no rule, and, therefore, it is a matter of proper application.

I just want to point out that not only is there no written rule about it, but there are many grammar manuals that go out of their way to specifically say that there is no rule, and that great writers for centuries have followed course with there being no rule (even in very, very formal circumstances).

At the elementary level, it is probably wise to continue to discourage any practice of beginning sentences with conjunctions, but not under the guise of a rule which is not applicable to higher levels of writing.

[Will]

William wrote: "Strongly held opinions are important."

Yes, I definitely have strongly held opinions! I don't know if I would equate that with arrogance, though. I gladly admit (as I have a few times in this discussion) when I am wrong.

[Will]

Natalie wrote: "Someone like Don Delillo would be able to use And or But in his essays; mostly because he crafts his works through from, like a sculpture. He's fantastic."

Speaking of Don Delillo, do you have any recommendations for me? I have White Noise on my list to read. Anything else?

[William]

Will wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Someone like Don Delillo would be able to use And or But in his essays; mostly because he crafts his works through from, like a sculpture. He's fantastic."

Speaking of Don Delillo,..."

I know I said I was going to butt out, but you asked.... The first book I read by Delillo was Endzone and I was hooked. I read White Noise in my masters class. I am told that Underworld is his masterpiece, but I have not had enough time until now to get through it. I have always wanted to read Libra and Mao II.

Now back to the arrogance thing--who cares? There are volumes of ether between us, but what if I told you that both you and Mickey are right? It's like the language you use when you're talking to your mother versus the language you use in the locker room. In formal writing--e.g. term papers, research papers, etc.--you are usually discouraged from using contractions, abbreviations, and a lot of other shit. But in this forum and in creative writing, what effectively communicates goes.

[Will]

Perhaps I should start with Endzone, then. Hmmm... decisions.

And yes, it's one of those things that should generally be avoided, but the only point I am trying to make is that it's 1) not a rule and 2) there are circumstances in which beginning even a whole paragraph--even in term papers--with a But can be very effective.

Basically, it's a matter of application, not a back and white issue.

[Mickey]

Will wrote: "Strawman argument that has nothing to do with anything I am saying."

Actually, it isn't a strawman argument at all, Will. You are way too fond of that particular accusation and you apply it indiscriminately. I gave you an example, much like your Paine example. If your sharing of a quote that shows a conjunction beginning a sentence is acceptable, then mine should be as well. Let's face it, if these conjunctions at the beginning of sentences are completely kosher, the end result will be more sentences like my example than sentences like yours.

There is nothing grammatically wrong with my example except for the conjunctions. If there were anything else, I'm sure you would've said something by now. Your first response was that I had written fragments, but it appears you now have a clearer understanding of what a fragment is. It's a response to the fact that the conjunctions make each sentence less complete and more dependent on its neighbors. They can't stand by themselves. The conjunctions make this grammatically incorrect.

I find the dismissal of this as "not what I'm trying to say" to be strange. It's what I'm saying. I'm saying that indiscriminate use of the conjunctions "and" and "but" at the beginning of sentences makes for bad grammar. Sentences are weakened by certain conjunctions at the beginning. Some writers write prettily enough to be able to hide these effects, but most are not that talented. That rule has been taught for a reason, because it helps people's writings become more clear.


Will wrote: "Tell me what is grammatically wrong with this passage, "He jumped. She followed. They were jumping. They laughed. She left. He frowned." (That was rhetorical) There are no fragments or run-ons. Each sentence contains a verb and a predicate."

There's nothing grammatically wrong with that passage that I can find. (Well, followed is a transitive verb, and should have an object to make it more clear what you mean. I imagine you meant, "She followed him".) If it were written "He jumped. And she followed. And they were jumping. And they laughed. But she left. And he frowned.", I would say that the conjunctions at the beginning of nearly each sentence was a grammatical mistake.

BTW, I'm just going to be a tiny bit picky here, I know civilians shouldn't be expected to be masters of terminology, but you meant "Each sentence contains a subject and a predicate, not a verb and a predicate, as these are often the same thing.

[William]

Will wrote: "Perhaps I should start with Endzone, then. Hmmm... decisions.

And yes, it's one of those things that should generally be avoided, but the only point I am trying to make is that it's 1) not a rule ..."

I always tell students, "Do whatever the instructor says, even if it is stupid like typing your name upside-down and backwards." The problem is that some students leave the classroom thinking these are hard and fast rules, and some are, but many are the personal eccentricities of the "BOSS." And, God knows, you have got to make the grade.

[Will]

Mickey wrote: "Actually, it isn't a strawman argument at all, Will."

It is EXACTLY a strawman! You are misrepresenting my position. I have expressly said that, most of the time, beginning with a conjunction is in bad form.

This whole arguments started when I said that there is no rule against And or But beginning a sentence. You are now arguing that there are many circumstances in which it can be poor grammar. Congratulations! I never argued against this! You are expressing the very definition of a strawman. I am not arguing that your example doesn't show bad grammar. I've specifically said your simple examples were poor grammar. Just because you can show an example of sentences where starting with a conjunction is poor grammar, does not refute my ENTIRE argument, which is that there is no rule stating that it can never be done.

"Let's face it, if these conjunctions at the beginning of sentences are completely kosher, the end result will be more sentences like my example than sentences like yours."

Are you purposefully not listening to what I've said, time and time again? Of course these things should be discouraged at an elementary level in order to enforce sentence structures that are well thought out. Still doesn't go against any of what I've said.

[Natalie]

Will wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Someone like Don Delillo would be able to use And or But in his essays; mostly because he crafts his works through from, like a sculpture. He's fantastic."

Will wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Someone like Don Delillo would be able to use And or But in his essays; mostly because he crafts his works through from, like a sculpture. He's fantastic."

Speaking of Don Delillo,..."

I would recommend anything by DeLillo. I'm obsessed with his craft-like style of writing and how his form further manifests his content. If you wanna' read something quick you should check out his essay "In the Ruins of the Future". It was one of the first pieces of work that came from the 9/11 attacks.It will give you a good sense of his style and how he sculpts his work. It also pairs well with his novel Falling Man. White Noise was really good. I recommend that read to anyone. Endzone is good as well. Heck,they are all great.

[Will]

FYI, you missed the part where my examples were rhetorical. And thank you for correcting my slip. Predicate and subject. And as far as the "fragment" issue, I've always thought of fragments as "incomplete thoughts" and that's why I called your examples fragments. I stand corrected here, as that is not a thorough definition of a fragment.

[William]

Mickey wrote: "Will wrote: "Strawman argument that has nothing to do with anything I am saying."

Actually, it isn't a strawman argument at all, Will. You are way too fond of that particular accusation and you ap..."

Now my turn to be "picky." "She followed" is elliptical and the object is understood, as in the comparative "My sister is taller [than I am]," or an imperative sentence when the subject in understood.

As far as the "and" or "but" thing, read my earlier note. In some long sentences with multiple independent clauses and a lot of commas, it is suggested that you use a semi-colon instead of a comma before a conjunction (unless you're Vonnegut, who believes that semi-colons only prove you went to college). And, by the way, a semi-colon has the same "stopping" power as a period. Nonetheless, I agree with you--DON'T USE THIS STRUCTURE IN A TERM PAPER WITHOUT CONSULTING THE INSTRUCTOR!

[Will]

William, at this point it would be apt for you to request we change subjects. Haha. I feel like my position is completely being misrepresented so I'm ready to move on. I have no disagreement with anyone who thinks that starting a sentence with And or But is often a bad choice and that a more effective sentence structure can often be a wiser choice. I've never disagreed with this and I never will, so I'm ready to move on.

[William]

Will wrote: "William, at this point it would be apt for you to request we change subjects. Haha. I feel like my position is completely being misrepresented so I'm ready to move on. I have no disagreement with a..."

Me too. So on a different subject, so far from Stephanie Meyers, the one thing I hate about this site is that reminds me of all the books I haven't read. I just pulled out Libra from the shelves for my next book. YOU got me going. Thanks!

[Will]

I am definitely putting him in my fast-track to-read list. I've found his essay In The Ruins of the Future online on PDF and I'm going to read it right away!

[Mickey]

Will wrote: "FYI, you missed the part where my examples were rhetorical."

If you're talking about your passage, you started out introducing it with the words, "Tell me what is grammatically wrong with this sentence...", which, if I'm not mistaken, was the same thing that Amy said to Baylor about her sentence, and you took it upon yourself to correct it. Then you defended your actions by citing those words back to her.

The addition of the words "It's rhetorical" does not mean that no one can respond to them.

I second the idea to end the conjunction debate, although, instead of changing the conversation to Delillo, perhaps we should get back on the topic of the thread.

[William]

Mickey wrote: "Will wrote: "FYI, you missed the part where my examples were rhetorical."

If you're talking about your passage, you started out introducing it with the words, "Tell me what is grammatically wrong ..."

The only problem is that when you're dealing with Stephanie Meyers there is not that much there.

[Will]

When I said it was rhetorical, the point wasn't to urge you to actually answer the question, and I thought the sarcasm was obvious, so it puzzled me that you actually did respond. That you responded shows me you missed the point I was making.

I was pointing out that I can construct a similar passage in which every part is grammatically correct, but in which the whole is poorly structured, to show that even completely following strict grammar does not ensure good grammar.

[Natalie]

Will wrote: "I am definitely putting him in my fast-track to-read list. I've found his essay In The Ruins of the Future online on PDF and I'm going to read it right away!"

Let me know what you thought about it! :)

[Mickey]

She's written six books, William. What do you mean there's not much there?

[Natalie]

Sorry about the topic change. I got a little carried away.

The biggest pet peeve I had in twilight is the amount of dashes she uses. Technically, there is no rule for these, but I find that she uses them far too much. At first I would think, oh, this is wonderful that she's using dashes to give pause, silence, distance, thought, etc., but then it just seemed overplayed.

edit:
Now that I'm actually thinking about it:
Perhaps it feeds into Bella's style of thought. The way she lingers on a sentence or perceives the world around her.

[Will]

From what I can recall, there wan't a whole bunch of actual mistakes as there was just sub-par grammar. By that I mean a lot of the descriptions were clunky and awkward and some that just didn't make sense. This was just my experience from reading it.

[Natalie]

Will wrote: "By that I mean a lot of the descriptions were clunky and awkward and some that just didn't make sense"

This is true. Although, I like to think that it's Bella's fragmented mind at work here. She is the vehicle of language within Twilight. Since we know how conflicted bella is throughout the series it seems like it's how bella is actually thinking.

Either its just poor editing for those instances, or intentional.

[Mickey]

The only mistake that I recall was the wrong use of the word "reins" in Breaking Dawn during the scene with the two year old and the member of the pack who imprinted on her.

I actually liked her descriptions more often than not. It's very unusual to have a YA book that discusses emotions to that degree. (Although I'm not a big YA book fan, so there may be more than I think.) I think that points to the influence classics had on her.

[Will]

Although I didn't like the story, or the way women were portrayed, I thought the the way she developed the characters was interesting and efficiently well done.

[Erin]

Joshua wrote: "I think it should be the law to pass fourth grade English before you write a book. Seriously, she has more grammatical errors then my dog would have writing a book. I don't know if she has an edito..."

Well to be honest as much as I don't like the books she does have a degree in english literature so she must go got that somehow - although I do agree that the Twilight books are not very good.

[Erin]

Bella is a rubbish protagonist. She does nothing - I could have forgiven Meyer for making Edward a twat if Bella had some hero qualities of her own but she doesn't so the book is boring. IT's all "Oh my gosh Edward is so good at everything!" and THen Bella is so boring.

[William]

Mickey wrote: "She's written six books, William. What do you mean there's not much there?"

Not much substance. But she hit an adolescent nerve that made her a bundle of cash, and for that I admire her.

[Brie]

Do you know what Editors do?
Correcting grammar,spelling,etc. is not it.
Oh yea who's the one banking from their best selling novels turned movies?

[Amy]

Brie wrote: "Do you know what Editors do?
Correcting grammar,spelling,etc. is not it.
Oh yea who's the one banking from their best selling novels turned movies?"

So what is your point? Are you meaning to differentiate between an editor and a copy editor? A copy editor does exactly those things - correcting grammar, spelling, typos, and typesetting errors among other things. An acquisitions editor slugs through manuscripts looking for something worth publishing.

[[deleted user]]

William wrote: "William wrote: "Brie wrote: "Do you know what Editors do?
Correcting grammar,spelling,etc. is not it.
Oh yea who's the one banking from their best selling novels turned movies?"

Agents.

Willi..."

Agreed.

[[deleted user]]

William wrote: "William wrote: "Brie wrote: "Do you know what Editors do?
Correcting grammar,spelling,etc. is not it.
Oh yea who's the one banking from their best selling novels turned movies?"

Agents.

Willi..."

Agreed.