Originally Posted by TheParser But [beginning of sentence] no one can deny that he was certainly a usagist! By this definition, usagist - definition and meaning, Fowler wasn't a usagist. He was more of a prescriptivist.
Originally Posted by TheParser NOT A TEACHER
Hello, Abstract Idea:
Please do not go bananas!
Most usagists (people who write books to tell us what "good" English is) agree: it is fine to occasionally use
and, but, for, or, or nor to start a sentence. (Of course, if your teacher says that it is wrong, do not argue with him/
her. Just agree, and then just continue to do what you want outside of the classroom.)
Here are just a few usagists' comments (I put some of their words in bold):
1."It is rank superstition that this coordinating conjunction cannot properly begin a sentence."
-- Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern American Usage (1998), pages 39 - 40.
2."Though using and as a transitional artifice is quite acceptable, you should do so in moderation."
-- Mr. Garner.
3. "Used with restraint, [and] can contribute to movement and emphasis. Overused, it can be damaging to both,
as well as boring for the reader."
-- Mr. and Mrs. David Ebbitt, Perrin's Index to English (1977), page 34.
4. "An initial and is a useful aid to writers as the narrative continues."
(a) "Tibba still pined and slavered for the school lunches. And little other care hath she."
(b) "I'm going to swim. And don't you dare watch."
-- New Fowler's Modern English Usage (1996), pages 52 - 53.
Well, I think that you get the idea.
HAVE A NICE DAY! (And don't be ashamed of starting a sentence with and.)
Thanks for your reply and important contributions The Parser!!