[Grammar] And and But at the Beginning of a Sentence

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tuco

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Aw folks,

It seems all the threads are closed! Can you begin a sentence with a coordinating conjunction? I see teachers noting biblical precedence regarding the matter. I guess you are trying to say that God doesn't need an editor so it must be OK.

Why is it up for discussion these days if reputable writing and precedence is on your side?
Has there never been a reputable writer who has let their grammar lapse?

For anyone wanting to know why it is improper grammar to begin a sentence with a coordinating conjunction, do you get the feeling that your real question isn't being answered? Do you feel like the member Abstract Idea who kept asking the same question on the thread:

usingenglish.com/forum/general-language-discussions/112265-beginning-sentence-but-however.html

and never got the answer regarding "very formal English" that he was looking for? Do you know why a speaker of ESL would be so interested in learning "very formal English?" The reason is because he is looking for a rule that he knows is there, but people keep telling him otherwise. He's trying to figure out, as Pink Floyd put it, "What's uh, the deal?"

If you have found answers on this thread and still want to know why it is improper to begin a sentence with a coordinating conjunction, purely grammatically speaking, take a look at the research I did. I link you to a mind map of different approaches to the question. at each link, you'll see a brief excerpt to text in my manuscript. The manuscript offers much more context. The mind map was strictly for my own use so I could visualize which sources answered in a particular way.

By the way, you can also find an [STRIKE]outdated[/STRIKE] updated manuscript which puts all my notes from the mind map in context.

Link deleted - see post #5
 
Last edited:

SlickVic9000

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2011
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
(Not a Teacher)

I've always been taught that you are not supposed to start a sentence with a conjunction. But people do it anyway.
 

Tuco

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
(Not a Teacher)

I've always been taught that you are not supposed to start a sentence with a conjunction. But people do it anyway.

Ah, the obligatory sentence beginning with a coordinating conjunction to show in context how it can be done. This approach is anything but novel. Of course people do it anyway, and it is still improper--grammatically speaking. Do you deny it?
 

SlickVic9000

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2011
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
No, it was a snarky gibe that I couldn't resist. Here's my real opinion:

Yes, it's grammatically incorrect, at least in writing, to begin a sentence with any kind of conjunction. However, we must also acknowledge that this 'error' has a stylistic literary tradition dating back at least as far as the King James Version of the Bible (a looming monument of English literature, if there is such a thing).

I don't necessarily like how the posters blew it off completely. If you aren't writing fiction or informally, you should follow the rules.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Tuco, if you want to discuss the issue here, please put forward some of your ideas in this thread rather than send us to a site that requires clicking on further links to follow up the ideas.
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
It seems all the threads are closed!

Threads that have been inactive for a period of time - six months, I think - get closed automatically. This makes it harder for spammers to search for key words and post lots of links. If you want a thread to be opened, send the link to a moderator and they can open it. I have opened the thread.
 

Tuco

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
No, it was a snarky gibe that I couldn't resist. Here's my real opinion:

Yes, it's grammatically incorrect, at least in writing, to begin a sentence with any kind of conjunction. However, we must also acknowledge that this 'error' has a stylistic literary tradition dating back at least as far as the King James Version of the Bible (a looming monument of English literature, if there is such a thing).

I don't necessarily like how the posters blew it off completely. If you aren't writing fiction or informally, you should follow the rules.

I appreciate you coming out with an honest answer.


Tuco, if you want to discuss the issue here, please put forward some of your ideas in this thread rather than send us to a site that requires clicking on further links to follow up the ideas.

Frankly, I'm not big on links. I created an interactive mind map so that I could analyze my research. I did not anticipate a desire to post the information here. It is likely the most in depth analysis of different rationales in support of, and against the coordinating conjunction at the beginning of a sentence; furthermore, the only extra clicking required was to interact with the mind map. That's OK. If anyone is interested in reading excerpts from my manuscript including interviews with professors from prestigious colleges, the CMS, The Associated Press, and other reputable minds, and what they had to say on the coordinating conjunction at the beginning of a sentence, look me up. I can't post 10 years worth of research in a mind map because this site deleted a link.

I have presented my ideas here 5jj. I decided to offer a link because I find it unnecessary to rework the information I put in the mind map when it is easily accessible and intuitive the way I present it. That's OK. I dedicated my work "To whom it may concern" for exactly this reason. The truth doesn't seem to concern most people, and I didn't write for you. I wrote it for those who ask the question and want to know, but continuously get served an agenda from those who spend money to learn the rules, but only preach descriptive usage.

Are you teacher? If so, is that in a public or private institution?




Threads that have been inactive for a period of time - six months, I think - get closed automatically. This makes it harder for spammers to search for key words and post lots of links. If you want a thread to be opened, send the link to a moderator and they can open it. I have opened the thread.


Thank you Tdol, but I am being shut out. I heard the reason. A link that requires more clicking yada yada. That makes it sound like an endless list of links, which it was not. The link offers excellent information that challenges everyone who says it is "OK" to begin a sentence this way. It also offers sources who support them. I was fair and thorough. That's OK. If someone is interested in hearing why it is grammatically wrong, they can contact me any time. If they want to be misled, they can read everyone elses post except for the gentleman who above admitted it is in fact grammatically incorrect.

I really do appreciate you opening the other link, but in truth, the person who deleted my link should probably take his admin powers more seriously and merge the threads that ask the same question...and are never answered. I can still see abstractidea's multiple posts. He/she eventually says he is interested to know "very formal English." The moderators can't read into his question. His question is, "What is grammatically correct?" They don't have the background on the language to discuss language when teachers are busy being disingenuous.

I'm sorry to inspire you to open another thread. I don't want to have a discussion with people who are in inveterate denial and have a finger on the button. I just hope people realize that a moderator took 10 years of research away from your view on a subject people continue to ask about, but that most educators won't even be truthful about.
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I wrote it for those who ask the question and want to know, but continuously get served an agenda from those who spend money to learn the rules, but only preach descriptive usage.
Sorry, but I don't quite follow that. It seems to be saying that people who spend money to learn rules preach descriptive usage. People who pay to learn don't usually preach, in my experience.

As far as 'descriptive usage is concerned, I prefer to teach the language as it is used by most native speakers rather than a language based on 'rules' decided by self-appointed 'experts'.
Are you teach in a public or private institution?
Do you teach?
Are you teaching?


If one wishes to have one's views on a language taken seriously, one needs to demonstrate that one knows how to use it.
 

Tuco

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Sorry, but I don't quite follow that. It seems to be saying that people who spend money to learn rules preach descriptive usage. People who pay to learn don't usually preach, in my experience.

When people ask a a question of grammar and are consistently given answers referring to descriptive usage, I do not consider those answering to be teaching matters of grammar, but preaching theology. (That was modified from Style Towards Clarity and Grace by Joseph Williams.) So it seems, those in a position to espouse do so from a costly place of learning, and what they espouse is description. Since the question the gentleman asked seemed to lean towards prescription. Since the person who answered did so based on description, it seemed more like preaching.

I agree, people who pay to learn don't usually preach, but in this instance, that's what they were doing. Perhaps their sin is to covet, and they covet their learning, and so when someone asks a question of grammar, these teachers "don't understand" because they want to hoard their learning.

As far as 'descriptive usage is concerned, I prefer to teach the language as it is used by most native speakers rather than a language based on 'rules' decided by self-appointed 'experts'.

So you are relegated to ESL. I mean, a native speaker does not need to be taught what the consistently read and hear...unless you think they need to be taught how to read?

It is no wonder I didn't trust the Real AcademiaEspañola when they gave me their answer. While I don't pretend to judge another language by the standards of my own, I do know that when you are learning another language, you can't trust a teacher of the language you are learning as a second language to teach you rules. They will only teach you street. Always striving for mediocrity.

That is not to say one can not use creative license etc...but to teach the way people speak the language when they are asking a grammatical question...really sir, you prove my point.

Do you teach?
Are you teaching?


If one wishes to have one's views on a language taken seriously, one needs to demonstrate that one knows how to use it.

Brilliant tactics in diversion. It always lets me know I'm barking up the right tree.

Good day.
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
When people ask a a question of grammar and are consistently given answers referring to descriptive usage, I do not consider those answering to be teaching matters of grammar, but preaching theology.
So what do you think 'grammar' is then?

In case you think I am attempting to fudge, I'll tell you what I think it is. I think it is an attempt to describe the systems of a language. The 'rules' of grammar are observations, not prescriptions.

Thus, for me, a 'rule' that states that native speakers normally add -(e)s to the third person singular form of the present simple form of lexical verbs is sound. It describes the reality. A 'rule' that states that conjunctions cannot begin a sentence is simply an opinion. It does not reflect the reality - many native speakers begin utterances with a conjunction.
 

Tuco

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Grammar can refer to observations, but certainly you don't believe that grammar does not refer to prescription.

Grammar is in fact a normative or prescriptive set of rules setting for the current standard of usage for pedagogical or reference purposes.

5jj, as I look up and read this thread, I see you discount what I say. I address that in no uncertain terms, and you move on as though I've said nothing. It sounds good though, as you say, "In case you think I'm attempting to fudge..."

I don't really care that you are a moderator. I don't care that you have a massive post count. I don't care about your eloquent speech or the sabor-rattling of your "friends" who "like" your quippy quotes. You begin to sound like a troll.

Let's see if this post hangs around for more than 8 hours.
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Frankly, I'm not big on links. I created an interactive mind map so that I could analyze my research.

Please feel free to repost the link.
 

Tuco

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Yea, that's always embarrassing, but I'd rather own up to a misspelling than manufacture a way of being right such as, "People misspell everyday."

I've contacted Abstract Idea and he is still interested in hearing about this trite idea. Why is that? It is because the people here didn't answer his question. I'll be interested to see how a learner of English receives my explanation.
Grammatically, it is incorrect, but it is found in usage at every level of style. Now that wasn't so hard, was it?
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Grammatically, it is incorrect, but it is found in usage at every level of style. Now that wasn't so hard, was it?
Tuco, you have still presented no hard evidence that have got is 'incorrect grammar'.

Must was originally a past tense of may; ought was originally a past tense of owe. These words have changed their meaning and tense. Aren't , not amn't, is the interrogative-negative form of I am. These things happen; they are not 'grammatically incorrect'.

BrE Have got was originally, and only, the present perfect form of GET. Over time it has acquired the additional meaning of present possession. As recently as fifty years ago, it was considered to be sub-standard, but it is now accepted in speech and informal writing in Britain, and it seems to be becoming steadily more and more accepted. Some people still don't like it at all. I, and some others of my generation, use it in speech, but tend to avoid it in formal writing. But, whether we like it or not, it is not 'grammatically incorrect.

At present, the form seen in "I got (=I have (got)) two sisters" is not generally accepted as standard English. That may change, and we may find that we have a new verb of possession with the present tense form got. It may also happen that that verb, like ought, has no 3rd person singular -s ending. If that happens, it will not be 'incorrect grammar'.
 

Tuco

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Tuco, you have still presented no hard evidence that have got is 'incorrect grammar'.

Must was originally a past tense of may; ought was originally a past tense of owe. These words have changed their meaning and tense. Aren't , not amn't, is the interrogative-negative form of I am. These things happen; they are not 'grammatically incorrect'.

BrE Have got was originally, and only, the present perfect form of GET. Over time it has acquired the additional meaning of present possession. As recently as fifty years ago, it was considered to be sub-standard, but it is now accepted in speech and informal writing in Britain, and it seems to be becoming steadily more and more accepted. Some people still don't like it at all. I, and some others of my generation, use it in speech, but tend to avoid it in formal writing. But, whether we like it or not, it is not 'grammatically incorrect.

At present, the form seen in "I got (=I have (got)) two sisters" is not generally accepted as standard English. That may change, and we may find that we have a new verb of possession with the present tense form got. It may also happen that that verb, like ought, has no 3rd person singular -s ending. If that happens, it will not be 'incorrect grammar'.

Neither you nor tzfujimino realizes that this point refers to another thread. I would answer it here but:
1. It is off topic.
2. I asked you a question regarding this point in the other thread.
3. The evidence I was going to reiterate is in that thread.

If you care to answer my question in that thread, I'll be happy to answer this question over there.
 

Tuco

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Please feel free to repost the link.

Thanks Tdol. :)

EDITED: For anyone interested in the subject of beginning a sentence with a coordinating conjunction, here are some notes on its prescription, proscription, and description. The actual manuscript is a document icon. Wheat from the Chaff
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
If you care to answer my question in that thread, I'll be happy to answer this question over there.
I have just been over to Best way to teach expressions? I cannot see which unanswered question you are referring to. If you would like to re-pose it there, preferably starting with the words 'Unanswered Question', so that it is immediately identifiable, I will attempt to address it. I will then re-state, "Tuco, you have still presented no hard evidence that have got is 'incorrect grammar'".
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I don't really care that you are a moderator. I don't care that you have a massive post count. I don't care about your eloquent speech or the sabor-rattling of your "friends" who "like" your quippy quotes. You begin to sound like a troll.

Let's see if this post hangs around for more than 8 hours.
Such is the nature of UE that your post has 'hung around' for rather more than eight hours, and will continue to do so. You now have the opportunity to re-post your deleted link. I now look forward to seeing, in the other thread if you wish, the question you want answered before you will address: "Tuco, you have still presented no hard evidence that have got is 'incorrect grammar'".
 

SlickVic9000

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2011
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
What is your question exactly, Tuco? It's already been addressed that (at least for now) starting a sentence with coordinating conjunctions is unacceptable, at least, not in formal writing. We've also touched upon the fact that, like it or not, this is widely accepted in English literature.
I feel that we use it this way in order to indicate a dramatic pause, or so that we read the conjunction more like an interjection to give the following statement some punch (or perhaps both). Is this what you're looking for?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top