[Grammar] 'all of which' at the start of a sentence?

[silences]

I'd like to ask 'all of them' can replace 'all of which' in this sentence.
If not, could you tell me what's the difference between them here?

She also explains that working with our hands gives us a greater sense of control over our environment and, more connection to the world around us. All of which contributes to a reduction in stress and anxiety and builds resilience against the onset of depression.

 

[Rover_KE]

Welcome to the forum, silences.

Always tell us the source and author of any text you quote, please.

There's no need to thank us in advance. You'll find a 'Thank' button to click on in the bottom lefr-hand corner of any post you find helpful after you receive a reply.

 

[silences]

Unfortunately, those sentences were from a test questions, which makes it hard to find the source and author. I can find a similar article, but the question-maker has modified it. This is the article which seems like the source.

"Lifting Depression: A Neuroscientist’s Hands-On Approach to Activating Your Brain’s Healing Power:"(Kelly Lambert)

 

[tzfujimino]

I've found this:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ps...orking-your-hands-does-wonders-your-brain?amp

The "she" in post #1 appears to be Kelly Lambert.

Starting the sentence with "All of which" is not correct.

 

[jutfrank]

First of all, no, you can't replace All of which with All of them.

Second of all, tzfujimino is right that starting a sentence with All of which is not strictly grammatical. However, it's fine here. Sometimes a writer decides to break up her sentences in order to make the text easier to read.

My advice to you is that you should avoid starting a sentence with All of which until you reach a level at which you are able to break the rules like the writer has here.

Leaving this particular context aside for a moment, I'll give you a general tip: When you want to make a new sentence referencing content from a directly previous sentence or sentences, use this, not them.

 

[tzfujimino]

Do you think the use of "for" here is fine, jutfrank?

"For the public is slowly turning against those who have sought to guide the political response to COVID-19."

 

[jutfrank]

Do you think the use of "for" here is fine, jutfrank?

"For the public is slowly turning against those who have sought to guide the political response to COVID-19."

I can't judge without seeing the preceding context. I have to assume the writer had a good reason to begin the sentence with a coordinating conjunction.


Edit: Oh, sorry, I don't know how I managed to miss the link there!

Well, if you look at the text as a whole, you can see that the writer has decided to write the whole passage in short punchy sentences, so it seems appropriate in that respect, I suppose. Notice also the sentence beginning with But.

To be quite frank, I really don't much care for this particular writer's style (if it is who I think it is).

 

[emsr2d2]

Do you think the use of "for" here is [STRIKE]fine[/STRIKE] OK/acceptable/correct, jutfrank?

Please note my changes above. We use "fine" in positive declaratory sentences. We don't use it in negative sentences or in the interrogative.

There's maybe one exception to the negative sentence rule and that would be if you were specifically disagreeing with someone who had just used in a positive statement.

Mother: Janine, put your coat on before you go out. It's freezing out there.
Janine: It's not that cold, Mum! I don't need a coat.
Mother: Yes, you do!
Janine: Oh, stop nagging. Honestly, it's fine!
Mother: It is NOT fine, young lady! Put your coat on or I'll ground you.
Janine: OK, OK. I'll put a coat on. Happy now?
Mother: Yes. But don't just take it off again as soon as you're round the corner.
Janine: Yeah, yeah, whatever!

 

[Tdol]

I can't judge without seeing the preceding context. I have to assume the writer had a good reason to begin the sentence with a coordinating conjunction

I think the writer may be trying for a rhetorical flourish with these sentence starters.

 

[tzfujimino]

Mother: Janine, put your coat on before you go out. It's freezing out there.
Janine: It's not that cold, Mum! I don't need a coat.
Mother: Yes, you do!
Janine: Oh, stop nagging. Honestly, it's fine!
Mother: It is NOT fine, young lady! Put your coat on or I'll ground you.
Janine: OK, OK. I'll put a coat on. Happy now?
Mother: Yes. But don't just take it off again as soon as you're round the corner.
Janine: Yeah, yeah, whatever!

Thank you for the correction.
I love those excellent dialogues you often write.
I really do.

 

[silences]

Leaving this particular context aside for a moment, I'll give you a general tip: When you want to make a new sentence referencing content from a directly previous sentence or sentences, use this, not them.

First of all, I really appreciate for your answer.

Second, if the content of (a) previous sentence(s) is plural, do I still have to use 'this', not 'them'?
And what about 'it/that'?

 

[jutfrank]

Second, if the content of (a) previous sentence(s) is plural, do I still have to use 'this', not 'them'?

I'm very wary of giving you a general rule about this because it depends completely on context. We use this to refer to the whole content of what has been said, as a singular thing. We can use these to refer to multiple individual elements within the context.

I don't want to generalise any further. If you give us some example sentences, we'll be able to comment on the specifics.

And what about 'it/that'?

Again, I'll ask you to provide an example sentence, but generally speaking, this is usually more appropriate. As I say, the most appropriate word depends on several factors about the context. This is a very complex area of language use.