And why can't I start a sentence like this?

It's becoming more common now, but the reason it's strictly speaking 'wrong' is a conjunction is supposed to join two clauses. If the conjunction is at the start of a sentence, to what are you joining said sentence?

No one is forcing you not to - I do it sometimes and I've seen it plenty of times in published books. It's absolutely fine in dialogue ( cos people talk like that) but be a bit more discretionary in narrative.

But,( <--- see) like the baboon said, think about what it is you're joining it to - and why you feel you must start this sentence this way ( I generally use it for a certain effect) I try not to use it too often in narrative though, or it'd be distracting.

It's one of those rules where you have to know why it's there before you can break it. In the end, it comes down to the old 'If it works, do it'

JJM said:

Sure it's a conjunction, but as far as I'm aware, it doesn't actually break any grammatical rules, so why am I forced to?
Same thing with 'but.'

Click to expand...

JJM,

There is no grammar rule against beginning sentences with and or but -- or nor, for, yet, or, so for that matter. I suspect the "rule" was made up by second grade teachers sick of every sentence beginning with one or the other.

Those bogus "rules" are the same as the made-up prohibitions against ending sentences with prepositions. New "rules" come out of the woodwork regularly: Never use exclamation points. Semicolons are bad. Alliteration must be avoided.

Perhaps at first the admonishment was intended to produce moderation, but it doesn't take long to become never, never, never.

As everyone says, opening a sentence with a coordinating conjunction doesn't violate any grammar rules. It does give away the powerful opening position in a sentence. You have to be sure you want to do that.

There is a grammar rule; it's not just something made up by snotty teachers.

The point is you have to know these rules before you can break them to proper effect rather than looking like you don't know what you're doing.

Rules can be bent or broken, yes, but they do exist.

And for good reason.

Here. Now you know the rule. Now you're free to break it. Feel free to start your sentences with a conjunction.

And that's my opinion on the matter.

I tend to use punctuation as a dramatic device. A comma makes the sentence continuous, a single thought or action expressed with all its clauses running along smoothly. A period breaks that flow. The sentence that follows is an afterthought, or a new realization (is that redundant?). From one of my stories: "Being suspended didn't sound too bad, until I thought of what Dad would say. Or do." "She gave him a night to remember. And herpes." OK?

Every five year old child that has ever wailed "But I WANT a pony!" knows how to use conjunctions properly at the start of a sentence. No need for a faux rule, really.

i do what i want. know the rules but know when to give them the finger too.

I think the important thing to remember is the usage when breaking a rule. You might benefit by having a look at your writing to see if you do it a lot. And when you break these rules, is it appropriately done. Keep in mind that dialogue may allow for the breaking of rules where narrative is a bit more strict.

I absolutely abhor sentences starting with an -ing word, but every now and then, I break that rule.

I would only be concerned if I were you, if I were doing it a lot and thinking it's cool to break the rules and you are trying to set some sort of new trend in writing.

My advice, follow as many of the rules appropriately as you can, do well in telling of your story, dot your i's and cross your t's and when you are published and famous THEN you can do what ever you want to do.

Oh, I forgot to add: There is no grammar rule forbidding and to begin a sentence. Also, no rule exists prohibiting and to start a sentence. And everyone should know and may begin sentences.

So people yearning to bend and break rules will have to do the regular things, like shoplifting and being mean to orphans, because beginning a sentence with and is okay.

I thought that ending a sentence with a preposition was a holdover from when educated people spoke Latin and tried to apply Latin rules to English. Is starting a sentence with a conjunction the same thing?

P

(And for conjunction giggles)

Prawn said:

I thought that ending a sentence with a preposition was a holdover from when educated people spoke Latin and tried to apply Latin rules to English. Is starting a sentence with a conjunction the same thing?

Click to expand...

I heard the same rationale for torturing sentences to end without prepositions, but the opposite would be true of beginning sentences with conjunctions, because many, many Latin phrases begin with et.

Witness all the translations from Latin to the King James Bible beginning with and.

Chase

Prawn said:

I thought that ending a sentence with a preposition was a holdover from when educated people spoke Latin and tried to apply Latin rules to English. Is starting a sentence with a conjunction the same thing?

P

(And for conjunction giggles)

Click to expand...

Not sure. I personally don't think so. My latin classes are quite some time ago, but famous quotes like "Et tu, Brute," (well, it's not a sentence) make this unlikely.

I think it's instead a theory-artefact. Grammar was originally a tool on how to construct sentences. That led to definitions such as the one Scarletpeaches gives us. Grammar was (is) notoriously unable to look beyond the sentence, so based on their definitions they (a) identified "but" as a conjunction, and (b) applied the definition, and (c) treated the usage as a mistake, because the usage doesn't match the definition.

Some conjunctions ("as", for example) are exceptions, anyway, as they refer forward: "As you didn't come, I left."

But the main point is that conjunctions routinely refer beyond the sentence. It's just that grammar's not the discipline that routinely analyses that. Instead you turn to "discourse analysis", where you have "discourse connectives". You can google the term if you really care.

I suspect that the rule arises from a misunderstanding: "grammar can't deal with that," is confused with "this is wrong." The entire subject is then complicated with stylistic issues, such as: should I express two related ideas in one sentence? Should I talk more elaborately about idea 1 (using multiple sentences) and then co-ordinate idea two to these sentences to wrap up the paragraph? Things like that.

(Btw, modern grammatical theory does look routinely beyond the sentence, even though the sentence is still the core topic of grammar, and discourse analysis is the study of how sentences relate to each other. But the boarders are growing more porose.)

Generative grammarians (e.g. Noam Chomsky) prescribe the rules - how we should use language as opposed to have how we actually use it: what most wrongly name 'correct English'. It's not 'correct', merely one 'way of expressing yourself' out of so many others.

Functional grammar deals with how language is used (how people start sentences with conjunctions) rather than how it should be used.

As fictional narrative/dialogue, like life, barely sticks to any rules, authenticity is the key. An academic paper would be different because that's a different 'genre' that you're writing for that has to follow 'science speak' (register).

But certainly for fiction, if it adds to character, go with it; if it emphasises a point - go with it; if it's showing idiosyncrasy - go with it. It's your language, your wirting, your stylistic choice.

I know I've become tons more porose since becoming a boarder here at the Hotel AW.

JJM said:

Where are the beds, the hot tub, and the writing lounge? Cafeteria would be nice too but it's not a prerequisite...
-_-

Click to expand...

Because 'It's such a lovely place, such a lovely place, such a lovely face. Living it up at the hotel Write Your Heart Out... any time of year, any time of year, just don't forget that beer...

I think it's fine.

But don't do it a lot.

And and but are conjunctions. Conjunctions join clauses. Therefore you must assume there is a clause that we don't see, or haven't written. In the following example the person saying "And, you're not going because?" Is responding to, or finishing the other speaker's sentence:
"I'm' not going to the airport with you," Harry said.
"And you're not going because?" Sally asked.
The grammar is incorrect if the sentence stands by itself, but as we read it, with the preceding sentence, it makes sense.
Do I?

RJK said:

And and but are conjunctions. Conjunctions join clauses. Therefore you must assume there is a clause that we don't see, or haven't written. In the following example the person saying "And, you're not going because?" Is responding to, or finishing the other speaker's sentence:
"I'm' not going to the airport with you," Harry said.
"And you're not going because?" Sally asked.
The grammar is incorrect if the sentence stands by itself, but as we read it, with the preceding sentence, it makes sense.
Do I?

Click to expand...

I haven't read all the responses yet but I think the idea is to use a period before "and" or "but" for pacing, not for grammatical reasons. I think the joining item is the previous thought (sentence).