Starting sentences with "And" or "But"

I just re-read a few of my columns at random (which, funnily enough, is how they seem to have been written), and I'm pretty much guilty of starting sentences with "And" and "But". But I've always liked the idea of writing the way I speak, so it sounds as natural as possible. The last thing I want is for the words to get in the way.

I also use "they" to mean "he or she", mainly because "he or she" sounds pretty stupid most of the time.

Remember: If our language didn't evolve, we'd all still be grunting, and all dialogue would sound like a porn movie.

Bill.

As far as I'm concerned, it has always been acceptable to start a sentence with "and" or "but", in the same way that it's okay to start a sentence with "because". As long as it's a complete sentence and not a fragment, it's fine. School teachers used to (maybe still do) tell students not to do this because they end up with fragments.

I have worked with some of the oldest texts in the English language (Old English/Anglo-Saxon--think "Beowulf") and I can state with authority that English users have started sentences with "and" and "but" from the very beginning.

It's also been acceptable for at least a couple of hundred years to use "they" in place of "he or she."

I was taught in school not to start with End or But. Then I got on with the newspaper and learned that in certain sections of the story, in order for it to flow better, the word could be added. But, I used it too much. I have to go back and read my stories and ask myself if the word is really needed. Sometimes it sounds better.

As to "they" -- I never use it unless it is impossible to say what sex the person is. (for example, here, in the "tell something about the person below you" place)

DTNg said:

How acceptable is it to start a sentence with "And" or "But"? When one of my writers do this, I edit it out. I wonder if I'm being too nitpicky and old fashioned?

Click to expand...

We wouldn’t get along. In my 350 page WIP, I start 166 sentences with "And", and 132 with "But".

DTNg said:

It's a pet peeve. Not as bad as those who write "they" when they really mean "he" or "she", but it comes close.

How acceptable is it to start a sentence with "And" or "But"? When one of my writers do this, I edit it out. I wonder if I'm being too nitpicky and old fashioned?

Click to expand...

In formal writing, starting a sentence with a conjunction is often considered a bad thing, though some of the best formal writers have violated this "rule" often. In any other types of writng, however, it's perfectly acceptable, and is, I think, a good thing, as long as it's not overdone. AND in formal writing, it's considered bad grammar to use a contraction, as well. But you wouldn't edit out contractions in fiction, would you? Or in any form of conversational writing?

I don't believe I'd want to read fiction where the writer never started a sentence with a conjunction, particularly in thought or dialogue. It simply isn't realistic, and never has been. Conversational writing, which means a great deal of fiction, column writing, personal essay writing, etc., needs the occasional "and" or "but" at the beginning of a sentence. It's all about realism, convenience, and tone. For that matter, some of the best formal writing I've ever read had the occasional sentence that began with "and" or "but."

The rule of never starting a sentence with "and" or "but" was always arbitrary, even in formal writing. It always came in the form of "Because I say you shouldn't" rule, rather than one with specific reasons behind it, and good writers never have followed it.

Sometimes "and" or "but" is the best possible way to begin a sentence, and you can't just change such a sentence because of a completely arbitrary rule that never has been followed by good writers.

Such usage should never be overdone, and should be carefully monitored, but there are many times when the best possible first word in a sentence is "and" or "but."

As for using "they," or "their," rather than "he or she," his or her," etc., I'd say get used to it. The English language has no acceptable alternative except for clumsiness, and writing "he or she," or "his or her," is, at best, clumsy for most wrtiting styles.

People have been trying to introduce one alternative or another for many decades, but nothing has been found that caught on, so "they" and "their" are still used, and will be until and unless an acceptable alternative is found.

Aconite said:

I have worked with some of the oldest texts in the English language (Old English/Anglo-Saxon--think "Beowulf") and I can state with authority that English users have started sentences with "and" and "but" from the very beginning.

It's also been acceptable for at least a couple of hundred years to use "they" in place of "he or she."

Click to expand...

All true. "And" or "but" is an English teacher rule that never has had a grammatical reason behind it. "They" in place of "he or she" can certainly be overdone, but is often the smoothest way of writing, and the most easily undrstood. "They" has been an acceptable substitute for "he or she" for centuries, and there's no logical reason I can see why it shouldn't be. It works very well, is always understood, and is far less clumsy in most circumstances than writing "he or she."

In formal writing, or newspaper/magazine articles, it's probably not a good thing. It's a style issue, not grammar. In fiction, which is considered "casual writing," I don't see the occasional use as a problem. However, like anything excessive, if the author overuses the style, it becomes grating.

Rules

DTNg said:

Good insight, thanks. I guess the moral of this story is for me to stop being so anal?

Click to expand...

Nah, just read the writing and listen to how it sounds, rather than looking for "rules" it violates. Now, can we talk about splitting an infinitive, and ending a sentence with a preposition. These are two more rules that seldom make sense in English.

The never split an infinitive rule comes from Latin, which makes no sense at all because Latin has one word infinitives that can't be split. Why someone decided this meant you shouldn't split an infinitive in English is just strange. And Winston Churchill had the best answer I've ever read about ending a snetence with a preposition. "This is the sort of errant pedantry up with which I will not put."

DTNg said:

So then it's ok for me to ask "where's it at?"

Click to expand...

I draw the line somewhere this side of "Where's it at?" but I accept "What's he up to?" and "Leave with the one you came in with."

Or "That's something I won't put up with."

preps

DTNg said:

So then it's ok for me to ask "where's it at?"

Click to expand...

No, but it isn't because of the preposition. The problem here is really wordiness. "At" isn't needed, so you don't need to end the sentence with it. The sentence should be "Where is it?" Contractions frequently cause wordiness.

One of the offenders that drives me crazy is "I've got it," or "I've got one."

It should be "I have it," or "I have one." I don't think anyone would say"I have got it," but that's exactly what a person is saying when they write "I've got it." It's as if people forget that a contraction is really two words.

Sometimes a sentence should not be ended with a preposition, and sometimes it should. If you follow the rule if every case you end up with some horrible sentences. Many grammar rules have exceptions, and teh preposition rule has many, many, many exceptions.

preps

maestrowork said:

Or "That's something I won't put up with."

Click to expand...

This, of course, was Churchill's point. "That's something I won't put up with" is how any normal person would say it, but it's grammatically "incorrect" because "with" is a preposition.

Churchill's statement, on the other hand "This is the sort of errant pedantry up with wihich I will not put," sounds truly stupid, and no real person would ever speak this way, but it's grammatically perfect.

It isn't really a matter of "correct" vs. "incorrect". I've heard that the dictum against ending a sentence with a preposition was an invention of a 19th-Century grammarian (might have been Dryden) who was interested in imposing certain Latin grammatical conventions on the English language, and doesn't derive organically from English itself. If you go look at some of the prose masters of English writing prior to 1800 (Fielding, Johnson, Swift, etc.), and later, for that matter, you'll probably have no trouble finding sentences that end with prepositions.

caw.

Jamesaritchie said:

One of the offenders that drives me crazy is "I've got it," or "I've got one."

It should be "I have it," or "I have one." I don't think anyone would say"I have got it," but that's exactly what a person is saying when they write "I've got it." It's as if people forget that a contraction is really two words.

Click to expand...

I think this is one of those British/American differences, with a history. "I've got it" and "I've got to get up early tomorrow" sound as natural and correct to me as anything else. The American Heritage Dictionary's definition of "get" allows both uses (in present perfect only), and they aren't labeled as other than standard.

Lapsing Into a Comma by Bill Walsh says that starting sentences with "but" or "and" is perfectly acceptable, as is referring to a hypothetical person as "they." But I really only brought the book out as a reference because it still smells like candy.

reph said:

I think this is one of those British/American differences, with a history. "I've got it" and "I've got to get up early tomorrow" sound as natural and correct to me as anything else.

Click to expand...

No, it's not really a British/American thing. In Britain and the Commonwealth too, 'I've got... is more commonly heard than 'I have...'.

For informal purposes, I think the 'gots' have it.

I edit the words "and" and "but" out of the beginning of any sentences, in my own writing, even if it is to the detriment of the sentence. I am afraid that either of these words would be annoying to the reader. The way I look at it, is that the reader is on a razor edge as whether to snap the book closed or keep on reading. It's up to me to minimize reasons for putting it down.

reph said:

I think this is one of those British/American differences, with a history. "I've got it" and "I've got to get up early tomorrow" sound as natural and correct to me as anything else. The American Heritage Dictionary's definition of "get" allows both uses (in present perfect only), and they aren't labeled as other than standard.

Click to expand...

Of course it sounds natural. So do about 90% of the common mistakes in grammar most people use daily. But contractions are two words, not one, and natural or not, it just isn't very good writing. Learn to avoid the contraction, and these things start sounding very unnatural immediately.

And that's why you shouldn't use a dictionary for grammar.

and & but

janetbellinger said:

I edit the words "and" and "but" out of the beginning of any sentences, in my own writing, even if it is to the detriment of the sentence. I am afraid that either of these words would be annoying to the reader. The way I look at it, is that the reader is on a razor edge as whether to snap the book closed or keep on reading. It's up to me to minimize reasons for putting it down.

Click to expand...

You're far more likely to annoy readers by never having a sentence that begins with "and" or "but." You aren't minimizing the reasons a reader might snap the book closed, you're only adding to them. "And" and "but" should not be used often at the begining of a sentence, but when doing so improves the sentence, or when it's a way a real person would say something, when it's something a reader expects, you need to use "and" or "but."

Few things annoy readers more than writing that sounds formal and unnatural, that sounds as if an English teacher wrote it, rather than a person just like the reader.

The real trick, however, is to always be true to the POV character, not only in dialogue, but in narrative. If you never begin a sentence with "and" or "but," make sure you only use POV characters who would never begin a sentence this way.

The fact that "I've" is a contraction isn't the only relevant one. Expand the contraction, and you have "I have got," for which usage varies also. The Careful Writer (Theodore Bernstein) discusses "have got" in the entry "Got vs. gotten." There are trans-Atlantic differences; there are differences between usage in speech and writing. I just typed an extract from a dictionary, with many tedious font changes, for another post. Well, here's a typographically similar extract from Bernstein's book, a usage manual.
I note (Bernstein doesn't) that "I've a clean shirt" is common in British, but not American, speech.