Conjunctions as sentence-starters There are certain bits of knowledge that distinguish connoisseurs from poseurs, professionals from dilettantes, cognoscenti from wannabes. In the realm of grammar and writing, it tends to be the sureness that sentence-starting conjunctions are perfectly acceptable and often desirable (connoisseurs), or else the certitude that they are outright mistakes (misinformed poseurs). From at least the time of Chaucer, expert writers have tended to begin 10-20% of their sentences with conjunctions. Grammarians have either been silent on the point--and have begun about the same percentage of their own sentences that way--or have heartily endorsed the technique. From the beginning of the 17th century, no reputable grammarian has denounced it (and before that they were silent). Oh, but your third-grade teacher denounced it, and how! She wanted to break you of the habit of starting every sentence with and. That was a bad habit. So she tried to curtail your habit, neglecting to tell you that youd ultimately want to have a fair percentage of your sentences begin with conjunctions (especially but). But truth be told, she might not have known that. On any given day or week, check pages of the New Yorker, Harpers, the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, or whatever other outlet for first-rate nonfiction you like. If you havent noticed this point before, you may well be surprised. Oh, and if you disbelieve what youre reading here, look at the work of any recognized authority on English grammar. Almost certainly youll find denunciations of the myth that initial-position adversatives are bad grammar. The more prescriptive the grammarian, the harsher the denunciation. One last thing: please dont think this technique has anything to do with formality or informality. No. It has to do with effective vs. ineffective style. There are ten sentence-starting conjunctions in the United States Constitution. And rightly so. While an ill-informed drafter tends to write provided, however, that, a well-informed legal stylist tends to write But and to put the exception in a separate sentence. Please dont send hate mail. Just look in books. Real books. You choose them. Try proving me wrong. And start observing. Ask yourself why an initial But outperforms However, why And outperforms Furthermore, and So outperforms Consequently or Accordingly. Theres a rhythm and euphony behind a sprightly, brisk style. For the mortar words in the language, the monosyllables cant be equaled. -Bryan Garner ____________________________________ FURTHER READING: Kingsley Amis, The Kings English 14 (1997). R.W. Burchfield, Points of View 109 (1992). The Chicago Manual of Style 257-58 (16th ed. 2009). Roy H. Copperud, American Usage: The Consensus 15 (1970). Wilson Follett, Modern American Usage 64 (1966). H.W. Fowler, A Dictionary of Modern English Usage 29 (Ernest Gowers ed., 2d ed. 1965). Garner on Language and Writing 63-87 (2009). Garners Modern American Usage 44-45 (3d ed. 2009). Garners Dictionary of Legal Usage 56, 126-27 (3d ed. 2011). Charles Allen Lloyd, We Who Speak English 19 (1938). Eric Partridge, Usage and Abusage (1942). Lucile Vaughan Payne, The Lively Art of Writing 85-86 (1965). John Trimble, Writing with Style 81 (1975). William Zinsser, On Writing Well 74 (6th ed. 1998).
Posted on: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 03:21:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015