But, yet, and nor have to signal a shift in meaning because that is
what they mean! These words will always be referencing a previous
idea. Should that previous idea be in the same sentence? For
experienced writers there is no required rule. But it is helpful for
novices to be guided by rules that generally lead to clear writing.
The rules our students come to us with may have been very helpful for
many beginning writers. Not starting a sentence with "because" is
teaching first graders to avoid sentence fragments. Not starting a
sentence with "I" is probably not a rule, but might actually be a
teacher telling them to vary their sentence starts. I do notice that
good readers are never bothered by writing teachers' rules. Good
readers are taught by good writing. The students who complain are
the very writers (poor readers) who needed those strict rules. They
resent their training wheels perhaps because they now see that others
were writing without them long ago and getting away with it.
Our job is to not to admonish their previous teachers but to explain
why those teachers gave them that advice at that time in their
education. We can now tell them they are old enough and
sophisticated enough to understand the nuances involved in writing
and can now decide for themselves when to follow or break a rule.
Because I know that some of my writers do not need "training-wheel"
advice, I tell all my students they can break my rules if they
provide justification in the margin. This is a good technique
because it lets students know that my rules are not "real." My rules
are just what will usually lead them to success. But writing is an
art, and if they think they have mastered it, why then a note in the
margin (even "I think this sounds better, but I'm not sure why") is
meta-understanding. In Craig's first example, I can imagine a
student justifying a separate sentence only because it must negate
three previous separate sentences/clauses and not just the third
sentence/clause. That is smart justification and meta-understanding
of rules and when to break them.
On May 16, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
> Ed,
> I think one of the reasons FANBOY connectives often start
> sentences is
> that conjunctions like "but" and "so" don't always simply connect two
> clauses, but often signal a shift in meaning that can follow several
> sentences and/or begin many more.
> "She was always friendly. She always smiled. No one could fault her
> everyday politeness. But something about her seemed cold." The "but in
> a sequence like that marks a shift in thinking rather than a
> connection
> to the previous clause.
> This is not just a hypothetical example. It happens very, very
> often in
> the best writing.
> Students come to college thinking they know a few things about
> grammar,
> and one of them is that "You shouldn't start a sentence with...." and
> that list includes "and", "but", "because", sometimes suprising things
> like "I." I don't see any reason for the rule. I would go even
> further--it is a foolish rule and foolish advice.
> I don't believe a single finite clause that starts with "for" is a
> fragment in traditional grammar. A single clause that starts with
> "because" would be. The details would differ, but Zwicky's overall
> point, that the two are not the same, is backed up.
>
> Craig
>
> I agree that it's not a problem for Zwicky's description (which,
>> thanks to Herb, I now have a clearer picture of), but sentences---
>> indeed, paragraphs---beginning with FANBOYS connectives are quite a
>> problem for a great many English teachers, even though as Craig
>> pointed out earlier, college handbooks have never banned the
>> practice. Warriner neither approved nor disapproved, but a recent
>> Warriner clone warns against the practice in "formal writing."
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> On May 14, 2009, at 9:18 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think a for-initial fragment where "for" means "because"
>>> would be a problem for Zwicky's description, precisely because it's
>>> a fragment and so would be interpretable as being the second of two
>>> clauses, the first being ellipted.
>>>
>>> Herb
>>>
>>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
>>> Emeritus Professor of English
>>> Ball State University
>>> Muncie, IN 47306
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>> [[log in to unmask]
>>> ] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster [[log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: May 14, 2009 2:22 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Equivalent expressions
>>>
>>> Ah, I suppose Arnold and I are talking about two different things.
>>> Let me give an example from Oates of what I am talking about, an
>>> example that has many interesting features---fragments especially---
>>> besides the initial "for," which starts not only a sentence but
>>> also a
>>> new paragraph.
>>>
>>> The "Weidel house," it would be called for years. The Weidel
>>> property." As if the very land---which the family had not owned in
>>> any case, but only rented, partly with county-welfare support---were
>>> somehow imprinted with that name, a man's identity. Or infamy.
>>> For tales were told of the father who drank, beat and terrorized
>>> his
>>> family . . . .
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> On May 14, 2009, at 2:02 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ed,
>>>>
>>>> I assume you mean the coordinate clause introduced by "for" comes
>>>> before the clause that it's coordinate with. I don't have a
>>>> copy of
>>>> Oates and Atwan. You might send these examples to Arnold. He would
>>>> find them interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Herb
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> ] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster
>>>> Sent: 2009-05-14 12:42
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: Equivalent expressions
>>>>
>>>> Herb,
>>>> I read the Zwicky article, and thanks for it, but I am puzzled by
>>>> his
>>>> stance that "for" cannot be used sentence initially. (I hope I
>>>> haven't misunderstood what he is saying.) Joyce Carol Oates uses
>>>> "for" initially six times in her 1995 essay, "They All Just Went
>>>> Away." Susan Sontag uses the same word initially five times in her
>>>> "Notes on 'Camp'."
>>>> And this is not a new phenomenon. In "The Handicapped" (1911)
>>>> "for"
>>>> is used by Randolph Bourne in sentence initial position 16 times, I
>>>> believe. It's also used, though much more rarely, by several other
>>>> writers.
>>>> (All these essays may be found in "The Best American Essays of
>>>> the
>>>> Century" by Oates and Atwan.)
>>>>
>>>> Ed S
>>>>
>>>> On May 14, 2009, at 11:58 AM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> English has a lot of equivalent expressions that attract the
>>>>> attention of writing teachers and grammarians. Consider because/
>>>>> for, however/but, which/that, much/a lot, and others you can
>>>>> probably come up with yourself. Here's a link
>>>>> (http://arnoldzwicky.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/forbecause/
>>>>> ) to an extraordinarily lucid and insightful posting on the
>>>>> topic by
>>>>> that extraordinarily lucid and insightful grammarian Arnold
>>>>> Zwicky.
>>>>> Follow the internal links, and you'll see a subtle, perceptive,
>>>>> and
>>>>> witty mind at work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Enjoy!
>>>>>
>>>>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
>>>>> Emeritus Professor of English
>>>>> Ball State University
>>>>> Muncie, IN 47306
>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>>> interface at:
>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>
>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>> interface at:
>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>
>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>
>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>> interface at:
>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>
>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>
>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>> interface at:
>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>
>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>
>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>> interface at:
>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>
>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> interface
>> at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
