Or start a new sentence with *and* or *but* because you want a longer pause,
which would serve to add more weight to the ensuing sentence.

Jane Saral

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> *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] <[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/
>

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/