In a message dated 9/11/06 4:05:42 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:


> I like to teach the standard conjunctions thought of as coordinate, but
> I'm not sure I understand the logic of the classifications. Certainly
> "and" "but" and "Or/nor" leave both sides equal, but I'm not so sure
> about "so", "for", and "yet." Don't "for" and "because" seem awful
> similar at times? For convention sake, though, it helps to know a
> clause can stand alone with these at its head.
>   "He felt he must go, for he had promised his dying father." "He wanted
> to go. For he had promised his dying father."
> 
Is there a parliament somewhere that makes these decisions?   Is there a 
supreme court to which we can appeal them?   Every time I teach this I have the 
same sense of a lack of logic that Craig points out.   I would love to know who 
originated this list of coordinating conjunctions which these punctuation 
rules make use of.   Anyone got any ideas.   Surely the distinction between for 
and because, as Craig points out, is illogical.   Simply pointing this out to 
students doesn't provide enough satisfaction to my logical facility.   I want to 
rebel against it . . . 



Peter Adams

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/