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/