Ed,I think one of the reasons FANBOY connectives often start sentences isthat conjunctions like "but" and "so" don't always simply connect twoclauses, but often signal a shift in meaning that can follow severalsentences and/or begin many more."She was always friendly. She always smiled. No one could fault hereveryday politeness. But something about her seemed cold." The "but ina sequence like that marks a shift in thinking rather than a connectionto the previous clause.This is not just a hypothetical example. It happens very, very often inthe 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...." andthat list includes "and", "but", "because", sometimes suprising thingslike "I." I don't see any reason for the rule. I would go evenfurther--it is a foolish rule and foolish advice.I don't believe a single finite clause that starts with "for" is afragment in traditional grammar. A single clause that starts with"because" would be. The details would differ, but Zwicky's overallpoint, that the two are not the same, is backed up.CraigI 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 aproblem for a great many English teachers, even though as Craigpointed out earlier, college handbooks have never banned thepractice. Warriner neither approved nor disapproved, but a recentWarriner clone warns against the practice in "formal writing."EdOn 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'sa fragment and so would be interpretable as being the second of twoclauses, the first being ellipted.HerbHerbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.Emeritus Professor of EnglishBall State UniversityMuncie, IN 47306________________________________________From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster [[log in to unmask]]Sent: May 14, 2009 2:22 PMSubject: Re: Equivalent expressionsAh, I suppose Arnold and I are talking about two different things.Let me give an example from Oates of what I am talking about, anexample that has many interesting features---fragments especially---besides the initial "for," which starts not only a sentence but also anew paragraph.The "Weidel house," it would be called for years. The Weidelproperty." As if the very land---which the family had not owned inany case, but only rented, partly with county-welfare support---weresomehow imprinted with that name, a man's identity. Or infamy.For tales were told of the father who drank, beat and terrorizedhisfamily . . . .EdOn May 14, 2009, at 2:02 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:Ed,I assume you mean the coordinate clause introduced by "for" comesbefore the clause that it's coordinate with. I don't have a copy ofOates and Atwan. You might send these examples to Arnold. He wouldfind them interesting.Herb-----Original Message-----From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar] On Behalf Of Edgar SchusterSent: 2009-05-14 12:42Subject: Re: Equivalent expressionsHerb,I read the Zwicky article, and thanks for it, but I am puzzled byhisstance that "for" cannot be used sentence initially. (I hope Ihaven't misunderstood what he is saying.) Joyce Carol Oates uses"for" initially six times in her 1995 essay, "They All Just WentAway." 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, Ibelieve. It's also used, though much more rarely, by several otherwriters.(All these essays may be found in "The Best American Essays of theCentury" by Oates and Atwan.)Ed SOn May 14, 2009, at 11:58 AM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:English has a lot of equivalent expressions that attract theattention of writing teachers and grammarians. Consider because/for, however/but, which/that, much/a lot, and others you canprobably come up with yourself. Here's a link) to an extraordinarily lucid and insightful posting on the topic bythat extraordinarily lucid and insightful grammarian Arnold Zwicky.Follow the internal links, and you'll see a subtle, perceptive, andwitty mind at work.Enjoy!Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.Emeritus Professor of EnglishBall State UniversityMuncie, IN 47306To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's webinterface at: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 webinterface at: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 webinterface at: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 webinterface at: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 webinterface at: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 interfaceat: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:and select "Join or leave the list"Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/