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
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: May 14, 2009 2:22 PM
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
] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster
Sent: 2009-05-14 12:42
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
) 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
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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/


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/

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/