Morgana
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2021
- Messages
- 1,205
- Reaction score
- 1,379
So in fact, you can feel free to start a sentence with a conjunction any time you like. Here’s what some of the major style manuals have to say about it:
Chicago Manual of Style (used widely in academic writing and general-interest books and magazines): “There is a widespread belief — one with no historical or grammatical foundation — that it is an error to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as and, but, or so. In fact, a substantial percentage (often as many as 10 percent) of the sentences in first-rate writing begin with conjunctions. It has been so for centuries, and even the most conservative grammarians have followed this practice” (section 5.203 in the 17th edition).
Merriam Webster’s Concise Dictionary of English Usage: “Everybody agrees that it’s all right to begin a sentence with and, and nearly everyone admits to having been taught at some past time that the practice was wrong” (entry under “and”).
The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (used widely in the social sciences), which is pretty persnickety about conjunctions (sections 4.22 and 4.24 in the 7th edition), doesn’t mention this issue at all, as far as I can see. Neither does the Associated Press Stylebook (used widely in newspapers and some magazines). So, arguably, they too consider it a non-issue.
Editors who worry about this sort of thing for a living (including me, God help me, × 20 years) learn the hard way to be aware of faux rules. And they’re alert for times when even rules that are legit in one setting don’t apply in another. For example, what’s considered right in American English might be wrong in British English and vice versa. (New Hart’s Rules/Oxford Style Guide, one of the go-to manuals for British English, has an entire chapter [chapter 21 in the 2nd edition] on the differences between these two Englishes.) And the reason I’ve been religiously giving edition numbers in these quotes is that even within one style/usage tradition, the rules change over time.
But an even more important point is that these “rules” are made for formal writing, and they don’t really apply to informal speech. (FWIW, every editing forum I’ve been in has had a strict rule about not correcting each other’s grammar. And people have perpetually tried to slide by that rule, LOL, just like they try to slide by the “no politics” rule here.)
So it’s always good when you see a “rule” to ask yourself “who says this is a rule? and does it apply to this situation?” And unless you’re forced to stick to a particular rule set, you can also ask “what is this rule good for?” Grammar, usage, and style rules are here to serve us, not vice versa. If it helps you to be more precise, or easier to understand, great. If you need to impress a teacher or judge or college admissions officer, fine. Otherwise, take it with a grain of salt.
… Oh Lord, there must be a 12-step program for this.
Chicago Manual of Style (used widely in academic writing and general-interest books and magazines): “There is a widespread belief — one with no historical or grammatical foundation — that it is an error to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as and, but, or so. In fact, a substantial percentage (often as many as 10 percent) of the sentences in first-rate writing begin with conjunctions. It has been so for centuries, and even the most conservative grammarians have followed this practice” (section 5.203 in the 17th edition).
Merriam Webster’s Concise Dictionary of English Usage: “Everybody agrees that it’s all right to begin a sentence with and, and nearly everyone admits to having been taught at some past time that the practice was wrong” (entry under “and”).
The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (used widely in the social sciences), which is pretty persnickety about conjunctions (sections 4.22 and 4.24 in the 7th edition), doesn’t mention this issue at all, as far as I can see. Neither does the Associated Press Stylebook (used widely in newspapers and some magazines). So, arguably, they too consider it a non-issue.
Editors who worry about this sort of thing for a living (including me, God help me, × 20 years) learn the hard way to be aware of faux rules. And they’re alert for times when even rules that are legit in one setting don’t apply in another. For example, what’s considered right in American English might be wrong in British English and vice versa. (New Hart’s Rules/Oxford Style Guide, one of the go-to manuals for British English, has an entire chapter [chapter 21 in the 2nd edition] on the differences between these two Englishes.) And the reason I’ve been religiously giving edition numbers in these quotes is that even within one style/usage tradition, the rules change over time.
But an even more important point is that these “rules” are made for formal writing, and they don’t really apply to informal speech. (FWIW, every editing forum I’ve been in has had a strict rule about not correcting each other’s grammar. And people have perpetually tried to slide by that rule, LOL, just like they try to slide by the “no politics” rule here.)
So it’s always good when you see a “rule” to ask yourself “who says this is a rule? and does it apply to this situation?” And unless you’re forced to stick to a particular rule set, you can also ask “what is this rule good for?” Grammar, usage, and style rules are here to serve us, not vice versa. If it helps you to be more precise, or easier to understand, great. If you need to impress a teacher or judge or college admissions officer, fine. Otherwise, take it with a grain of salt.
… Oh Lord, there must be a 12-step program for this.
