Don’t start a sentence with a conjunction. Raymond W. and Christie Z. both pointed this non-rule out in Twitter posts. And they’re right: it’s OK to start a sentence with a conjunction, just don’t do it with every sentence or it gets tedious.Let's focus on the former, because Oxford agrees:
Don’t begin a sentence with the word “it.” Although it can be a sign of bloated or less-direct writing, there’s no grammatical reason not to start a sentence with “it.” How could you rewrite Dickens? “The times were both best and worst”? This non-rule was shared by Casagrande, who wrote an interesting post about “the anticipatory it” here.
And from Finding Forrester, in which reclusive writer William Forrester learns a lesson of his own:
You might have been taught that it’s not good English to start a sentence with a conjunction such as and or but. It’s not grammatically incorrect to do so, however, and many respected writers use conjunctions at the start of a sentence to create a dramatic or forceful effect. For example:
What are the government’s chances of winning in court? And what are the consequences?Beginning a sentence with a conjunction can also be a useful way of conveying surprise:
And are you really going?It’s best not to overdo it, but there is no reason for completely avoiding the use of conjunctions at the start of sentences.
But didn’t she tell you?
Forrester: Paragraph three starts...with a conjunction, "and." You should never start a sentence with a conjunction.
Jamal: Sure you can.
Forrester: No, it's a firm rule.
Jamal: No, it was a firm rule. Sometimes using a conjunction at the start of a sentence makes it stand out. And that may be what the writer's trying to do.
Forrester: And what is the risk?
Jamal: Well the risk is doing it too much. It's a distraction. And it could give your piece a run-on feeling. But for the most part, the rule on using "and" or "but" at the start of a sentence is pretty shaky. Even though it's still taught by too many professors. Some of the best writers have ignored that rule for years, including you.[Next week, we diagram the sentence "You're the man now, dawg!"]
Poll Results: You can start a sentence with a conjunction -- carefully (55%), yes (39%), avoid (4%).
I have never heard of a rule against starting a sentence with the word "it." It's (see?) not a rule to break.
ReplyDeleteI don't know where the author got the notion that sentences can get away with not having verbs. Sentences can not have nouns, but they have to have verbs. "The cat." is not a sentence. MAYBE, you can see this in columns with writing like "Someday, Little Johnny will see his beloved Cubs win the pennant. But not this year." I would go so far as to say that's a single sentence with a period taking the place of a comma as a form of an annoyingly elongated pause. (In the above example there doesn't even need to be a comma before 'but not this year.')
The strangest non-rule I've ever seen enforced was from someone who insisted on never starting sentences with "However." And Strunk and White agree. However, on this issue -- and not a few others -- Strunk and White are full of shit.
"Anticipatory it" would make a good rock band name, or euphemism for a bedroom mishap.
ReplyDelete"It is a truth universally acknowledged . . ." uses this alleged grammar deformity. But there (ha!), it serves a function. The free-standing introductory phrase reinforces the free-standing conventional wisdom about D'arcy's marriage plans. However, this construction unnecessarily elongates phrases and takes the emphasis away from the actual subject of the sentence. Austen made the unnecessary phrase the subject, and that's her genius. To say that "It's raining" is wrong, though, is nuts.
The "Dawg" is the only portion of "YTMND!" that creates issues. "You" subject, "are" verb, "man" object, "the" modifier of "man," "now" adverb.
ReplyDeleteAs to the former, it is a rule; there is a reason why they are called conjunctions. Once you recognize that the rule exists, then you know that you need a good reason to break it. Doing so for effect is fine, but it only works if the rule exists.
ReplyDeleteI had never, before this article, heard the "anticipatory it" rule.
ReplyDeleteI think it's an okay training device to keep people away from excessive use of the passive voice. But it's not a rule.
ReplyDeleteThe first time I read, "It was all she could do to keep from laughing," I stopped for a minute or two, rereading, trying to figure out what IT was. I finally gave up. I agree, starting with it is a poor choice most of the time.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem starting sentences with conjunctions when appropriate. I'd probably get irritated by someone repeatedly starting with "and" unless it was again stylistically appropriate.
But see the greatest country & western song: "It was all / I could do / to keep from crying . . ."
ReplyDeleteBut see "the perfect country & western song:" "It was all / I could do / to keep from crying. . . "
ReplyDeleteWHAT was all you could do to keep from crying?? I just think it's such a weird construction.
ReplyDeleteSometimes it seems so useless to remain...
ReplyDeleteMy former employee to this one step further. Not only were we not allowed to start a sentence with "it", we could not use the word AT ALL in any formal company communication - website, newsletters, sales collateral. IT got very tedious to reuse the same words over and over - The building is 5 stories tall. The building is also made of stone and brick. The building is in the City of Jonesville....ARGH!
ReplyDelete"And" and "But" are the two best ways I know to start a sentence. I learned this from Bryan Garner. But make sure not to use a comma.
ReplyDelete"But there was a problem." is infinitely better than
"But, there was a problem."
The "It" is to keep from crying/laughing. In other words, to keep from crying/laughing was all that the writer could do. Weird construction? Yes, but no more difficult that figuring out what Meatloaf won't do.
ReplyDeleteDavid Allen Coe will always be correct because he is David Allen Coe.
ReplyDeleteI think it really depends on what kind of writing you're doing; fiction? dialogue? analysis (like a report or "work" writing)? Because what's considered good report writing would kill any kind of voice or character in fiction writing. Which is not to say that fiction writers are excused from decent grammar, just that they get to bend the rules to fully draw characters, tension, plot, etc.
Though Adam, the use of "myriad of" in the tweet re: this post is killing me.
One of the best legal writers I know (okay, the best) uses conjunctions to start sentences in his briefs. I think he does it very, very well, but I always wonder if it might irritate a law clerk or judge who considers the rule to be a rigid one.
ReplyDeleteJen, I thought the rule was otherwise as well.
ReplyDeletewell, a friend of his named Steve Goodman wrote that song . . . as for DAC, country DJ's knows that he's an outlaw, so it's hard to take him completely at his word on questions of syntax.
ReplyDeletestrunk and white goes with "myriad" rather than "myriad of." technically, both may be now considered correct, but "myriad of" drives me batty, since the original meaning/usage was 10,000.
ReplyDeleteReplace 10,000 with myriad: "There are a myriad of possiblities" becomes "There are a ten-thousand of possiblities."
(also, myriad has now offically become the weirdest word I've typed this week. myriad myriad myriad)
And if I remember the story right, John Prine co-wrote it but wouldn't take credit because he thought it was a little silly, even for him.
ReplyDeleteI think all legal writers believe that they effectively begin sentences with 'and' or 'but'. But they do not. And they often do so in excess.
ReplyDeleteI am laughing...I just scrolled back through yesterday's Idol comments to see if there was anything new, and I realized that in a 5 sentence comment, I started four with "It". Deepest apologies to Meghan!
ReplyDeleteQuestion on the poll: is it "There is a myriad of ways" or "There are a myriad of ways"?
ReplyDelete"how could you re-write dickens? the times were both best and worst" = ROFLMAO!!!!!!! love it. aside from the obvious infractipons that make prose awkward or difficult to read, i believe most grammar "laws" to be more like "guidelines." it's mpre important to capture the collective voice of how most people actually think and speak than be "perfect" and follow all the "rules." the wroter serves the material, his own voice, and his audience. he is there to provoke and illicit a response, not write an error-free dissertation.
ReplyDelete"There are myriad ways."
ReplyDelete