Need help from the Grammar police

[Wildcard Ky]

I'm in a disagreement on another board about this and was wondering if someone can shed some light on this for me.

Is it grammatically correct to start a sentence with the word AND?

Here's the paragraph that started the whole debate:

Its star player, Francisco Garcia, was on the bench with five fouls. Its best shooter, Taquan Dean was cramping up. AND West Virginia was shooting the ball as if Jerry West had slipped into each of the five Mountaineers uniforms in University Arena.

 

[sophia jane]

I'm in a disagreement on another board about this and was wondering if someone can shed some light on this for me.

Is it grammatically correct to start a sentence with the word AND?

Here's the paragraph that started the whole debate:

Its star player, Francisco Garcia, was on the bench with five fouls. Its best shooter, Taquan Dean was cramping up. AND West Virginia was shooting the ball as if Jerry West had slipped into each of the five Mountaineers uniforms in University Arena.

You can start a sentence with And, but it helps if you are doing it for effect. In my opinion, it doesn't work in that paragraph. Combine the sentences or get rid of the And.

SJ

 

[minsue]

Nope, it is not correct.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Technically, it makes the setence that follows a fragment. That said, as Sophia Jane points out, one does see it used for effect, as are a variety of other sentence fragments. The chief thing in breaking rules for effect is that the effect should be genuine, necessary, and in keeping with the tone, style, and mood of the piece.

Shanglan

 

[Guest]

Nope, it is not correct.

incorrect.

 

[cantdog]

This is a holdover from prescriptive grammar and usage, most of which was based on Latinists' grammars of English. In the middle of the last century, the answer would have been as everyone but svet has said. The conjunction is misused, thus the sentence is a fragment (the one beginning with and).

Modern grammars of English derive their structure from the structures used by the language's native speakers. They are not prescriptive, but descriptive.

One may certainly begin a sentence with But, and the resulting sentence is seen by the reader as having a particular standing in regard to what has come before. Similarly with And, since English speakers do so and also understand the sentence.

Despite this, many markets for the written word just love that kind of automatic, if-this-then-that usage paradigms. A lot of them will excise your beginning And. No harm is usually done, since without it the sentence makes perfect sense. Magazine and newspaper editors do love this kind of no-thinkie rule and you will find it in use in many places.

Excising But will ordinarily create a misimpression in the reader of the paragraph.

 

[impressive]

I was always taught that beginning a sentence with "and" was improper. Doesn't stop me from doing it, though. (I don't like rules -- and I do like being improper.)

 

[kendo1]

WK
Nope,not this time
Shanglan's right again.

 

[rgraham666]

I have a 'Dead or Alive' want for me from the grammar police.

Can't help you.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

I have a 'Dead or Alive' want for me from the grammar police.

Can't help you.

Run like the wind and don't let the bastards catch you my friend.

 

[tolyk]

This is a holdover from prescriptive grammar and usage, most of which was based on Latinists' grammars of English. In the middle of the last century, the answer would have been as everyone but svet has said. The conjunction is misused, thus the sentence is a fragment (the one beginning with and).

Modern grammars of English derive their structure from the structures used by the language's native speakers. They are not prescriptive, but descriptive.

One may certainly begin a sentence with But, and the resulting sentence is seen by the reader as having a particular standing in regard to what has come before. Similarly with And, since English speakers do so and also understand the sentence.

Despite this, many markets for the written word just love that kind of automatic, if-this-then-that usage paradigms. A lot of them will excise your beginning And. No harm is usually done, since without it the sentence makes perfect sense. Magazine and newspaper editors do love this kind of no-thinkie rule and you will find it in use in many places.

Excising But will ordinarily create a misimpression in the reader of the paragraph.

Very true. There is a vast difference between acceptable usage in everyday speech and real structured grammar. I can't say it better than what Cant already did, just wanted to second it.

 

[Weird Harold]

Is it grammatically correct to start a sentence with the word AND?

Here's the paragraph that started the whole debate:

Its star player, Francisco Garcia, was on the bench with five fouls. Its best shooter, Taquan Dean was cramping up. AND West Virginia was shooting the ball as if Jerry West had slipped into each of the five Mountaineers uniforms in University Arena.

The rules of grammar are flexible according to the "formality" of the context.

The paragraph cited is perfectly fine under the rules of "Informal communications" but would be a capital crime under the strict rules for "formal documents."

In the context of a normal conversation, there is no grammar fault in your example, IMHO.

 

[doormouse]

There's actually a song that has everyword in it that can begin a sentence... anyone know it?

I remember hearing some old lady sing it on TV once...

I'll see if I can find it if nobody else knows it.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Starting a sentence with a conjunction isn’t so much a matter of grammar as it is a matter of style. Most Manuals of Style will tell you not to do it, but Manuals of Style are written for a specific type of usage: academic writing, usually. Newspapers, magazines, and publishers usually have their own style manuals, and they differ on “rules” like this and other stylictic issues, like ending a sentence with a preposition or spliting infinitives, passive voice and use of sentence fragments and all that.

As Harold says, for informal writing or for fiction, you can pretty much do as you please, stylistically.

It’s important to remember that there is no Pope of Grammar. There is no ultimate authority on what’s acceptable and what’s not. We've elevated some of the Manuals of Style - The Chicago Manual, Strunk & White - to the status of divine law, but really, those two are just the opinons of their authors, and even the experts disagree on some topics.

I heard the editor of some major American dictionary on the radio talking about some of the changes in usage in American English. The one example I remember is the tendency to use “their” as the possesive pronoun for “everyone” and “anyone”, rather than the grammatically correct “his”. In other words, people today are likely to say “Everyone raised their hand” rather than “Everyone raised his hand”. Strictly speaking, the latter is correct; the former is incorrect. However, usage is what determines what’s correct or not, and the dictionary’s style section was going to modify their recommendation on that particular usage. They were in favor of using “their” as a way of avoiding the inherent sexism on “his”.

In the example you give, I really don’t see any need to start a new sentence at that “And”. It seems to me that a comma would do the job, but even so, I would say it’s a matter of style, not a rule of grammar.

 

[cantdog]

Quite right, Zoot. It is usage, not grammar, anyway. But in nineteen fifty, there would have been an answer to this question. No, it would have been. No, you may not start with And.

You were not to split infinitives, nor end with a preposition. Formal or informal, wrong was wrong.

Even then, there was a caveat. Grammar and usage rules were never such a big deal, most places. In a lot of locales around this country, punctilious grammar simply made you sound like a stuck-up Eastern ass.

 

[Pure]

I agree with mab and cant. It's a stylistic question.

It's not simply formal vs informal, since sentences beginning with'but' turn up in academic writing, e.g., philosophical arguments.

'And' turns up in some novels as a sentence beginning. It's somewhat literary, not for high school composition class.

I disagree with Shang that 'and' creates a sentence fragment. And I see nothing fragmentary about 'And then he died.' It would take a subordinating word{added: conjunction}, like 'although' as a beginning, to have that effect:
Although he was tired.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Quite right, Zoot. It is usage, not grammar, anyway. But in nineteen fifty, there would have been an answer to this question. No, it would have been. No, you may not start with And.

You were not to split infinitives, nor end with a preposition. Formal or informal, wrong was wrong.

Exactly. And a big part of learning to write is becoming familiar enough with the rules so you feel comfortable and justified breaking them when the need arises.

 

[Pure]

From New Fowlers Modern English Usage, 1998 (Burchfield)


There is a persistent belief that it is improper to begin a sentence with And, ignored by standard authors from Anglo Saxon times onwards. An initial AND is a useful aid to writers as the narrative continues. The OED provides examples from the 9 c to the 19 c including one from Shakespeare’s King John.

 

[cantdog]

Yeah, but Brits, to their credit, don't get upset about grammar and usage the way Stuck-up Eastern Asses do.

 

[Guest]

does no one remember...

"conjunction, junction, what's your function?"

possibly the single reason why i cant even be bothered to use the shift key...who could with that song going through their head every time they write? And, i have to say, wouldnt it be nice to only worry about things such as this?

 

[rgraham666]

"conjunction, junction, what's your function?"

Damn! I still remember that song.