Preposition vs. conjunction

[hiddenself]

We are told that we are not supposed to start a new sentence after a period with a preposition:

He stood there frozen, staring at their bodies lying next to each other, their hands clasped, their faces masks of serenity. But then the wind gusted and the sound of the chimes brought him back to reality.

My dictionary defines the word but as a conjunction in this situation (rather than as a preposition). What is the difference and does it matter?

And can this be written with the preposition starting the sentence after a semicolon? I seem to think that it is allowed to write:

He stood there frozen, staring at their bodies lying next to each other, their hands clasped, their faces masks of serenity; but then the wind gusted and the sound of the chimes brought him back to reality.

 

[Madame Manga]

We are "told" a great many arbitrary rules of grammar. Not all of them are universally useful. Using And or But at the beginning of a sentence does not destroy meaning or strike most people as awkward. It can be annoying if overdone, which applies to most quirks of style.

Beginning with a preposition, however, is not forbidden. I have never heard that stated as a rule. There IS a "rule" that you should not end a sentence with a preposition, but it has about the same status as "Do not begin a sentence with AND or BUT." You may have heard this joke:

Southerner to visiting Northerner: Where y'all from?
Northerner: Where I come from, we do not end our sentences with prepositions!
Southerner: OK, where y'all from, jackass?

As a writer you are "allowed" to do anything if it seems necessary to you. You may have to defend your reasoning, so be informed on the controversial areas, but fiction isn't only for the benefit of tight-lipped English teachers.

Good link:
http://www.wilbers.com/part22.htm

MM

 

[snooper]

What is the difference and does it matter?

A conjunction is an uninflected word, other than a relative pronoun, used to connect clauses or sentences, or to coordinate words in the same clause.
A prepostion is an indeclinable word governing (and usually preceding) a noun, pronoun, etc., and expressing a relation between it and another word.
And, yes. The reason a sentence should not normally end in a preposition is that it leaves doubt about what noun or pronoun is being related to. In some cases it doesn't matter, as in my last sentence where the meaning is perfectly clear. The "target" of the preposition is often implied in speech where the two parties have a clearly agreed meaning. For example:
"He was shot in the back."
"You mean he was walking away from ..."
"Yup. He sure wan't walking towards. Not unless a Colt .45 bullet does U-turns."

... There IS a "rule" that you should not end a sentence with a preposition, ...

In the UK we have a well-known quote from Winston Churchill, replying to such a criticism, which runs "That is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put."

 

[HawaiiBill]

He stood there frozen, staring at their bodies lying next to each other, their hands clasped, their faces masks of serenity. But then the wind gusted and the sound of the chimes brought him back to reality.
[/i]

This example is awkward, at best. Let's try it in English:
He stood there, frozen, staring at the bodies lying next to each other with hands clasped and their faces masks of serenity, but then the wind gusted and the sound of chimes caught his attention.

At least, I think that's what the author meant. Hard to tell.

The word 'but' is useful every now and then but, as a conjunction, is meant to be used within the same sentence. As I was brought up, conjunctions joined two sentences. That is to say, it made them one.

Our friend, hiddenself, gets closer to the mark with: He stood there frozen, staring at their bodies lying next to each other, their hands clasped, their faces masks of serenity; but then the wind gusted and the sound of the chimes brought him back to reality.

Why the semicolon? Can it be to lessen our wonder that the subject was not in reality staring at a group of bodies, hands clasped and faces serene. Hmmm. Where was he?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

It’s important to remember that we’re dealing with creative writing here, not academic exposition, and the rules of grammar and punctuation in a work of fiction are subsidiary to artistic effect.

I’ve seen other authors taken to task for violating a lot of rules here. Sentence frangments, for instance. That just seems silly to me; sentence fragments may not be acceptable in a college essay, but they can be very effective in a work of fiction.

You don't see people arguing about rules of grammar and punctuation when it comes to poetry. Why should fiction have different standards? As long as the writer is in command of his material, the rules are pretty much his to use as he sees fit.

---dr.M.

 

[Weird Harold]

It’s important to remember that we’re dealing with creative writing here, not academic exposition, and the rules of grammar and punctuation in a work of fiction are subsidiary to artistic effect.

In other words, "it's only porn, sho cares about spelling, grammar and punctuation?"

For the most part, these discussions about the fine points of grammar and puntuation are to remind people that there ARE rules that most readers expect to be followed. NOT following the rules out of ignorance generally means that you're writing something other than what you intended to write.

For example, there is a difference in meaning between "I'm your slut slave master," "I'm your slut slave, Master," and "I'm your slut, Slave Master."

A little thing like the position of the comma changes the meaning drastically, yet far too many novice authors don't know that a comma is even "required" when addressing someone in dialogue. Surprisingly, most people who don't put commas in their own work will still notice the different meanings in someone else's work -- without consciously noticing that the comma is what made the meaning clear.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think we’re having differences on the matter of unintentional error vs. artistic license.

I agree that an author has to be sufficiently in control of his mechanics to make himself understood, but I also believe that it’s being overly pedantic to criticize a writer of fiction for technical transgressions that are consciously used for effect.

There was a footprint on the floor. A bloody footprint. And the blood was fresh.

Two sentence fragments, and one of them starting with a conjunction. This is perfectly acceptable to me in a work of fiction, and I would hate to see an editor insist that they be rewritten simply because they violate the rules of sentence construction.

I recently critiqued a story by an author who used lots of sentence fragments starting with verbs. Something like:

Kissing him. Kissing him hard. Reaching for him. His mouth. Wanting him to kiss her back etc.

It was obvious that she was using this technique for effect. Should I have taken her to task for witing this way? It was an intentional violation of the rules in order to achieve a specific mood and feeling in the story, and I thought it should be judged on the basis of its artistic effect rather than by the rules of grammar.

---dr.M.

 

[hiddenself]

Thanks to all. I think we're all on the same page here.

Let me restate: deviations from syntax rules are occasionally fine, when there's specific intent (artistic effect, for example) *and* the end result is successful. I was rereading one of my favorite books the other day, and "but" started not a sentence, not a paragraph, but a chapter!

My question was much simpler. The default option (as I understand it) is to not start a sentence with a conjunction. If there is no good reason, avoid it.

My question was whether this default extends to starting a sentence after a semicolon. It seems not.

That's all. Sorry I opened up this can of worms again.

 

[Weird Harold]

I think we’re having differences on the matter of unintentional error vs. artistic license.

...
It was obvious that she was using this technique for effect. Should I have taken her to task for witing this way? It was an intentional violation of the rules in order to achieve a specific mood and feeling in the story, and I thought it should be judged on the basis of its artistic effect rather than by the rules of grammar.

The problem becomes determining intent or ignorance.

Whenever I encounter a consistent variation from the rules, I will bring it to the author's attention and ASK if it's intentional and what effect the author was trying to obtain.

There is often a "better" way to obtain the same effect within the rules or at least without being repetitive.

As editors, our task is to make the story better -- an intentional breaking of the rules for a specific effect often doesn't produce the effect the author intended. Without discussing the "errors" with the author, it's nearly impossible to determine either the nature of the errors or what the author intended to accomplish.

I don't consider a discussion of why the author deviated from the rules to be "taking them to task" for it; I consider it communicating with the author.

 

[HawaiiBill]

Very happy to see that point

Harold,

Thank you, I can breathe again. I was getting uptight, outasight!

It doesn't seem right to consider a discussion of usage as complaining or blaming or 'taking to task.' I've a theory, writers are adult or nearly so. They respond well to being treated as literate, thoughtful folks who are generously giving their efforts to Literotica. I'm appreciative of that even when it's necessary -- a very rare event! -- to suggest that a piece just isn't cutting it, "isn't ready for editing," is the way I try to put it, gently.

Writers also seem to really want to do well. Today I received the fourth story from a writer in Europe. It was delightful, the best she's done in a collection of good and improving quality. Makes it well worth while.

 

[hiddenself]

And apropos
(FoxTrot by Bill Amend)