Advertisement

A Word, Please: And the fight against misinformation goes on

Share

Reader Rick emailed me recently with this thought: “As an idea for a future article, I wondered if you would address the use of ‘and’ to start a sentence? I know back in my younger days in school (1950s and ’60s) it was a ‘forbidden rule’ to use an ‘and’ to begin a sentence. Now, I see it quite often and wonder why.”

Rick’s was the second email I read that day. The first was from a man who went to school around the same time. In fact, most people who write to me and mention the era in which they went to school say it was the 1950s and early ’60s.

My first correspondent didn’t have a question, though. He had a comment. He wanted to express his certainty that the reason grammar isn’t taught in classrooms these days is “mostly due to political correctness.”

Now, let’s go back to all those readers who tell me they were school kids in the 1950s and ’60s. The countless emails I’ve received over the years from these folks show a fascinating pattern: misinformation about grammar.

If the anecdotes I hear are true, kids of that era got scolded for ending sentences with prepositions. They got rapped on the knuckles for splitting infinitives. They were told that “nauseous” can’t be used to mean “nauseated.” And many, like Rick, were told outright that it’s wrong to start a sentence with “and.”

Yet not one of these “rules” is real. Mind you, I’m not saying that standards have changed. I’m saying that many grammar proscriptions that got drummed into kids’ heads back in the “good old days” were balderdash right from the get-go.

From what I can tell, the most famous and enduring grammar lessons of that era were really just an extension of a weird mass fetish for telling people what they can’t do.

So, maybe these “bad new days” aren’t so bad after all. If nothing else, fewer people will end up in Rick’s shoes: a half-century out of school and just finding out that they’ve been punked.

There’s no rule against beginning a sentence with “and.” There never was. The same is true for “but” and “so.” The laws of grammar and syntax have no problem with placing any of these conjunctions at the head of the lineup. Nor do the rules of usage or logic.

The rules of good writing, on the other hand, might give us pause.

In professional editing, “economy of words” is a virtue. Every word should bring something to the table and, if it doesn’t, it should be chopped out. Once you’ve worked with this idea for a couple of decades, you start to see that it can often make the difference between professional and unprofessional quality writing.

Adverbs provide the best illustration of this “omit needless words” principle: “Jones totally, absolutely, undoubtedly will run for mayor” is clearly less professional than “Jones will run for mayor.”

Similarly, the “ands” in the following passage make it amateurish.

“Jones will run for mayor. And he will file with the registrar’s office on Tuesday. And he will begin fundraising on Wednesday. And he will take part in his first debate next month.” All you have to do to transform this silliness into newspaper-quality writing is take out the “ands.”

And I do. At least when I’m editing. When I write, I’ll confess I lean heavily — too heavily — on “ands” to start my sentences. But when I put on my editor’s cap, I see “and” in a very different light: Nine times out of 10, if it’s at the head of a sentence, it’s wasted ink.

--

JUNE CASAGRANDE is the author of “The Best Punctuation Book, Period.” She can be reached at JuneTCN@aol.com.

Advertisement