And ,But

[nq:1]Does anyone know about the origin of the rule concerning not beginning a sentence with these two words. Grammer usage books do not agree with the everyday belief.[/nq]
I always thought it was Mrs. Goodale, who told it to our 7th grade class in Detroit in 1955. Even at such a tender age, those of us in the class who actually read books knew that what she was saying was rank ***.
\\P.

[nq:1]Does anyone know about the origin of the rule concerning not beginning a sentence with these two words. Grammer usage books do not agree with the everyday belief.[/nq]
1. This is a point of syntax, not grammar.
2. This rule (only for literary English, notspoken English) probably dates from whenever
these words were labeled conjunctions. This
Latin-derived word means links: so

[nq:2]Does anyone know about the origin of the rule concerning ... Grammer usage books do not agree with the everyday belief.[/nq]
[nq:1]1. This is a point of syntax, not grammar.[/nq]
It's certainly not a point of grammer.
I am under the impression that syntax is a subset of grammar.

To me this is a point of usage, not syntax, not grammar (or grammer).
Well, anyway
[

[nq:1]Does anyone know about the origin of the rule concerning not beginning a sentence with these two words. Grammer usage books do not agree with the everyday belief.[/nq]
1. The origins seem now thoroughly lost in the mists of time.
2. It is quite doubtful that "everyday belief" has ever heldagainst the practice. The half-learned(1) have on occasion objected to it, as to "split infiniti

[nq:1]I've tried looking this up in some reference works but have found nothing. (By comparison, many books trace "Don't end ... ... "). And then it just got out of hand. A kind of hypercorrection, with no one person to blame.[/nq]
Fowler ( MEU II, ed. Gowers) says, under and:
"5. And beginning a sentence. That it is a solecism to begin a sentence with and is a faintly lingering

[nq:2]Does anyone know about the origin of the rule concerning ... Grammer usage books do not agree with the everyday belief.[/nq]
[nq:1]And its "grammar".[/nq]
Oy!
Adrian

[nq:1]2. It is quite doubtful that "everyday belief" has ever held against the practice. The half-learned(1) have on occasion objected ... (1) never start vast projects with half-vast ideas. Cordially, Eric Walker My opinions on English are available at http://owlcroft.com/english/[/nq]
I believe it is simply a matter of

[nq:2]And its "grammar".[/nq]
[nq:1]Oy![/nq]
I never know, in retrospect, if it was the brain or the fingers that slept.(1) *** bless spell checkers: few others would.
(1) Originally written as "I never know, in retrospect, if it was the brain or the fingers that were asleep", till that old number-agreement devil raised its head.

Cordially,
Eric Walker
My opinions on E

[nq:1]I believe it (starting sentences with "And" or "But") is simply a matter of style, at least when it comes ... together He lives inVictoria, and he studies at UVic. but joins two contrasting ideas John isCanadian, but Sally is English.[/nq]
I think we knew the tabled part. But there is nothing wrong with a "conjunction" starting a sentence when the first idea is clear and fresh in the rea

(Post Groan) Eric, my dear fellow, I never asserted poets shouldn't use opening line conjunctions, merely that good poets don't rest the strength of the line on either conjunctions or prepositions:
Wanda Phipps
YOUR LAST ILLUSION
or Break Up Sonnets
(inspired by Ted Berrigan's Sonnets)

11
what's standard blows the lily
what a mother
recognize me teeming in slow