quick question

[Queshire]

Just a quick question, but can you start a sentence with though? Like "Though, I didn't know WHY a tourist would come to our town,"

Also, I know this is a pretty short question for an entire thread, so I'll be using this thread for any future quick questions I have, and I have no qualms about others using it likewise. I'll do my best to answer any such questions others have.

 

[Ravana]

Not with the comma—at least not that sentence. Otherwise, it's the same as any other conjunction: the rules say you aren't supposed to, but it depends on the tone you're after. I start sentences with conjunctions all the time, if I want a more conversational, informal tone.

 

[Klee Shay]

Most rules of that nature go out the window in creative writing, like not ending a sentence with a preposition. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "These are the kinds of things, up with which I will not put."

 

[Devor]

Though it might seem a little awkward to do so, I do believe that you can. You would do it in about the same way you would start a sentence with "because."

Most rules of that nature go out the window in creative writing, like not ending a sentence with a preposition.

Many of those rules were just made up to simplify middle school textbooks, whatever kind of writing you're doing.

 

[sashamerideth]

I hunk that I you have shown a good knowledge of grammar then you can get away with breaking rules. In dialog though, you can break every rule in the book, it's not like we speak with perfect grammar. Or complete sentences

 

[Ravana]

Many of those rules were just made up to simplify middle school textbooks, whatever kind of writing you're doing.

Well, many of them were probably made up to break bad habits before they became set, most likely: beginning sentences with conjunctions is a great way to end up with fragments, for example. The fact that fragments can be used quite effectively in the right hands is irrelevant: persons still learning to write will use them both frequently and abominably–and will never know why theirs don't work, or why someone else's do work, if you can't provide something to base this off of. Which is why in most cases you're told you can break the rules once you understand them, but to follow them until you do. And which is why it's so difficult to tell people how rules can be broken–rules that tell you how to break a rule are called "exceptions." They aren't violations.

But I'll try.

Examples:
(1) Though it is generally considered a bad idea to do so, talented writers can occasionally get away with beginning sentences with conjunctions.
- Perfectly grammatical; some may find it stylistically awkward, but you have a subordinating conjunction beginning a subordinate clause which has been topicalized from the "normal," sentence-ending position you'd expect to find a subordinate clause:
(1A) Talented writers can occasionally get away with beginning sentences with conjunctions, though it is generally considered a bad idea to do so.

(2) Though I didn't know why a tourist would come to our town, there was no question he was there.
- I doubt any except the most rigidly inflexible grammarians would even blink at this; it's slightly more complex, since flipping the subordinate clause to the end would create:
(? 2A) There was no question he was there, though I didn't know why a tourist would come to our town.
- You'd probably be told to change this so that the pronoun followed the noun it referred to:
(2B) There was no question the tourist was there, though I didn't know why he would come to our town.

(3) Though I didn't know why a tourist would come to our town.
- Flat-out wrong–at least in isolation: it's a fragment. (If you want to make it even worse, replace "the tourist" with "he.") However, IF the sentence it has (presumably) been fragmented from precedes it, this might work. Emphasis on the "might."
(3A) I couldn't believe the number of tourists getting off the bus. Though I didn't know why a tourist would come to our town. Not even one tourist. Let alone twelve–no, fifteen–of them. Sixteen: a straggler.
- A complete sentence, introducing the subject to be discussed, followed by a reasonably impressive four fragments; the "choppy" effect creates a sense of increasing astonishment, as a close-packed series of impressions accumulates before the speaker. Or, if it doesn't do that for you… don't do something like this.

Now imagine an attempt at something like (3A) written by someone who didn't know the "simplified" rules of grammar.…

A lot of prescriptive rules have received reinforcement of late, for better or worse, from the rise of generative grammar–which loves to think that the formal rules are the "basic" (or, worse, "underlying") structures of sentences. The positive side of that is that many grammatical and punctuation rules are now more firmly motivated by internal structure, rather than being seemingly arbitrary, and less well-grounded ones are tending to die out. Slowly–writing being by nature conservative–but they are.

 

[Devor]

Well, many of them were probably made up to break bad habits before they became set, most likely: beginning sentences with conjunctions is a great way to end up with fragments, for example.

This might be a good time to ask, but is there a difference between conjunctions like "and" and "but," and words like "then," "because," "which," and "while" which might not need a comma before them? Wikipedia gave me only a short list of conjunctions when I looked a few weeks ago.

 

[Ravana]

There are subtypes of conjunctions, all of which have different rules. Which is why the first thing you're taught is not to begin a sentence with a conjunction: it's a whole whacking lot simpler than learning the complete rule set all at once.


(1) Coordinating conjunctions: link grammatically equivalent items (noun phrases, verb phrases… I can see where this could become a lengthy explanation: I'll footnote "phrase" here).
- and, but, nor, or, yet
(1A) Correlative conjunctions: basically the same, except that it will always be two (not more) items being joined, and the first gets "introduced":
- both… and [i.e. "both A and B"], either… or, neither… nor, not only… but also

(2) Subordinating conjunctions: introduce subordinate clauses.
- (al)though, as [if, long as, though], because, even if/though, if, since, so that, when(ever), where(ever/as), while

Those are not complete lists. I don't know if there are "complete" lists, but even the one I'm working from right now (in my preferred writing handbook) includes several others–while, conversely, that's its complete list of correlatives: it doesn't include the "if… then" which any programmer would come up with immediately.

[*Footnote on "phrases": while we normally think of phrases as groups of words, grammatically they are discrete units of meaning involving a core word and all its attached complements and modifiers… which means that if a word doesn't require anything else, it can be a phrase in itself. Thus, "a car," "the bright new red car," and "cars" can all be complete noun phrases (NPs); intransitive verbs such as "eat, shoot, leave" can be complete VPs. On the other hand, prepositional phrases are never single words: prepositions always require objects.]

Part of the problem with such lists is that, following the above, this guide lists "conjunctive adverbs," which it says "connect ideas in independent clauses or sentences." Why is this a problem? Two reasons. (1) The category "adverb" is used in English as a catch-all category for a word that "modifies"… well, just about anything, according to most writing guides: the only exception is NPs. This is not the case in every language–making this a suspect categorization at best. Why should something serving as a conjunction be called an adverb, not a conjunction? (Before you answer that these words are adverbs when used in non-conjunctive positions, realize that most other conjunctions have non-conjunctive uses as well. Realize also that when any other word can be used as another part of speech, we call it that part of speech: the word "light" is an adjective when it modifies a noun, an adverb only when it modifies an adjective. Alternately, if these are adverbs, why aren't all conjunctions adverbs? But I digress.… ) (2) These "conjunctive adverbs" can "join" things across sentence boundaries–which is why when you learned them, they were called "transition words." (Honestly, "conjunctive adverb" is the marginally better of the two terms… it's still wrong.)

Now for the punctuation question.

(1) Coordinating conjunctions: according to most style guides–and especially newer ones–these should not have a comma before them. If they are coordinating more than two items, all the items except the one immediately before the conjunction are separated by commas ("A, B, C and D").
(1A) Exceptions are allowed if the items being coordinated are so long, and especially if they contain internal punctuation or conjunctions of their own, that confusion may result if the coordinated elements are not set off by commas.
(1B) Correlative conjunctions: follow the rules for coordinating conjunctions. Commas before the conjunction are more common here, since the conjoined phrases are often of the lengthier variety, but they are not required.
(2) Subordinating conjunctions: may have a comma before them (the guide I'm looking at says yes, but I've seen it both ways). These join independent clauses, but in the process, the clause the conjunction gets added to becomes a dependent one. If the subordinate clause is moved in front of the one it's subordinated to, the entire clause is set off by a comma.
- Example: We will have dinner when you get home. // When you get home, we will have dinner.
- Example: Short clauses can get away with no commas, whereas lengthier ones will probably want one.
(3) None of these should ever have a comma after the conjunction, i.e. prior to the final conjoined phrase/clause. (But see second to last paragraph below.)

(4) "Conjunctive adverbs": if they are at the head of the independent clause they are conjoining, they should never have a comma before them–because if you do, it's a comma splice: remember, you're joining independent clauses. They should have either a period before them (as "transitions"), or else a semicolon (remember that semicolons can only join independent clauses). The difference between these and subordinating conjunctions is, well, these don't subordinate: what they're adjoined to remains an independent clause (which is why they can be used as separate sentences).
(4A) They should also have commas immediately after them, prior to the clause they're linking ("however, X"; "otherwise, Y"; "nonetheless, Z"; "finally, Q").
(4B) Exception: these don't always appear at the head of the clause they are conjoining. If they do not, they should have a comma before them (as well as retaining the one after them)… and whatever is at the head of the clause needs to have the period/semicolon preceding it.
- Example: Transition words normally begin clauses; you can, however, place them elsewhere in the clause within certain limits.

As far as beginning sentences (the "rules," prior to stylistic violations): coordinating conjunctions shouldn't, correlative ones would probably be discouraged by strict grammarians but will also probably pass without notice for anyone else, subordinating ones can as long as the clause they introduce is part of a sentence which also includes the independent clause they are subordinate to. "Conjunctive adverbs" can, and generally do, begin independent clauses, save as noted above.

All of this is looking at basic syntactic form, without the interpolation of other items into your sentence. If you start tossing in adverbs, appositives or qualifying clauses, then you have commas cropping up everywhere.
- Example: Conjunctions connect not only words but also, importantly, phrases and clauses.
- Example: Commas separate all but the last two items of a list and, in the event of additional information being inserted, sometimes even those.

This is also only when the words are being used as conjunctions. Many of them can be used in other ways: conjunctive adverbs can appear simply as adverbs (no doubt why someone thought it a good name for them), and I'm pretty sure everything on the subordinating conjunction list has other uses.
- Example: Punctuation rules become complicated, consequently engendering considerable confusion, however much we might wish for simple guidelines.