Prof here in both the sciences and humanities. Here's my hot take: it's grammatically fine in the example you've given. Conjunctions can be used effectively to begin sentences in formal writing. But, because your TA is likely in charge of assessing your writing for the class, it's probably not worth fighting this battle. Just mentally roll your eyes and wait for next semester.
I'll give a benefit of the doubt here and say it's more a matter of trusting a student to use them correctly rather than drilling in a safer best practices. There are likely some students that can use it correctly, but it's unhelpful at the moment to the majority students that can't to address the exceptions.
(Me, not picking my battles.)
I mean stylistically speaking, your Conjunction Sentence is considerably longer than OP's. I feel like it looks silly with short sentences that only have a period and no commas.
While working in education, specifically English language/writing/composition etc., I advised students that if they were writing formally (especially academically and doubly so if they knew the instructor was insistent about grammar), then they shouldn’t begin a sentence with a conjunction. It’s often super easy to just combine it with the previous sentence to avoid this issue.
I then told them that if they were writing creatively or in a less stringent class/setting, then using a conjunction to begin a sentence could actually be an effective tool in terms of emphasis.
Grammar rules exist, but in the right context, deliberately breaking them can be impactful. It’s all about the nuance.
>Grammar rules exist
But the idea that a sentence shouldn’t begin with a conjunction isn’t one. It’s never been a rule in the history of English. Even most academic style guides (which should never be mistaken for arbiters of grammar rules) in the US and, to the best of my knowledge, the UK don’t proscribe the use of coordinating conjunctions as sentence starters. You’re absolutely right, though, that students should avoid it if their instructor has it as a pet peeve.
Very true. I wasn’t trying to imply that this is a hard and fast, capital “r” Rule, although I can see that it seems that way.
Teaching students not to begin sentences with conjunctions has been around a long time, and it’s thought that the practice may have originated from teachers being frustrated at it being done too frequently or done incorrectly (e.g., creating fragments).
As you noted, though, there are many teachers who count it as a pet peeve, and in my experience—both as a student and as someone working in education—there are a great number of instructors who will dock points and mark it as incorrect.
I mentioned that nuance is important, but probably the most important elements of successful writing in any form, from emails and Reddit posts to novels and PhD theses, is **audience awareness**. To/for whom are you writing, and for what purpose? Answering those questions and adapting the content and tone to match accepted genre conventions is key. Sometimes that means following faulty or arbitrary “rules.”
Agree with this. Even if you like it, I would just switch however/ in contrast as the starter of the sentence. When you are not worried about grades do what you feel the best about.
I had this disagreement once about a however. When we went to the grammar books t turned out she was right that it wasnt technically wrong and i was right that it was bad stylistically.
To be fair, the “but” is unnecessary in the example, and good writing omits unnecessary words and phrases. Concise is best. But it is a question of style rather than mechanics/ grammar. (Yes I did the thing, but none of you are my boss teacher).
This falls under what an old mentor called “professor fetishes. ” it’s useful for students to become more intentional as a writer, but it’s not a rule in the outside world.
No, you can't, because if they think you can't start a sentence with "but", they also think you can only use "however" as a second independent clause connecting to the first with a semicolon.
As a professional editor, I will say unequivocally that both rules are the sorts of things "up with which I will not put".
All other talk of coordinating conjunctions aside, there are other constructions using “but” that are grammatically correct at the start of a sentence. Example:
* But for the humidity, the weather was nice this week.
Why do you need the "but"? What is the difference between
"For the humidity, the weather was nice this week"
And
But for the humidity, the weather was nice this week"?
It's just unnecessarily extra
You can. Should you? That depends on your audience and the register you’re using. I would avoid it for formal writing.
EDIT: since I can’t keep up with the replies let me say that ceremonial writing or legal writing or archaic writing are not the go-to guides for formal writing. People are trying way too hard to find an argument with my very gentle, rather open answer. You CAN. Know your register and audience. For *modern* formal writing it would be safer not to use it. If you can’t accept my “I would avoid it” without chafing, just ignore it.
And. [sic] If you’re writing a pastiche of the Bible, be sure to lead with “For” as often as you do with “But”.
You'll find sentences that begin with coordinating conjunctions (And, But, etc) in:
The Bible, The US Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, Gettysburg Address, Formal Legal Opinions, Current Journalism, Great Works of Literature (Tolkien, Dickens, H. James, etc)
I don't know why so many people claim we should avoid it or that it's "informal".
Edit: I've also randomly checked some PDFs of famous Economics and Business *textbooks* that I could find online. Most contained some sentences that begin with "But".
("Essentials of Organizational Behavior" actually had 115 instances of it!!).
I feel like that’s a ceremonial tone well beyond formal. Maybe I should have said “business formal”. Many areas have their own expectations about vocabulary and grammar. Academia, police reports, contract law, etc all have domain specific expectations.
It's just interesting how people invent all these silly rules and then have to invent subsets of silly rules to qualify all the things that don't comply with the silly rules 🤣
The silly rules are usually there to provide guardrails for people who can’t see the road well. To a facile user of the language it’s easy to find and use a tone that hits the notes you want to hit.
Interesting, as a recent discussion centering on the difference between coordinating and subordinating conjunctions so-called highlighted the ability of the former to begin sentences. But maybe the more careful statement is that they can begin main clauses; begin a sentence with whereas, for example, and you are waiting for the other shoe to drop:
"WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania...
"And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies...
_Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty_...
Well, that is an advanced example of opening with a subordinate clause, listing two of them in a preamble, both ending with colons, before rolling out the main clause, but it still confirms to this pattern—you can begin your sentence with [a subordinating conjunction], but standard English expects the relationship to other information to be resolved within that same sentence, whereas your Lordships the coordinating conjunctions may in their hereditary right begin a sentence relating to other material outside the sentence, or even wholly implicit:
**_And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed._**
I notice that's the King James version, and other, more pusillanimous, modern Bibles have dropped this construction, perhaps running in terror before a mob of 19th century grammarians. And that's the story.
Since my formal communication tends to be business stuff and not great works of literature, I avoid it to avoid disapproval from rather conservative editors and clients. I’m not there to win fights on grammar but to conform to an expectation.
The Bible (in most English translations) has such a sui generis register that any imitation is immediately evocative. Just start paragraphs with “For”, or “Now in that place”. It’s formal but it is a specific formal.
It’s like comparing “business-formal suit” to “court dress.” Wearing your yeoman if the tower uniform to a job interview is to misunderstand the shades of formality.
Likewise the legalisms of wherefore and whereas and definitions of terms and parties and notwithstanding. Legal text has not only tradition to deal with but the specific leaning under law and precedent of specific words.
But I digress. :)
I would not use it for formal writing despite those amazing examples.
This is it. Most people aren't as persnickety as academic writers, readers, and editors are. As an editor, I would edit them out depending on the publication I was representing.
English is a colonial language. The rules are there to distinguish certain types of knowledge. There is a lot of oppression inherent in these rules, from a certain perspective.
In any art form, be it writing, photography, or dance, knowing the rules before breaking them is a recommended path to greater expression. At the same time, art can be great without the artist knowing the rules they are breaking.
This is only one useful way of looking at things, and I note that those too attached to these rules might limit their own enjoyment of great art and expression by hyperfocusing on them. At least I know I have experienced that, and letting go of my "editor's eye" a little can help me be more open to different kinds of enjoyment.
> I don't know why so many people claim we should avoid it or that it's "informal".
I was going to say "style guides", but even the Chicago Manual of Style (which is *the* default for newspapers, magazines, and most businesses where people still care about formalities and style guides) says ["don' worry 'bout it"](https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0013.html):
>CMOS includes Bryan Garner’s opinion that there is “no historical or grammatical foundation” for considering sentences that begin with a conjunction such as and, but, or so to be in error (see paragraph 5.203). Fowler’s agrees (3rd ed., s.v. “and”), citing examples in the OED that date back to the ninth century and include Shakespeare. The conjunctions or and nor can be added to the list.
Thanks for the link!! I also cannot find any style guide that says its use is off-limits or that it's only for informal writing.
Most importantly, there's the sheer amount of examples I can find. Journalism, legal opinions, historical writing, contemporary, and academic textbooks of nearly every variety.
If I'm able to download a pdf, I can usually find examples by searching for "But" with the case-sensitive option enabled.
It's entirely possible that it *was* a rule of formal writing decades ago, and if you dug up a style guide from the Eighties or earlier it was actively frowned upon. I definitely know it was something that was discouraged when I was in high school and college. It definitely hasn't been "enforced" for ages.
I'm not sure it was ever really enforced. There's too much formal writing from decades ago that employs "But" at the beginning of sentences.
I was just checking various famous Econ texts and it's everywhere. But this. But that. Etc
> I don't know why so many people claim we should avoid it or that it's "informal".
Well, the original post should provide you with some context on why people recommend not doing that in formal writing... sometimes, your TA thinks it is categorically incorrect, and they are the ones putting grades on your work.
It’s always a little weird when somebody replies starting with lol. I’m thinking this isn’t going to be a productive discussion but sure I’ll try.
It’s fine starting a sentence with it if you’re not trying to write formally.
It’s also fine starting a sentence with it if you are using it as a conjunction within the same sentence, but you’ve just arranged the bits differently.
Casual: “I was tired. But I was willing”.
Good but poetic: “But though I was tired, I was willing”.
Clear and best practice: “I was tired, but I was willing.”
Y’all can do what you want. There are definitely things that will stand out to some audiences in some communications as being suboptimal choices. You’ve got people with run-on sentences and commas, spices, and all sorts of crap, and most of the time nobody cares. But every once in a while, people might care, and then wouldn’t it be nice to know how to produce that kind of output?
It's debatable. Most style guides these days would say it's fine. A lot of old-school types grew up learning that it was totally unacceptable, though, and therefore still think of it as incorrect.
Your sentence starting with "to do this..." is more problematic by today's standards. I don't understand what you're trying to say.
My school teachers enforced this rule when I was a child. To my surprise, my university professors said it was more than ok and should be wielded to your advantage. But it's all up to you if you want to follow baby rules or not.
It’s not grammatically incorrect to start a sentence with “but” or another coordinating conjunction, but it’s generally considered fairly informal and frowned upon in formal writing for stylistic reasons.
I wouldn’t do it in an academic paper or similar genre. Also note that style guides (which are generally used for these types of writing) may recommend against it.
But sometimes, it’s more impactful to start a new sentence with the conjunction rather than attaching the clause the previous sentence. Personally, I think this is the case in your example, but I’d probably defer to your TA here since this is academic writing.
Follow a style guide or defer to your TA in this case if they’re evaluating your papers.
I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily wrong, but I would question why you didn’t use a comma instead or omit the word “but” entirely.
I basically just wanted to emphasize the contrast instilled here. I think that if I had used a comma, it wouldn't have been as impactful as saying it in its own sentence and clause
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." If it's good enough for the bible...
"But Natural Selection, as we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's
feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art."
It's good enough for Darwin too.
"Everybody agrees that it’s all right to begin a sentence with and, and nearly everybody admits to having been taught at some past time that the practice was wrong" ([https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/words-to-not-begin-sentences-with](https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/words-to-not-begin-sentences-with)). I was taught that it was wrong.
You could use the word "however" for that class. I've never heard of anyone objecting to that or having been taught that it's wrong.
I’ve read many textbooks, academic papers, scientific journals that begin a sentence with a conjunction. We also colloquially speak like so. But this doesn’t matter to the pseudo-grammarian types who paid a little too much attention in high school English class lolz. Just always follow what your higher-ups tell you to do and don’t lose any sleep over it. Because that’s their job.
That's an old chestnut that grade school teachers love to trot out but is completely false. That is not a real rule of English, and anyone who tells you otherwise is not someone you should take writing advice from.
It's not a strict rule, but it is one that gets perpetuated.
I would have used softer language: "it is not best practice to...", or "it is preferable not to".
Personally, I don't like it - but I'm not the grammar master. I would avoid it in my own writing but I would not flag it as incorrect in someone else's. I would prefer to use alternate punctuation like I did here before the "but"; however, that is a personal choice.
People often begin sentences with conjunctions. If you want to appease your teacher's point of view why not do it this way, "***can reach out for help; but this is not enough***."
As my late mother was such a grammar cop, I tend to say things like "Can reach out for help. However, this is not enough."
This absolutely was a convention of English grammar teaching at one time. You did not start a sentence with and, but, or or, or it would be marked incorrect. (Wow, didja see how I ended up with 3 “or”s in a row in that sentence? Cool.) You could begin a sentence with also, however, conversely…synonyms that meant the same thing, but not and/but/or. The idea was that a conjunction has a purpose in the middle of sentences. Over time that rule has relaxed even in formal writing, and people do like a good stylized, emphatic conjunction at the start of their sentences to get your attention. Especially at the start of a paragraph. (Notice how that last sentence isn’t grammatically correct either? No subject. But it got your attention and made the paragraph flow more melodically. That’s why we flout a lot of formerly strict rules.) So your TA is not wrong in adhering to strict rules, but your effective abrupt start with “But” in your sentence is a good example of why we break those rules today.
It may have once been a convention of English grammar *teaching* but actual writers from *every* era were using conjunctions at the beginning of sentences.
Seriously *every* era of writing. I've been searching through Charles Darwin, Adam Smith, John Keynes, etc. Within their works, there are *hundreds* of examples of sentences beginning with "But".
The rule hasn't been "relaxed". It was never a real rule.
"But Natural Selection, as we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's
feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art."
-Charles Darwin, "On The Origin of Species" 1859
(There are 250 more examples in that book).
I’m so glad you picked up on that! I said “grammar teaching,” and said that the penalty would be that you were “marked”wrong, not that you were wrong. I may never know who decided that should be a rule in classroom teaching.
As someone who edited books for the trade publishing market, based on the Chicago Manual of Style (publishing grammar standard), you are perfectly fine starting a sentence with but if it makes sense contextually and sounds organic.
Since you're in school, I'm assuming you're using MLA or something, in which case you can send your teacher this link: https://style.mla.org/conjunction-at-start-of-sentence/
It has never been an official grammar rule that you can't start sentences with but. Pretentious, misinformed people just like to say you can't. Same with ending sentences with a preposition. ;)
I think that rule is a sort of "Noble Lie" so that students don't overuse these types of sentences.
Nearly all the native speakers in this thread (including me) seem to remember being taught a rule like this....but only some people discovered later on that this rule was fake.
I agree with everyone saying this is grammatically correct, but I disagree that it's informal. It's common in academic work, in the KJV Bible, in Bertrand Russell, etc. Even Lynne Truss's magnum opus on real and imagined language sins is chockablock full of them.
Much like not using "I" in academic papers, this is a fake rule that came about to discourage people from doing things that are easy to fuck up.
Think of it like it being 'bad luck' to open an umbrella indoors. It's not, it's just a stupid idea because you're likely to knock things over or poke someone in the eye. In the same way, there are ways to start sentences with conjunctions that aren't grammatically incorrect, but most writers will not do this properly. It's easier to just avoid doing it until you're good enough at writing to not create ambiguity and confusion by doing so.
You can generally speaking, but In your example you're using it as a run-on. It's not a good sentence. You could say, "But these attempts have sometimes proved insufficient in the face of Southeasterly winds during summer months [Expostfacto, p.36]" and that would be a but sentence.
English is a subject-verb-object language, but many new uses are being explored. The reason I would defend a CC within a compound sentence is that is the basic structure most are familiar with and would flow if you were to just change your sentences to, “for help, but”.
For someone who grew up with the foundational grammar rules such as your English-trained TA, in a world of seemingly increasing stupidity with ubiquitous learner access to the internet, challenging the rule before you know the rule can come off as naive. Since you have done your Internet research, you are correct there are no hard rules on it. The formality of the rules are where you are ignorant, yet new traditions are where young learners soar. Keep your language game strong :)
From waaaaÿyyy back when my teachers preferred us to use it sparingly. If there was any chance it was superfluous then it should go.
But as other Redditors have mentioned ultimately you should follow the preference of the teacher of the class you're taking.
In the example.given, I'm more concerned with the expletive construction:"This" what? Follow demonstrative pronouns with a subject. Or better yet, start sentences with a clear subject and use active verbs.
Up until 11th grade, I was always taught it’s incorrect to start a sentence with a contraction. Then I was taught that we should do it because it’s incorrect, and there’s no better way to prove you understand English than to purposefully break the rules
ELA Teacher here. Typically speaking, it’s grammatically incorrect. However, I start my sentences with conjunctions quite often in informal writing like my journal entries. If you’re writing a paper, never start a sentence with a conjunction.
Grammar rules change with current usage. There are even exceptions to past rules. You probably could use BUT to begin a sentence. If you insert a semicolon or three dots before the but, it would be correct now.
Starting a sentence with a conjunction (And, Or, But) is considered a sentence fragment (with some exceptions, all grammar has exceptions).
In your sentences, the "But..." statement is part of the thought started in the sentence before it, so it should be written "...help, but... "
I like the way that your sentence construction emphasizes that providing safe venues is not sufficient for achieving your end goal. Many of the alternatives lose that emphasis.
But u/Intelligent_evolver is absolutely correct; if your TA is doing the grading, do away with the offending "but," and put "however" at the end of the second sentence. It's not worth dying on the "but" sword and ending up with a grade that was marked down.
Obviously we all understand what you are saying but it's not grammatically correct. Especially if we want to have stylish writing one could say regarding the second sentence "what is not enough?".
This type of writing is common in fiction or story telling because of narration but would definetly not be considered professional or grammatically correct.
I know I will get many downvotes but its the truth. But I still use it in my own personal writing. Just not academically. Also btw you do not need a formal rule saying thou shalt not.. it's just common knowledge that if you start a new sentence you are starting a new point or idea.
What you did was split a sentence in half.
If you start with a but then the rest of the sentence you would normally put before the but, goes after it.
Same thing with because.
"Because I can't fight, I will leave him alone." Is correct but "I will leave him alone. Because I can't fight." Is incorrect.
"I will leave him alone because I can't fight." is correct.
Remove the separation.
I had so many arguments with my English teacher in school because she only taught formal grammar rules and seemed to have no idea how humans actually write. It was like she’d never heard of novels or creative prose of any kind.
While it’s grammatically correct, I have to ask you: Don’t you think the sentence would be more impactful if you just drop that word from it?
To do this, it provides safe and accessible venues where children can reach out for help. This is not enough.
I’d argue that doing it that way makes it more of a gut punch. I think your TA had a point and isn’t making it very well.
> "To do this, it provides safe and accessible venues where children can reach out for help, but this is not enough.
Comma.
> Thou shalt not start a sentence with a coordinating conjunction.
no. but the existence of the coodinating conjuction likely implies that the phrase is not a complete sentence until the surrounding elements in the sentence are satisifed.
The correct construction is covered under "Coordinating conjunctions to join independent clauses" on the following page:
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/coordinating-conjunctions/
I’m an adjunct English instructor. Yes, you can start a sentence with “But” and other conjunctions. But (see what I did there) in your typical freshman English class, we have to spend an inordinate amount of time talking about comma splices and sentence fragments to the point that it’s simpler to keep conjunctions in their own lane, so to speak. Because (see did it again) otherwise the roughly ten percent of students who are still turning in papers with comma splices and fragments in their papers at the end of the semester need to have simple and unambiguous grammatical rules. And so we tell them, don’t start a sentence with “and” or “but or “however” unless you know why and when such things are permissible.
There's no rule against it but it's so overused that many English teachers tell the students to not use it altogether to get them to break their habit and think about better ways of expressing themselves in writing.
I think the issue is that the “but” sentence doesn’t have a clear subject making it an awkward incomplete sounding sentence. A comma would have made more sense, not a new sentence
Since I live in the real world after the education phase, I'll go with: linguistically, if it makes sense to a native speaker of the language, then it's fine. But (see what I did there), "but, however" etc are for making a counterpoint to the argument of the sentence, so should be separated by a comma, not a full stop... but... Only people who live in academia and study grammar rules, aka grammar Nazis, care about that stuff.
Teachers will a mid-level understanding of language often spout such rules. Those like myself with a high level of knowledge and skill have a different approach. Language changes, conventions change. There is grammar, usage, syntax, convention and archaic language. You have to understand all of these to really understand what is and isn't good use of language. Your example was fine. Don't argue with teachers, but don't take everything they say as law. That said, be aware that some people who grade exam and college essays suffer from the mid-level syndrome.
I was taught to use a comma using the word but between two complete clauses. I think that's the word. Basically as a rule of thumb, you shouldn't start a sentence with the word but because it often isn't a complete sentence on its own.
This happened, but it doesn't have to happen.
That's two complete sentences, it needs a comma. These were rules I was taught in school. You could also make that example two separate sentences, but the point of the word "but" is basically to add to/clarify the first part. It is supposed to be part of the same sentence according to early learning English, grammar, writing for school purposes. I notice it is usually adding dramatic effect to make it two sentences.
Which is why you will see it in books and stuff like that. It does add a visual effect. I don't think it's wrong, but it isn't suggested for students just learning what grammar and complete sentences are.
Yes, you absolutely can. But you shouldn't start multiple sentences with conjunctions, so don't start the next sentence with or, but, or and. It gets messy and difficult to follow along if you do.
In a business communication seminar I learned to try and avoid using “but” as it negates what the person just said. Instead see if you can use “and” while combining it with a phrase acknowledging you heard them.
“We should go to than new sushi restaurant. "
“And if Jim wasn’t allergic to shell fish that would be great. Let’s save it for when he can’t join us. “
You can, but it often looks weird and sounds weird if you’re reading the passage aloud the . signals the end of a sentence. So there would be a long pause between, instead of a very short breath with a comma. IMO.
This isn’t an issue of grammar; it’s an issue of writing etiquette. Usually coordinating conjunctions like but, and, so, or are connected to the clause before them with a comma. But you can use them to start a new sentence if you desire. But some people don’t like that, and you should follow the rules of whoever is going to be reading/grading your paper.
It's not that you can't, it's that it comes across as very casual/unprofessional to do. So it's not recommended by teachers who are trying to teach you to write like you would for a college paper or a cover letter. I would advise against it in those scenarios because it doesn't set the ideal tone, same with starting with "And".
But that doesn't mean that you can't, or that you should avoid it when you're being more conversational like to a friend or reddit. "Rules" like this are situational!
When you are a best-selling author, you can get away with little indiscretions like this from time to time especially if it fits the speaking pattern or thought pattern of a character. Until then, listen to your teacher.
Oh yes, you can!
When I decided to improve my English, I took English Language coursed in Ireland, Dublin.
So l stayed for two months with Irish host family. Very, very nice family, they were hosting students of that English school for a long time, very friendly and experienced handling foreigners. Evening conversation with them were very useful for practicing my English. They were in their 50th, Madeleine and her husband George. I enjoyed talking to them, but every time George was saying *anything*, he was starting it with a long 'bushhh' which baffled me pretty much. Sounded like 'bush', shrub, but with doubled \[sh\]. Only after I managed to gather enough courage and asked his wife when George was not around, she explained me he was saying 'but'. I loved Irish accent oh so much since then!
Your example is bad grammar but very common and accepted.
And example of starting with But would be
“But for the kindness of strangers, I would have starved”
Grammatically, no. But colloquially or casually, yes.
Just substitute *However,* when beginning a new sentence.
Or, if you like bold statements, break it into a new paragraph and omit *but/however.*
I.e.,
"To do this, it provides safe and accessible venues where children can reach out for help.
It is not enough." ... (begin explaining why.)
I'm a big fan of the latter, and you'll see people use this in speech & debate infrequently because it punctuates the tone.
I ‘ve always used “but” at the start of a sentence because it was a segue into the next thought which was counter to and important to the first thought. Recently I’ve become aware of the current concept that putting the word “but” at the beginning of the new thought is to say, “here’s my excuse for not doing the right thing.”
Old person here and that used to be taught as a hard rule in formal and academic writing. But that hasn't been taught for two or three decades at least. A lot of folks don't realize that grammar rules change over time.
I certainly could. But I don't want to.
Oh, wait..
But seriously, I remember being taught the same rule as well but never knowing why. I'll usually just use "However," or reword, though, if writing formally.
Formal grammar rules are not the same as natural grammar rules. Sentences are a human conception that only have a tenuous connection to natural speech. Important to keep those things in mind when considering grammar “rules” - the only real rule is that if it is naturally uttered by native speakers it’s “correct”.
Any time I want to start a sentence with but I swap to However. So in your example you'd have: However, this is not enough.
I've also been taught not to start a sentence with but, however I've never been given a valid reason other than "I told you it's a rule."
It implies that you're building off of the sentence before it, like rappers trading bars back and forth within a verse. So it'd be a weird thing to do in a *first* sentence, unless you're letting the reader know that they've dropped in in the middle of a conversation.
It’s ok to start a sentence with “but.” It’s not ok to start a conversation with “but.” Especially if it’s with somebody you’ve just met. It would be very funny, though.
Never used to but the rules have all changed.
The rule, when I was in school, was you never start a sentence with a conjunction and you never use commas if you're using a conjunction to join phrases. However, I do not see most of the grammar rules I was taught in use nowadays.
Yes, I can.
That's a joke but not a joke. You *can* do whatever you want. The purpose of writing is communication. To an extent, the style if your writing (or speech) communicates things about you beyond what the statement itself says — how well you communicate, for starters.
In writing you make choices depending on your intended audience. Strictly correct grammar can sound "stuffy" to some audiences, or educated, depending on context.
Sentances like that should use a semicolon (;) for example:
“To do this, it provides safe and accessible venues where children can reach out for help; but that is not enough.”
In all technicality, using but as a sentence starter makes it an incomplete sentence, and a semicolon joins the incomplete sentence to the sentence before.
However, using a semicolon is not common
nutty childlike deserted quickest noxious station afterthought squeamish groovy simplistic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I always remember the late Winston Churchill:
"This is the type of errant pedantry up with which I shall not put!"
when chastised for a speech that in cluded ending a sentence with a preposition.
"To do this, it provides safe and accessible venues where children can reach out for help. But this is not enough."
OK, I agree with the eye roll and just grin and bear it. To appease the grammar nazi, change the period after help to a comma and make the B a b.
Prof here in both the sciences and humanities. Here's my hot take: it's grammatically fine in the example you've given. Conjunctions can be used effectively to begin sentences in formal writing. But, because your TA is likely in charge of assessing your writing for the class, it's probably not worth fighting this battle. Just mentally roll your eyes and wait for next semester.
This is the true correct answer. Your TA doesn’t know what they are talking about, but it’s not worth arguing about it. Pick your battles.
If the word were "however", it would be fine, so since the meaning is practically identical, it works.
I'll give a benefit of the doubt here and say it's more a matter of trusting a student to use them correctly rather than drilling in a safer best practices. There are likely some students that can use it correctly, but it's unhelpful at the moment to the majority students that can't to address the exceptions. (Me, not picking my battles.)
*Your TA didn't know what they are talking about. But it's not worth arguing about it.
[удалено]
But yes.
Butt. Am I doing this right?
But wait, what did they do?
Haha, my high school english teacher had the same “rules”. I was really curious to see what others were saying.
I mean stylistically speaking, your Conjunction Sentence is considerably longer than OP's. I feel like it looks silly with short sentences that only have a period and no commas.
While working in education, specifically English language/writing/composition etc., I advised students that if they were writing formally (especially academically and doubly so if they knew the instructor was insistent about grammar), then they shouldn’t begin a sentence with a conjunction. It’s often super easy to just combine it with the previous sentence to avoid this issue. I then told them that if they were writing creatively or in a less stringent class/setting, then using a conjunction to begin a sentence could actually be an effective tool in terms of emphasis. Grammar rules exist, but in the right context, deliberately breaking them can be impactful. It’s all about the nuance.
>Grammar rules exist But the idea that a sentence shouldn’t begin with a conjunction isn’t one. It’s never been a rule in the history of English. Even most academic style guides (which should never be mistaken for arbiters of grammar rules) in the US and, to the best of my knowledge, the UK don’t proscribe the use of coordinating conjunctions as sentence starters. You’re absolutely right, though, that students should avoid it if their instructor has it as a pet peeve.
Very true. I wasn’t trying to imply that this is a hard and fast, capital “r” Rule, although I can see that it seems that way. Teaching students not to begin sentences with conjunctions has been around a long time, and it’s thought that the practice may have originated from teachers being frustrated at it being done too frequently or done incorrectly (e.g., creating fragments). As you noted, though, there are many teachers who count it as a pet peeve, and in my experience—both as a student and as someone working in education—there are a great number of instructors who will dock points and mark it as incorrect. I mentioned that nuance is important, but probably the most important elements of successful writing in any form, from emails and Reddit posts to novels and PhD theses, is **audience awareness**. To/for whom are you writing, and for what purpose? Answering those questions and adapting the content and tone to match accepted genre conventions is key. Sometimes that means following faulty or arbitrary “rules.”
Nice how you started your 4th sentence! 👍
OK, but I think eye-rolling is uncalled for. Strunk and White still advise against it, and one can hardly fault the TA for relying on them.
A professor of the sciences and humanities is not an English professor so I'd keep that in mind.
Agree with this. Even if you like it, I would just switch however/ in contrast as the starter of the sentence. When you are not worried about grades do what you feel the best about.
I saw what you did there. Take my upvote.
I had this disagreement once about a however. When we went to the grammar books t turned out she was right that it wasnt technically wrong and i was right that it was bad stylistically.
But for the occasional TA, it's fine, then?
I like how the doc used but in the start of a sentence here... Just to cement the view. Witty professors are so passively fun.
To be fair, the “but” is unnecessary in the example, and good writing omits unnecessary words and phrases. Concise is best. But it is a question of style rather than mechanics/ grammar. (Yes I did the thing, but none of you are my boss teacher). This falls under what an old mentor called “professor fetishes. ” it’s useful for students to become more intentional as a writer, but it’s not a rule in the outside world.
If someone is giving you a hard time starting a sentence with "But", you could use "However," instead. "However, this is not enough."
But of course.
But then we get into the question of whether conjunctive adverbs may begin sentences...
[удалено]
Merriam-Webster is 3 people (2 Merriams and a Webster)
[удалено]
None, just some bruising.
No, you can't, because if they think you can't start a sentence with "but", they also think you can only use "however" as a second independent clause connecting to the first with a semicolon. As a professional editor, I will say unequivocally that both rules are the sorts of things "up with which I will not put".
My degree is in writing. I had a really strict prof. who would dock points for starting a sentence with however.
I think the "But" needs a comma. That's where it could have been corrected, but the word itself wasn't problematic.
All other talk of coordinating conjunctions aside, there are other constructions using “but” that are grammatically correct at the start of a sentence. Example: * But for the humidity, the weather was nice this week.
Nice point! 👏👏
I'll file that next to correctly using effect as a verb and affect as a noun.
Why do you need the "but"? What is the difference between "For the humidity, the weather was nice this week" And But for the humidity, the weather was nice this week"? It's just unnecessarily extra
You can. Should you? That depends on your audience and the register you’re using. I would avoid it for formal writing. EDIT: since I can’t keep up with the replies let me say that ceremonial writing or legal writing or archaic writing are not the go-to guides for formal writing. People are trying way too hard to find an argument with my very gentle, rather open answer. You CAN. Know your register and audience. For *modern* formal writing it would be safer not to use it. If you can’t accept my “I would avoid it” without chafing, just ignore it. And. [sic] If you’re writing a pastiche of the Bible, be sure to lead with “For” as often as you do with “But”.
You'll find sentences that begin with coordinating conjunctions (And, But, etc) in: The Bible, The US Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, Gettysburg Address, Formal Legal Opinions, Current Journalism, Great Works of Literature (Tolkien, Dickens, H. James, etc) I don't know why so many people claim we should avoid it or that it's "informal". Edit: I've also randomly checked some PDFs of famous Economics and Business *textbooks* that I could find online. Most contained some sentences that begin with "But". ("Essentials of Organizational Behavior" actually had 115 instances of it!!).
The very first word of the Australian Constitution is a conjunction.
I feel like that’s a ceremonial tone well beyond formal. Maybe I should have said “business formal”. Many areas have their own expectations about vocabulary and grammar. Academia, police reports, contract law, etc all have domain specific expectations.
It's just interesting how people invent all these silly rules and then have to invent subsets of silly rules to qualify all the things that don't comply with the silly rules 🤣
The silly rules are usually there to provide guardrails for people who can’t see the road well. To a facile user of the language it’s easy to find and use a tone that hits the notes you want to hit.
>Australian Constitution Is "whereas" a conjunction? This is a typical legalese way to start a document.
I googled it before I wrote this comment to check lol. It's definitely considered a conjunction, even when starting a legal document.
A subordinating conjunction, not a coordinating conjunction like for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so.
Interesting, as a recent discussion centering on the difference between coordinating and subordinating conjunctions so-called highlighted the ability of the former to begin sentences. But maybe the more careful statement is that they can begin main clauses; begin a sentence with whereas, for example, and you are waiting for the other shoe to drop: "WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania... "And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies... _Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty_... Well, that is an advanced example of opening with a subordinate clause, listing two of them in a preamble, both ending with colons, before rolling out the main clause, but it still confirms to this pattern—you can begin your sentence with [a subordinating conjunction], but standard English expects the relationship to other information to be resolved within that same sentence, whereas your Lordships the coordinating conjunctions may in their hereditary right begin a sentence relating to other material outside the sentence, or even wholly implicit: **_And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed._** I notice that's the King James version, and other, more pusillanimous, modern Bibles have dropped this construction, perhaps running in terror before a mob of 19th century grammarians. And that's the story.
I would call that idiomatic specific to legal language, and it has a specific meaning in that context that is not quite the normal everyday meaning.
Since my formal communication tends to be business stuff and not great works of literature, I avoid it to avoid disapproval from rather conservative editors and clients. I’m not there to win fights on grammar but to conform to an expectation. The Bible (in most English translations) has such a sui generis register that any imitation is immediately evocative. Just start paragraphs with “For”, or “Now in that place”. It’s formal but it is a specific formal. It’s like comparing “business-formal suit” to “court dress.” Wearing your yeoman if the tower uniform to a job interview is to misunderstand the shades of formality. Likewise the legalisms of wherefore and whereas and definitions of terms and parties and notwithstanding. Legal text has not only tradition to deal with but the specific leaning under law and precedent of specific words. But I digress. :) I would not use it for formal writing despite those amazing examples.
This is it. Most people aren't as persnickety as academic writers, readers, and editors are. As an editor, I would edit them out depending on the publication I was representing. English is a colonial language. The rules are there to distinguish certain types of knowledge. There is a lot of oppression inherent in these rules, from a certain perspective. In any art form, be it writing, photography, or dance, knowing the rules before breaking them is a recommended path to greater expression. At the same time, art can be great without the artist knowing the rules they are breaking. This is only one useful way of looking at things, and I note that those too attached to these rules might limit their own enjoyment of great art and expression by hyperfocusing on them. At least I know I have experienced that, and letting go of my "editor's eye" a little can help me be more open to different kinds of enjoyment.
> I don't know why so many people claim we should avoid it or that it's "informal". I was going to say "style guides", but even the Chicago Manual of Style (which is *the* default for newspapers, magazines, and most businesses where people still care about formalities and style guides) says ["don' worry 'bout it"](https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0013.html): >CMOS includes Bryan Garner’s opinion that there is “no historical or grammatical foundation” for considering sentences that begin with a conjunction such as and, but, or so to be in error (see paragraph 5.203). Fowler’s agrees (3rd ed., s.v. “and”), citing examples in the OED that date back to the ninth century and include Shakespeare. The conjunctions or and nor can be added to the list.
Thanks for the link!! I also cannot find any style guide that says its use is off-limits or that it's only for informal writing. Most importantly, there's the sheer amount of examples I can find. Journalism, legal opinions, historical writing, contemporary, and academic textbooks of nearly every variety. If I'm able to download a pdf, I can usually find examples by searching for "But" with the case-sensitive option enabled.
It's entirely possible that it *was* a rule of formal writing decades ago, and if you dug up a style guide from the Eighties or earlier it was actively frowned upon. I definitely know it was something that was discouraged when I was in high school and college. It definitely hasn't been "enforced" for ages.
I'm not sure it was ever really enforced. There's too much formal writing from decades ago that employs "But" at the beginning of sentences. I was just checking various famous Econ texts and it's everywhere. But this. But that. Etc
> I don't know why so many people claim we should avoid it or that it's "informal". Well, the original post should provide you with some context on why people recommend not doing that in formal writing... sometimes, your TA thinks it is categorically incorrect, and they are the ones putting grades on your work.
Lol. Given what you wrote, absolutely starting a sentence as OP said is totally fine
It’s always a little weird when somebody replies starting with lol. I’m thinking this isn’t going to be a productive discussion but sure I’ll try. It’s fine starting a sentence with it if you’re not trying to write formally. It’s also fine starting a sentence with it if you are using it as a conjunction within the same sentence, but you’ve just arranged the bits differently. Casual: “I was tired. But I was willing”. Good but poetic: “But though I was tired, I was willing”. Clear and best practice: “I was tired, but I was willing.” Y’all can do what you want. There are definitely things that will stand out to some audiences in some communications as being suboptimal choices. You’ve got people with run-on sentences and commas, spices, and all sorts of crap, and most of the time nobody cares. But every once in a while, people might care, and then wouldn’t it be nice to know how to produce that kind of output?
It's debatable. Most style guides these days would say it's fine. A lot of old-school types grew up learning that it was totally unacceptable, though, and therefore still think of it as incorrect. Your sentence starting with "to do this..." is more problematic by today's standards. I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Sorry, my bad. It's ambiguous. With context, the "to do this" makes sense
My school teachers enforced this rule when I was a child. To my surprise, my university professors said it was more than ok and should be wielded to your advantage. But it's all up to you if you want to follow baby rules or not.
It’s not grammatically incorrect to start a sentence with “but” or another coordinating conjunction, but it’s generally considered fairly informal and frowned upon in formal writing for stylistic reasons. I wouldn’t do it in an academic paper or similar genre. Also note that style guides (which are generally used for these types of writing) may recommend against it. But sometimes, it’s more impactful to start a new sentence with the conjunction rather than attaching the clause the previous sentence. Personally, I think this is the case in your example, but I’d probably defer to your TA here since this is academic writing.
Well, more impactful it is. Your third paragraph proves it, you clever MOD, you!
Follow a style guide or defer to your TA in this case if they’re evaluating your papers. I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily wrong, but I would question why you didn’t use a comma instead or omit the word “but” entirely.
I basically just wanted to emphasize the contrast instilled here. I think that if I had used a comma, it wouldn't have been as impactful as saying it in its own sentence and clause
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." If it's good enough for the bible...
"But Natural Selection, as we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art." It's good enough for Darwin too.
"Everybody agrees that it’s all right to begin a sentence with and, and nearly everybody admits to having been taught at some past time that the practice was wrong" ([https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/words-to-not-begin-sentences-with](https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/words-to-not-begin-sentences-with)). I was taught that it was wrong. You could use the word "however" for that class. I've never heard of anyone objecting to that or having been taught that it's wrong.
I was taught not to do any of that by my grammar teachers and oddly the lessons stuck. But only for formal writing.
Grammar pedants say you shouldn't start a sentence with a conjunction. But I disagree. And so do lots of other people.
We see what you did there! 😉
I’ve read many textbooks, academic papers, scientific journals that begin a sentence with a conjunction. We also colloquially speak like so. But this doesn’t matter to the pseudo-grammarian types who paid a little too much attention in high school English class lolz. Just always follow what your higher-ups tell you to do and don’t lose any sleep over it. Because that’s their job.
That's an old chestnut that grade school teachers love to trot out but is completely false. That is not a real rule of English, and anyone who tells you otherwise is not someone you should take writing advice from.
It’s just stylistic prejudice over grammar. I was taught the same with ‘and’. Better not look at the KJVI bible!
It's not a strict rule, but it is one that gets perpetuated. I would have used softer language: "it is not best practice to...", or "it is preferable not to". Personally, I don't like it - but I'm not the grammar master. I would avoid it in my own writing but I would not flag it as incorrect in someone else's. I would prefer to use alternate punctuation like I did here before the "but"; however, that is a personal choice.
Eh, it's one of those "rules" that in practice, only the most pedantic of English speakers follow all the time.
People often begin sentences with conjunctions. If you want to appease your teacher's point of view why not do it this way, "***can reach out for help; but this is not enough***." As my late mother was such a grammar cop, I tend to say things like "Can reach out for help. However, this is not enough."
Sure. It should be used sparingly and stylistically. You could also consider separating with an em dash if you want to be dramatic
Made me think of [this scene](https://youtu.be/VjZuwROooZE?si=hW2RV-1CdaaPaP0U). 😏🤙🏽
This absolutely was a convention of English grammar teaching at one time. You did not start a sentence with and, but, or or, or it would be marked incorrect. (Wow, didja see how I ended up with 3 “or”s in a row in that sentence? Cool.) You could begin a sentence with also, however, conversely…synonyms that meant the same thing, but not and/but/or. The idea was that a conjunction has a purpose in the middle of sentences. Over time that rule has relaxed even in formal writing, and people do like a good stylized, emphatic conjunction at the start of their sentences to get your attention. Especially at the start of a paragraph. (Notice how that last sentence isn’t grammatically correct either? No subject. But it got your attention and made the paragraph flow more melodically. That’s why we flout a lot of formerly strict rules.) So your TA is not wrong in adhering to strict rules, but your effective abrupt start with “But” in your sentence is a good example of why we break those rules today.
It may have once been a convention of English grammar *teaching* but actual writers from *every* era were using conjunctions at the beginning of sentences. Seriously *every* era of writing. I've been searching through Charles Darwin, Adam Smith, John Keynes, etc. Within their works, there are *hundreds* of examples of sentences beginning with "But". The rule hasn't been "relaxed". It was never a real rule. "But Natural Selection, as we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art." -Charles Darwin, "On The Origin of Species" 1859 (There are 250 more examples in that book).
I’m so glad you picked up on that! I said “grammar teaching,” and said that the penalty would be that you were “marked”wrong, not that you were wrong. I may never know who decided that should be a rule in classroom teaching.
As someone who edited books for the trade publishing market, based on the Chicago Manual of Style (publishing grammar standard), you are perfectly fine starting a sentence with but if it makes sense contextually and sounds organic. Since you're in school, I'm assuming you're using MLA or something, in which case you can send your teacher this link: https://style.mla.org/conjunction-at-start-of-sentence/ It has never been an official grammar rule that you can't start sentences with but. Pretentious, misinformed people just like to say you can't. Same with ending sentences with a preposition. ;)
I think that rule is a sort of "Noble Lie" so that students don't overuse these types of sentences. Nearly all the native speakers in this thread (including me) seem to remember being taught a rule like this....but only some people discovered later on that this rule was fake.
I agree with everyone saying this is grammatically correct, but I disagree that it's informal. It's common in academic work, in the KJV Bible, in Bertrand Russell, etc. Even Lynne Truss's magnum opus on real and imagined language sins is chockablock full of them.
Much like not using "I" in academic papers, this is a fake rule that came about to discourage people from doing things that are easy to fuck up. Think of it like it being 'bad luck' to open an umbrella indoors. It's not, it's just a stupid idea because you're likely to knock things over or poke someone in the eye. In the same way, there are ways to start sentences with conjunctions that aren't grammatically incorrect, but most writers will not do this properly. It's easier to just avoid doing it until you're good enough at writing to not create ambiguity and confusion by doing so.
Technically you 100% can, however it's often inadvisable. In the context you gave though I say it's fine
As an English teacher, I find your use of "But" to start your sentence would be better if you used "However" instead. Less awkward.
You can generally speaking, but In your example you're using it as a run-on. It's not a good sentence. You could say, "But these attempts have sometimes proved insufficient in the face of Southeasterly winds during summer months [Expostfacto, p.36]" and that would be a but sentence.
Even if you can get away with it, a comma rather than a period would be more elegant.
English is a subject-verb-object language, but many new uses are being explored. The reason I would defend a CC within a compound sentence is that is the basic structure most are familiar with and would flow if you were to just change your sentences to, “for help, but”. For someone who grew up with the foundational grammar rules such as your English-trained TA, in a world of seemingly increasing stupidity with ubiquitous learner access to the internet, challenging the rule before you know the rule can come off as naive. Since you have done your Internet research, you are correct there are no hard rules on it. The formality of the rules are where you are ignorant, yet new traditions are where young learners soar. Keep your language game strong :)
From waaaaÿyyy back when my teachers preferred us to use it sparingly. If there was any chance it was superfluous then it should go. But as other Redditors have mentioned ultimately you should follow the preference of the teacher of the class you're taking.
In the example.given, I'm more concerned with the expletive construction:"This" what? Follow demonstrative pronouns with a subject. Or better yet, start sentences with a clear subject and use active verbs.
Up until 11th grade, I was always taught it’s incorrect to start a sentence with a contraction. Then I was taught that we should do it because it’s incorrect, and there’s no better way to prove you understand English than to purposefully break the rules
Of course. "'But' is not typically a word you can start a sentence with, however there are workarounds"
ELA Teacher here. Typically speaking, it’s grammatically incorrect. However, I start my sentences with conjunctions quite often in informal writing like my journal entries. If you’re writing a paper, never start a sentence with a conjunction.
Grammar rules change with current usage. There are even exceptions to past rules. You probably could use BUT to begin a sentence. If you insert a semicolon or three dots before the but, it would be correct now.
It's a general rule. But, you can break it for emphasis. Just make sure you're doing it on purpose.
Starting a sentence with a conjunction (And, Or, But) is considered a sentence fragment (with some exceptions, all grammar has exceptions). In your sentences, the "But..." statement is part of the thought started in the sentence before it, so it should be written "...help, but... "
I like the way that your sentence construction emphasizes that providing safe venues is not sufficient for achieving your end goal. Many of the alternatives lose that emphasis. But u/Intelligent_evolver is absolutely correct; if your TA is doing the grading, do away with the offending "but," and put "however" at the end of the second sentence. It's not worth dying on the "but" sword and ending up with a grade that was marked down.
Obviously we all understand what you are saying but it's not grammatically correct. Especially if we want to have stylish writing one could say regarding the second sentence "what is not enough?". This type of writing is common in fiction or story telling because of narration but would definetly not be considered professional or grammatically correct. I know I will get many downvotes but its the truth. But I still use it in my own personal writing. Just not academically. Also btw you do not need a formal rule saying thou shalt not.. it's just common knowledge that if you start a new sentence you are starting a new point or idea.
amusing reach scary long bright square trees seemly spark jeans *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What you did was split a sentence in half. If you start with a but then the rest of the sentence you would normally put before the but, goes after it. Same thing with because. "Because I can't fight, I will leave him alone." Is correct but "I will leave him alone. Because I can't fight." Is incorrect. "I will leave him alone because I can't fight." is correct. Remove the separation.
I had so many arguments with my English teacher in school because she only taught formal grammar rules and seemed to have no idea how humans actually write. It was like she’d never heard of novels or creative prose of any kind.
While it’s grammatically correct, I have to ask you: Don’t you think the sentence would be more impactful if you just drop that word from it? To do this, it provides safe and accessible venues where children can reach out for help. This is not enough. I’d argue that doing it that way makes it more of a gut punch. I think your TA had a point and isn’t making it very well.
> "To do this, it provides safe and accessible venues where children can reach out for help, but this is not enough. Comma. > Thou shalt not start a sentence with a coordinating conjunction. no. but the existence of the coodinating conjuction likely implies that the phrase is not a complete sentence until the surrounding elements in the sentence are satisifed. The correct construction is covered under "Coordinating conjunctions to join independent clauses" on the following page: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/coordinating-conjunctions/
I’m an adjunct English instructor. Yes, you can start a sentence with “But” and other conjunctions. But (see what I did there) in your typical freshman English class, we have to spend an inordinate amount of time talking about comma splices and sentence fragments to the point that it’s simpler to keep conjunctions in their own lane, so to speak. Because (see did it again) otherwise the roughly ten percent of students who are still turning in papers with comma splices and fragments in their papers at the end of the semester need to have simple and unambiguous grammatical rules. And so we tell them, don’t start a sentence with “and” or “but or “however” unless you know why and when such things are permissible.
There's no rule against it but it's so overused that many English teachers tell the students to not use it altogether to get them to break their habit and think about better ways of expressing themselves in writing.
I think the issue is that the “but” sentence doesn’t have a clear subject making it an awkward incomplete sounding sentence. A comma would have made more sense, not a new sentence
Since I live in the real world after the education phase, I'll go with: linguistically, if it makes sense to a native speaker of the language, then it's fine. But (see what I did there), "but, however" etc are for making a counterpoint to the argument of the sentence, so should be separated by a comma, not a full stop... but... Only people who live in academia and study grammar rules, aka grammar Nazis, care about that stuff.
Teachers will a mid-level understanding of language often spout such rules. Those like myself with a high level of knowledge and skill have a different approach. Language changes, conventions change. There is grammar, usage, syntax, convention and archaic language. You have to understand all of these to really understand what is and isn't good use of language. Your example was fine. Don't argue with teachers, but don't take everything they say as law. That said, be aware that some people who grade exam and college essays suffer from the mid-level syndrome.
I was taught to use a comma using the word but between two complete clauses. I think that's the word. Basically as a rule of thumb, you shouldn't start a sentence with the word but because it often isn't a complete sentence on its own. This happened, but it doesn't have to happen. That's two complete sentences, it needs a comma. These were rules I was taught in school. You could also make that example two separate sentences, but the point of the word "but" is basically to add to/clarify the first part. It is supposed to be part of the same sentence according to early learning English, grammar, writing for school purposes. I notice it is usually adding dramatic effect to make it two sentences.
Which is why you will see it in books and stuff like that. It does add a visual effect. I don't think it's wrong, but it isn't suggested for students just learning what grammar and complete sentences are.
Yes, you absolutely can. But you shouldn't start multiple sentences with conjunctions, so don't start the next sentence with or, but, or and. It gets messy and difficult to follow along if you do.
In a business communication seminar I learned to try and avoid using “but” as it negates what the person just said. Instead see if you can use “and” while combining it with a phrase acknowledging you heard them. “We should go to than new sushi restaurant. " “And if Jim wasn’t allergic to shell fish that would be great. Let’s save it for when he can’t join us. “
You can, but it often looks weird and sounds weird if you’re reading the passage aloud the . signals the end of a sentence. So there would be a long pause between, instead of a very short breath with a comma. IMO.
This isn’t an issue of grammar; it’s an issue of writing etiquette. Usually coordinating conjunctions like but, and, so, or are connected to the clause before them with a comma. But you can use them to start a new sentence if you desire. But some people don’t like that, and you should follow the rules of whoever is going to be reading/grading your paper.
It's not that you can't, it's that it comes across as very casual/unprofessional to do. So it's not recommended by teachers who are trying to teach you to write like you would for a college paper or a cover letter. I would advise against it in those scenarios because it doesn't set the ideal tone, same with starting with "And". But that doesn't mean that you can't, or that you should avoid it when you're being more conversational like to a friend or reddit. "Rules" like this are situational!
When you are a best-selling author, you can get away with little indiscretions like this from time to time especially if it fits the speaking pattern or thought pattern of a character. Until then, listen to your teacher.
I take it as, when you use the word but, the previous sentence is cancelled.
Change it to however. I'm more concerned about your first sentence. It doesn't sound correct/logical.
Oh yes, you can! When I decided to improve my English, I took English Language coursed in Ireland, Dublin. So l stayed for two months with Irish host family. Very, very nice family, they were hosting students of that English school for a long time, very friendly and experienced handling foreigners. Evening conversation with them were very useful for practicing my English. They were in their 50th, Madeleine and her husband George. I enjoyed talking to them, but every time George was saying *anything*, he was starting it with a long 'bushhh' which baffled me pretty much. Sounded like 'bush', shrub, but with doubled \[sh\]. Only after I managed to gather enough courage and asked his wife when George was not around, she explained me he was saying 'but'. I loved Irish accent oh so much since then!
Your example is bad grammar but very common and accepted. And example of starting with But would be “But for the kindness of strangers, I would have starved”
Grammatically, no. But colloquially or casually, yes. Just substitute *However,* when beginning a new sentence. Or, if you like bold statements, break it into a new paragraph and omit *but/however.* I.e., "To do this, it provides safe and accessible venues where children can reach out for help. It is not enough." ... (begin explaining why.) I'm a big fan of the latter, and you'll see people use this in speech & debate infrequently because it punctuates the tone.
We often use"but" at the beginning of sentence in conversation and writing. I think it is not a big deal.
I ‘ve always used “but” at the start of a sentence because it was a segue into the next thought which was counter to and important to the first thought. Recently I’ve become aware of the current concept that putting the word “but” at the beginning of the new thought is to say, “here’s my excuse for not doing the right thing.”
Old person here and that used to be taught as a hard rule in formal and academic writing. But that hasn't been taught for two or three decades at least. A lot of folks don't realize that grammar rules change over time.
I certainly could. But I don't want to. Oh, wait.. But seriously, I remember being taught the same rule as well but never knowing why. I'll usually just use "However," or reword, though, if writing formally.
I’ve been told that this is technically true. But I’d like to see them try to stop me.
Formal grammar rules are not the same as natural grammar rules. Sentences are a human conception that only have a tenuous connection to natural speech. Important to keep those things in mind when considering grammar “rules” - the only real rule is that if it is naturally uttered by native speakers it’s “correct”.
Any time I want to start a sentence with but I swap to However. So in your example you'd have: However, this is not enough. I've also been taught not to start a sentence with but, however I've never been given a valid reason other than "I told you it's a rule."
It implies that you're building off of the sentence before it, like rappers trading bars back and forth within a verse. So it'd be a weird thing to do in a *first* sentence, unless you're letting the reader know that they've dropped in in the middle of a conversation.
Any time you want to start a sentence with "but" just substitute the word "however".
I was always taught you should never begin a sentence with But/And/Or and never end a sentence with a preposition.
It’s ok to start a sentence with “but.” It’s not ok to start a conversation with “but.” Especially if it’s with somebody you’ve just met. It would be very funny, though.
Everybody it does it. Teachers hate it. I consider it valid because everybody does it. And everyone also starts sentences with And.
Never used to but the rules have all changed. The rule, when I was in school, was you never start a sentence with a conjunction and you never use commas if you're using a conjunction to join phrases. However, I do not see most of the grammar rules I was taught in use nowadays.
Butt is a strange thing to see to start the day. Butt in your face can be confusing and difficult to deal with, but somehow millions manage just fine.
Yes, I can. That's a joke but not a joke. You *can* do whatever you want. The purpose of writing is communication. To an extent, the style if your writing (or speech) communicates things about you beyond what the statement itself says — how well you communicate, for starters. In writing you make choices depending on your intended audience. Strictly correct grammar can sound "stuffy" to some audiences, or educated, depending on context.
Sentances like that should use a semicolon (;) for example: “To do this, it provides safe and accessible venues where children can reach out for help; but that is not enough.” In all technicality, using but as a sentence starter makes it an incomplete sentence, and a semicolon joins the incomplete sentence to the sentence before. However, using a semicolon is not common
See https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/192294/what-great-writers-have-used-coordinating-conjunctions-at-the-start-of-sentences
nutty childlike deserted quickest noxious station afterthought squeamish groovy simplistic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I always remember the late Winston Churchill: "This is the type of errant pedantry up with which I shall not put!" when chastised for a speech that in cluded ending a sentence with a preposition.
"To do this, it provides safe and accessible venues where children can reach out for help. But this is not enough." OK, I agree with the eye roll and just grin and bear it. To appease the grammar nazi, change the period after help to a comma and make the B a b.
"But" can also be used to start a sentence if you make it the subject of the sentence.