Starting a sentence with a conjunction

Occasionally I come across an adult who still thinks it’s improper to start a sentence with a conjunction. Others think that starting a sentence with a conjunction is an innovation and should be done only sparingly, if at all. For those folks, I offer this passage from the King James Bible (circa 1611). I’ll put the passage in blue and the first word of each sentence in red.

And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

Luke 2:6–14.

By my count, there are nine sentences; eight of them begin with a conjunction.

Comments

[Andrew]

Should we also use words like "ye," "lo" and "thou," which the Bible also uses? The Bible is an authority on many things, but grammar (as something that changes as part of its nature) is not one of them. Furthermore, there is a difference between "OK" and "good". I can't really remember an example where keeping something as two sentences and starting one with a conjunction is better than making it one sentence, unless it's a bad sentence to begin with. Starting sentences with conjunctions is completely unnecessary, and doesn't add anything of value. If you want to use short, choppy sentences to get a point across, you can do it just as easily (and better, in my opinion) without starting with conjuctions. It's OK to write an entire essay in passive voice, there is NOTHING grammatically "wrong" with it. I think we'd all agree that it's a BAD thing to do, regardless of if it's "wrong" or not.

[Disagree]

Starting sentences with conjunctions can be very powerful tool of juxtaposition. And it elminates loose sentences and silly words like "furthermore", "moreover", and "however" which, IMHO, can often be too much "trying to sound smart" clutter.

Which one sounds better?

Should we also use words like "ye," "lo" and "thou," which the Bible also uses? The Bible is an authority on many things, but grammar is not one of them.

There is a difference between "OK" and "good". I can't really remember an example where keeping something as two sentences and starting one with a conjunction is better than making it one sentence, unless it's a bad sentence to begin with. And it is completely unnecessary. If you want to use short, choppy sentences to get a point across, you can do it just as easily (and better, in my opinion) without starting with conjuctions. It is OK to write an entire essay in passive voice; there is NOTHING grammatically "wrong" with it. But, I think we can all agree, that it's a BAD thing to do, regardless of whether it's "wrong" or not.

Silly rules are what is wrong with writing. There is nothing about an "And" or a "But" at the beginning of a sentence that makes writing inherently hard to follow. The only remaining justification for the "rule" (which is controverted by many) is that "someone said so." But that just doesn't cut it.

[Shannon Forbes]

Thank you. I am from the old school and remember my English teacher teling us never to begin a sentence with a conjunction. I am writing a book, and there have been a couple places where I got very daring (so I thought) and started a sentence with "and." I just decided to break the rule because it seemed necessary. Anyway, thank you for letting me know that the old rule, if it ever existed, has gone the way of the dodo and the buttonhook.

[Yvonne Perry]

when starting a sentence with And or But is a comma needed? For example:
And, she decided to go with me.

[Ray Ward]

Yvonne: Generally no comma after "And" or "But" at the start of a sentence. Thus: "And she decided to go with me."

[Railwriter]

Nice appeal to authority, but ineffective. The biblical passage above is grammatically poor, whether from a religious text or not.

Starting sentences with conjunctions is sloppy; transitions connected by conjunctions ought to occur within the sentence, else the whole point of sentence construction is lost.

[Ray Ward]

Sorry, Railwriter, but some impressive authorities would beg to differ with you. Two that come immediately to mind are H.W. Fowler and Bryan Garner. There's also whoever wrote the U.S. Constitution: that document is loaded with sentences starting with conjunctions.

[rbeatty]

And I would like to start all my sentences with conjuctions. But I learned not to do so. So you say this is wrong? Or completely outrageous? Yet I do so in defiance. For I will not fall victim to obtuse conventions. Nor insane rants.

[rbeatty]

And I would like to start all my sentences with conjuctions. But I was taught not to. Yet I do so in defiance. For I will not fall victim to obtuse conventions. Nor succumb to insane rants. So forgive me, those who feel otherwise. Or not.

[pgroot]

I am under the impression that we were taught not to use conjectures such as "and" or "but" as well as other words such as "because" at the beginning of a sentence so as to provide a sort of sweeping net policy for better writing. Because sentences such as this one are not grammatically correct. Like the notion of coloring within the lines, I think these policies are free to be discarded as the writer becomes able to properly structure their sentences without these safety nets. I don't see any issues, stylistic, grammatical, or otherwise with using a conjunction at the start of a sentence. However, I am no professor, in fact I am only a high school student, so scrutinize my comment and grammar accordingly.

[Jeremy Thorn]

THE BIBLE WAS TRANSLATED !!!!! POORLY TRANSLATED!!
I'll bet that the original Hebrew had less gramatical errors than the King James version.but Remember it`s a TRANSLATION.

[Ray]

Actually the Gospel of Luke was originally written in Greek, not Hebrew. But aside from that, where do you get the idea that starting a sentence with a conjunction is a grammatical error? Can you cite some authority for that notion?

[EpsilonZero]

pgroot, I support you, and I am an English teacher.

The same education system that taught me never to start a sentence with "and" gave me a national test in Year 5 with a reading passage with multiple sentences starting with "And" and then a question about why the author did it. When I wrote "Because he is a bad author, and doesn't know that you can't start a sentence with 'And'", I got called to the principal's office. In retrospect, that might be because my own sentence began with a conjunction...

That was the day I learned that skillfully used start-of-sentence conjunctions should be praised in writing. To the commenter above who claimed that they couldn't think of one instance where such a use of "and" was profitable, I beg to suggest perhaps you have either not read widely enough, or perhaps, have seen this used so effectively that you haven't noticed it?

Beginning a sentence with "and" is largely about: it can exaggerate compoundedness (as it apparently did in the test I mentioned: "He banged his head. And he fell down the stairs. And then he stubbed his toe. And then he broke his finger. It was a terrible day!")

It can also be used to signify afterthought, conjoining it to the preceeding sentence, but through use of a full-stop, highlighting the change of thought. ("So I ate the fish heads. And they weren't too bad, really" suggests a very different tone and delivery to "So I ate the fish heads and they weren't too bad, really."

[VippyG]

The way I understand it, the "rule" was taught to prevent errors such as the following:

I went to the movies with Susy. And Tom.

The only error in the second sentence is that it lacks an action. However, by not starting a sentence with "and" and instead combining the two sentences, the problem is solved. Easy fix accomplished!

Of course, few adults would make the above mistake anyway, with or without having been taught this "rule." The bottom line is that a sentence needs a subject and an action, and starting the sentence with a conjunction doesn't subtract from this.

Footnote: I found a case when it can be very helpful to start a senetnce with a conjunction. I was recently writing a paper in which it was required to make two points in a single paragraph. I wrote a few sentences about the first point and a few about the second. Reading through it again, I realized that the transition between the two thoughts was unclear. While I'm sure there are other ways to remedy this problem, starting a sentence with "and" was likely the easiest and simplest solution. Here's the paragraph:

Critics of the book say that the author misses the point of communism and unfairly attacks the concept. On the contrary, these critics miss the point of the book and unfairly vilify it. The author gives a knife-sharp message about the damages of socialism and the like, showing just how toxic a concept can be when it crushes the entire human race. And even though the author has a tendency to repeat concepts, these ideas are too important not to repeat.The ideals of this book – the value of man’s ego, the necessity of individualism – are of such monumental significance that to mention them merely once or twice would be neglectful.

Disclaimer: I am not an English teacher, professor, or anything of the like. Don't quote me and don't cite me.

[Ray]

Well, VippyG, you may not be an English professor, but you have a good ear.