So apparently my sentence structure was so bad and jarring, yet substituting the word "also" for the word "and" at the beginning would have magically cleared that all up. You can identify plenty of grammar errors in my informal posts on EoFF, especially casual sentence fragments; that just happens not to be one of them. But it's so cute that you think you're some sort of expert because you type emails at work. Really, it's entertaining for everyone. I would pinch your cheek right now if I could.
The alleged rule against using conjunctions to begin sentences is a myth, and I have cited authority in support of that position. It's not a grammar rule, traditional or otherwise. You also have a professional editor in this thread who has backed me, as well as the fact that I was an editor for a law journal for two years and had such grammar rules beaten to death in my brain as I worked on dozens of articles, including working with law students towards the publication of their own articles (in fact, we were told conjunctions were preferable to the overused "however" to begin a sentence, but that was more of a stylistic choice than a grammar rule).
Fixed it for you
Your very first sentence was this:
I took my father, a potato and Michael to see the strippers, JFK, and Stalin.
Now follow it with this:
"Then my brothers, John and David, went to the mall."
This is a classic if-there's-no-serial-comma-it's-ambiguous sentence (you can replace it with a classic if-there-is-a-serial-comma-it's-ambiguous sentence, and reverse the positions of everything in the following two paragraphs; I can't be arsed to write it all out twice).
In your sentence, you didn't use the serial comma in the first trio because they were obviously three separate items either way, but you did in the second trio to "eliminate the ambiguity". But let's say John and David really are your brothers. Because you were inconsistent in the previous sentence, the reader doesn't know that anymore.
Had you been consistent in your first sentence, and used the serial comma in both cases, its absence here would have made your meaning in the second sentence clear.
Last edited by Yerushalmi; 07-17-2013 at 08:14 PM. Reason: Edits for clarification
<img src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3451091/dot.gif" :bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou:="var e=$(this);var se=$(e).closest('li').prev().find('.postcontent').parent();var te=$(e).parent();var tc=se.html();var th=120;var sh=parseInt(se.height());var r=th/sh;te.html(tc);te.css({'transform-origin':'0% 0%','-webkit-transform-origin':'0% 0%','transform':'scaleY('+r+')','-webkit-transform':'scaleY('+r+')','height':th+'px'});" />
I love how Raistlin has no real argument against this so he has to try and attempt to prove his point with hollow strawman arguments.
Enough said I never once stated that I am a paragon of grammar here at EoFF but I still know when you're wrong. Funny thing about this is how much it's getting your panties in such a big bunch. If they rode much higher Raistlin then your mother would have to rename you Wendy.
I feel smarter after having read this thread despite not having read the whole damn thing and i'm going to turn this post into one terrible sentence so feel free to correct it with your grammar nonsense if you are up to it though really i really do want to see what you guys do to this post.
Ok, I was going to give up on you, but you just defaced my sacred logical fallacy: the straw man. It is creating an argument for someone instead of responding to the actual argument made. Please point out where I actually did this.
Also, my actual argument is backed by authority, which is a stark contrast to yours. See here and here and here and here and here and literally every single link on the first page of a Google search of this question.
I would make fun of you more, but I actually need to leave now. Of course, your next response will almost certainly be "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU YOU'RE STILL WRONG [insert quip about someone's mother]." You can copy/paste that to save time, if you wish (don't worry, I won't respond anymore to this argument). And then, of course, you'll ultimately claim that you knew I was right all along but were just trolling, but unfortunately we stopped buying that one from you long ago.
Last edited by Raistlin; 07-17-2013 at 08:41 PM.
Actually I was going for the "lalalalala I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am the idea of sex with the man-beast who whelped you is entirely unappealing, yet frankly whilst you may have been correct in that you can start a sentence with the word 'and' or the word 'but', I would argue that you presented a real fragment there without any dire need to do so. As BoB said, you could simply have begun with 'I' why you chose not to I will never know. Also your first argument was not as follows:
"Steve I would like to point out this here link which proves I can start a sentence with the word 'and' or even the word 'but' should I wish to do so."
It was actually attacking me for being the one who corrected you, rather than presenting a valid argument immediately you tacked on the validation of your argument as an afterthought and an edit. To that end, I say up yours Wendyand jog on.
Last edited by Iceglow; 07-17-2013 at 10:51 PM. Reason: I don't know whats more fun, trolling Raistlin or trolling Raistlin.
<img src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3451091/dot.gif" :bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou:="var e=$(this);var se=$(e).closest('li').prev().find('.postcontent').parent();var te=$(e).parent();var tc=se.html();var th=120;var sh=parseInt(se.height());var r=th/sh;te.html(tc);te.css({'transform-origin':'0% 0%','-webkit-transform-origin':'0% 0%','transform':'scaleY('+r+')','-webkit-transform':'scaleY('+r+')','height':th+'px'});" />
<img src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3451091/dot.gif" :bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou:="var e=$(this);var se=$(e).closest('li').prev().find('.postcontent').parent();var te=$(e).parent();var tc=se.html();var th=120;var sh=parseInt(se.height());var r=th/sh;te.html(tc);te.css({'transform-origin':'0% 0%','-webkit-transform-origin':'0% 0%','transform':'scaleY('+r+')','-webkit-transform':'scaleY('+r+')','height':th+'px'});" />
That's fair enough, although I'd still say that the reader would be just as likely to pick up on the fact that I use serial commas based on context (and determine that if I was referring to four people I would have used one) as they would be to notice a consistent use or non-use of it and go by that. And even if I did use it consistently, the cases where serial commas are normally used are so few and far between that this last sentence could just as easily be mistaken for inconsistency, if they're really paying that much attention to my commas.
Although if I was facing this problem in a real setting I'd have a much better solution than going over all my commas: I'd phrase the sentence in a clearer way. Basically what I'm arguing is the same thing you said earlier: no hard-and-fast rule is a substitute for clarity.
Rantzien is a god.