posted
1. He still does not face me, yet he does not walk away. 2. He still does not face me, and yet he does not walk away.
#1 is a normal sentence, with yet as a coordinating conjunction. #2 seems like a normal sentence but the second clause begins with two coordinating conjunctions.
Two in a row? Is that legal? I never saw it acknowledged as legal.
This is a hopelessly picky question that doesn't matter to almost everyone. I GET THAT.
The thing is, extrinsic would have cared. He would have answered! I would have learned what grammarians think about this issue (or if they hadn't). He had a really strong love of language, and he really knew a lot. He was an interesting and valuable human being, and I find myself missing him.
posted
I have no idea what has caused his absence, and I agree that he is definitely missed.
As for your question, EmmaSohan, I've seen "and yet" used often enough to believe that if it isn't "legal" at least it is not unforgivable.
I submit that it would certainly be okay to have a character use "and yet" while you may not want a narrator to use it; depending, of course, on the narrator.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yet: from An A-Z of English Grammar and Usage: Geoffrey Leech, Benita Cruikshank and Roz Ivanič. 2016 Edition
Yet is an adverb; it is also a linking adverb which comes at the beginning of a clause or sentence, and has a similar meaning to but. You can place and in front of yetwhen yet comes at the beginning of a clause. My italics.
quote:Originally posted by Grumpy old guy: Yet: from An A-Z of English Grammar and Usage: Geoffrey Leech, Benita Cruikshank and Roz Ivanič. 2016 Edition
Yet is an adverb; it is also a linking adverb which comes at the beginning of a clause or sentence, and has a similar meaning to but. You can place and in front of yetwhen yet comes at the beginning of a clause. My italics.
Phil.
Thanks. The problem is, if "yet" is a linking adverb, then this sentence is a comma splice:
1. He still does not face me, yet he does not walk away.
In this sentence, yet modifies whatever it modified in the second sentence, where it was called an adverb. Exact same function. The rules of grammar have to handle both sentences, right?
Posts: 407 | Registered: Apr 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are said that yet is a subordinating conjunction in:
1. He still does not face me, yet he does not walk away.
I like the idea, but that would rewrite a lot of grammar. I think there are "errors" in the grammar rules. Maybe this is one; maybe there is a solution. I think it's easier to just admit the so-called grammar rules don't work that well. Anyway:
1. "Yet" is on the sacrosanct list of coordinating conjunctions. The sentence above would be typical usage. It's going to be really hard to get people to take it off the list.
2. One of the properties of a subordinating conjunction is being able to reverse the sentence without changing meaning. Doesn't work on that sentence or perhaps any sentence with "yet".
3. A grammar rule is no comma before the subordinating conjunction. There are times when this rule absolutely should be broken, but still it's odd that you didn't flinch at that problem.
Thanks for responding again. extrinsic would have done that, and I appreciate it.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Apr 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is, I think, a tendency to construct rules of grammar for a troubling sentence and then ignore their consequences/implications
Here, do you want to travel the same path with "so"?
This webpage I think clarifies the grammatical status of "and so" perfectly. Or the lack of status. One person says, "There is no correct use of "and so" in Standard American English."
The response is: "Absolute nonsense." The argument for that is basically "sounds good" and "people do it", ignoring the grammatical issue.
But if some non-English speaker wrote:
quote: I like his hat, and but it doesn't fit.
I suspect everyone would happily say that sentence was ungrammatical because of the two successive coordinating conjunctions.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Apr 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
e-mailed E. no answer. no arguments at the time he disappeared from the forum. Doesn't look good. Anyone know E. personally and can check on him? Or know him on another forum?
Not like him to give no warning of an absence.
Been gone since may, that's three months, very strange, and bad omen. hope he's ok. We all take breaks, but hatrack was his sounding board.
posted
walexander, extrinsic was involved with a number of litigious (civil) matters which appeared to be coming to a head earlier this year; some for and some against him. Just maybe, he is preoccupied at the moment.
I prefer that scenario over any other so far mentioned.
however and but play exactly the same role and have the same meaning. If however modifies something, but must modify the same thing. Right?
Grammarians say however is an adverb. To me, it modifies nothing. (I call it a connector by the way -- it says how this sentence relates to the previous sentence. So does but.)
If however modifies something, but must modify that same thing, making but an adverb. Of course but gets categorized as a coordinating conjunction, which raises the question of why however isn't a coordinating conjunction.
There are little problems like this in grammar. It doesn't matter for writing; it does matter for understanding languages.
In magic, a question like this is almost always used as a repellent. It's very effective. But extrinsic would have answered, or provided information on the nearest topic. So this is still part of my tribute, or semi-tribute, or mourning, or whatever. I promise to stop now.
posted
However is an example of what is called a "conjunctive adverb" and there are several other words that are used the same way.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
extrinsic would have said that! Though not in as few words.
If that definition is taken seriously, then "but" is also a conjunctive adverb. Right? Same meaning. I will put in a comma to have the grammar be the same.
However, there's nothing I can do. But, there's nothing I can do.
I don't see how either of those is going to satisfying the typical definition of adverb. (Actually, I'm not sure they are going to meet the typical definition of conjunction.)
It doesn't affect writing, right? It's a grammar problem that probably should be fixed rather than ignored, but that's not going to happen.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Apr 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reasonable. Kathleen suggested conjunctive adverb, but another name is adverbial conjunction. So that could fit.
I assume you mean this to be a new type of conjunction. I don't think you will overcome the inertia on that.
Will anyone punctuate your first sentence that way? The website Kathleen linked to was insistent about using a semi-colon.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Apr 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
Way back in olden days when dinosaurs walked the earth there were strict grammar rules regarding the use of however. One NEVER began any sentence with the word ”However”; doing so would get you kicked out of playgroup. In addition, when used as a conjunction, however was always immediately preceded and followed by a comma.
So, my use of however is hardly new and I have no idea why you'd think it was.
As for kdw’s website link, they don’t know what they’re talking about. They have no idea of how to use a semicolon; you would NEVER precede a conjunction with a semicolon, nor an adverb.
EmmaSohan, perhaps you should invest in a good dictionary. And you might want to peruse Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage (for American English) and take a look at the entry for ‘Also’, pp 80-82.
Adverbial conjunction? That abortion of a concept will definitely get you kicked out of playgroup.
Phil.
[ October 15, 2019, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: Grumpy old guy ]
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, this niggling point is important to me. I was giving you a gift to suggest "adverbial conjunction" -- you are welcome to call "however" a conjunctive adverb, but good luck getting from that to calling it a conjunction; everyone else seems to end up at adverb.
You can find places that define "however" as only being an adverb. Wikipedia That's a bad sign for there being a common, well-agreed usage of "however" as a conjunction.
The dictionary I am looking at (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 2662 pages) does list "however" as a conjunction, but the examples have nothing to do with our examples here.
Meanwhile, this, from the definition of "however" as an adverb, fits perfect and even cross-references "but":
2: in spite of that: on the other hand: BUT
and gives the example
I would like to go; however, I think I'd better not.
Again, I am sympathetic with you wanting to call that usage of "however" a conjunction -- it makes no sense to call it an adverb yet "but" a conjunction. However, you cannot portray your claim as consistent with how grammar is described. Which was my point.
Is this horse dead yet? Just in case, The Chicago Manual of Style (pages 389-390):
Certain adverbs, when they are used to join two independent clauses, should be preceded by a semicolon rather than a comma. These conjunctive adverbs include however, thus...
Thanks for discussing this with me! I enjoyed researching it and along the way found some good sources.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Apr 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is this horse dead yet? Not quite, in fact, I believe it to be a Phoenix rather than a horse.
And, however loath I am to admit it, I was wrong. However, when used to link two main clauses together, is preceded by a semicolon. There, I said it.
But you've opened up a can of worms, Emmasohan; more than you might know. Don't worry about my silence for the next few days, I'm researching the other 10 or so words with similar 'issues' to however.
posted
Anytime research is inspired by a question, then I believe the question has been an especially good one.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
I think he calls them that because they connect "logically" but not "formally". I think that means they connect by meaning but not grammatically. But to me that would make their conjunctive status nongrammatical.
posted
kdw, formal English is what official reports used to be written in: Supreme Court judgements, legislation and all manner of commercial and legal documents. Informal English is colloquial English; wot you me and the rest of us speak every day. The point is that all linking adverbs, or conjunctive adverbs, are only grammatically correct when used in formal English. The one exception is however . But only if used in 'less' formal English. Whatever 'less' formal english is. 😕
There is more. Much, much more.
Phil.
[ October 24, 2019, 03:46 AM: Message edited by: Grumpy old guy ]
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, then, I have always heard that unless there is a very good reason for it (one being characterization of the narrator), the narrative voice should be "formal" and that the character's dialogue is the only writing that can be informal or colloquial in fiction.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
