Is this the way English is going as a "living language"?

[Wahoo Redux]

Personally, I'm more worried about the fact that most (but not all!) common comp books give an incorrect definition and explanation of what an argument is. But (!) then, I'm not in English.

Just out of curiosity, how so?

And it's not that I disbelieve you----I hate comp textbooks and never used them if I could help it.  But that's just my own preference as a teacher.

There's a tendency to conflate 'argument' with 'statement' (or sometimes 'a reason'). Validity is another notion that's commonly misused in comp textbooks (it's typically applied as a property of statements, e.g. 'a valid point/reason', when in fact it's a property of arguments, and a very specific one at that). They Say/I Say is a fantastic text, for example, but it never bothers to explain what an argument is (despite mentioning them a lot!), and I don't think it contains a single correct use of 'valid'.

I last checked major comp textbooks five or seven years ago, however, so maybe the situation has improved.

Interesting.  I'm not sure exactly what you are saying since I think you are talking about concepts and terms used in philosophy.  And the purpose of composition is actually very fundamental: we just try to teach them to make a cogent and structured "argument" (a "statement?"), which for most of them is a brand new concept, and an introduction to the concepts of writing style.  In other words, we are doing basic professionalism and preparing them to write papers in their other classes so their other professors do not flip a gizmo when they turn in a lab report----which is not always successful.

Is there a layman's text that goes into these differences?

You are talking on a whole new level (which I wish I understood better).  We just try to keep them from ranting without a single supporting idea or detail----again, which is not always successful.

Incidentally, and back on topic, I have actually had several undergrads approach me (I think at least 3) and say, essentially, "My high school teacher told me never to start a sentence with a conjunction" and at least one grad school faculty who told me, rather kindly, "That is not what a conjunction is for."  I could only ever answer that great writers do this all the time.

This conversation has been very illuminating.

[ciao_yall]

I didn't think "so" was wrong, the overuse of the word just grates.  But I did think "their" is wrong. Should be "its".

Oh yeah, good call, dismalist. I always tell students that who, their are for people, while that, it are for non-human subjects.

Animals are a whole different topic, depending on the level of anthromorphism being used in the situation.

[kaysixteen]

Good point about 'et' also being an adverb, and when doubled in sequence, 'et... et', the first et means 'both'. 

This is indeed a Latinate rule, whereas Greek had no such rule, and regularly begins clauses with various conjunctions.

[Parasaurolophus]

Interesting.  I'm not sure exactly what you are saying since I think you are talking about concepts and terms used in philosophy.  And the purpose of composition is actually very fundamental: we just try to teach them to make a cogent and structured "argument" (a "statement?"), which for most of them is a brand new concept, and an introduction to the concepts of writing style.  In other words, we are doing basic professionalism and preparing them to write papers in their other classes so their other professors do not flip a gizmo when they turn in a lab report----which is not always successful.

I actually think our use of 'statement', 'argument', and 'valid' are the uses aimed for in English/comp. It's not hyper-specialized terminology, it just has a definite meaning which is typically overlooked or left to intuition (but shouldn't be).

A 'statement' is any sentence that can be either true or false--so, basically a declarative sentence (although fragments count, too, and we might be able to point to a few special cases, such as the Canadian 'eh?') . An 'argument' is a set of statements, at least one of which (a premise) is offered in support of at least one other (a conclusion). A 'valid' argument is one for which, if the premises are all true, then the conclusion must necessarily also be true ("it follows"; for that reason, no single statement can be valid). (A 'sound' argument, incidentally, is valid and has actually true premises [meaning the conclusion must therefore also be true].)


On starting a sentence with coordinating conjunctions: one use we tend to overlook is 'for'. There are plenty of archaic examples of it (he's a jolly good fellow, etc.), although I guess we don't do it much anymore. The only one I find particularly jarring is 'or'. But it's no more jarring than not using the Oxford comma (much less so, really).

[Caracal]

I am skeptical that the Hebrew original was punctuated. And (see what I did there?) wherever you punctuate the passage in question, you get sentences that start with "And." It's the norm in this kind of narrative. You don't always see it because it's often been "improved" by modern translators. For instance, if you look at the originals of the Mabinogion, the body of medieval Welsh legend, a huge percentage of sentences begin with "And" or similar connecting words. The very literal translation by Jones and Jones retains these, but almost all the other modern translations omit them, giving a modern reader the impression that starting a sentence with "And" would have been unusual, when in fact it was effectively the norm.

Not my area, but I was listening to something the other day that reminded me that a lot of old English poetry starts with "Hwaet, which apparently is best understood as "so" in the sense of "hey, listen up. Essentially it was being used as a preposition.

[marshwiggle]

And the purpose of composition is actually very fundamental: we just try to teach them to make a cogent and structured "argument" (a "statement?"), which for most of them is a brand new concept, and an introduction to the concepts of writing style.  In other words, we are doing basic professionalism and preparing them to write papers in their other classes so their other professors do not flip a gizmo when they turn in a lab report----which is not always successful.

Is there a layman's text that goes into these differences?

You are talking on a whole new level (which I wish I understood better).  We just try to keep them from ranting without a single supporting idea or detail----again, which is not always successful.

Incidentally, and back on topic, I have actually had several undergrads approach me (I think at least 3) and say, essentially, "My high school teacher told me never to start a sentence with a conjunction" and at least one grad school faculty who told me, rather kindly, "That is not what a conjunction is for."  I could only ever answer that great writers do this all the time.

This conversation has been very illuminating.

These two points together make a point. "*Great writers" are often writing either fiction or persuasive essays. These are both basically presented in a more conversational style. Something like a lab report, which is a technical document, is written in a more formal style. It is to be read for detail and its intent is clarity. Because of that, things like sentence fragments don't belong; the goal isn't for it to be fun to read, the goal is for it to be clear and unambiguous. (By contrast, if a scientific paper is going to be summarized for lay readers in a popular magazine or something similar, the writing will be much more conversational as it is not intended to be read in the same way and for the same purpose as the original paper.)

(*"Great" writers are probably identified in that way by their appeal to a large audience. I can't recall any academic described as a "great writer" who never wrote outside academia and thus was only ever read by peers.)

[Caracal]

So, each college and university sent their budget request to the legislature.

Such is likely common parlance.

Whatever.

And people speak that way.

If that matters.

I have heard of professional individuals, foreign born, with English as a second language, writing "like" between clauses. Such people aren't stupid; they picked up the garbage from us, like.

Like used in this way is no sillier than any other linguistic innovation, many of which have long since become baked into formal English usage. In  fact, I just googled it and it turns out that "like" originally came from an old English word "gelich" which meant body. (I guess as in Lich) It seems to have evolved through the sense of something similar to a body being like it (As in likeness?) and then become a verb. I'm sure there was somebody complaining "what do you mean you body the potatoes!?. Damn kids and their junk language."

[Caracal]

And the purpose of composition is actually very fundamental: we just try to teach them to make a cogent and structured "argument" (a "statement?"), which for most of them is a brand new concept, and an introduction to the concepts of writing style.  In other words, we are doing basic professionalism and preparing them to write papers in their other classes so their other professors do not flip a gizmo when they turn in a lab report----which is not always successful.

Is there a layman's text that goes into these differences?

You are talking on a whole new level (which I wish I understood better).  We just try to keep them from ranting without a single supporting idea or detail----again, which is not always successful.

Incidentally, and back on topic, I have actually had several undergrads approach me (I think at least 3) and say, essentially, "My high school teacher told me never to start a sentence with a conjunction" and at least one grad school faculty who told me, rather kindly, "That is not what a conjunction is for."  I could only ever answer that great writers do this all the time.

This conversation has been very illuminating.

These two points together make a point. "*Great writers" are often writing either fiction or persuasive essays. These are both basically presented in a more conversational style. Something like a lab report, which is a technical document, is written in a more formal style. It is to be read for detail and its intent is clarity. Because of that, things like sentence fragments don't belong; the goal isn't for it to be fun to read, the goal is for it to be clear and unambiguous.

Sure. The audience is assumed to be people who use English as a language of academic communication. That includes native and non native readers from all over the world. More formal English is far more standardized than colloquial language.

[apl68]

So, each college and university sent their budget request to the legislature.

Such is likely common parlance.

Whatever.

Would it be correct if written "So As a result, each college and university sent their budget request to the legislature."

They mean the same thing, assuming the reader knows that the previous sentence described some action that resulted in the above action.

Personally I don't like to use "this" as the subject of a sentence, even though this (usage) is correct.

I didn't think "so" was wrong, the overuse of the word just grates.  But I did think "their" is wrong. Should be "its".

Some of these pet peeves are like that.  They're not necessarily wrong, but tend to be used an awful lot in recent writing.

[traductio]

One of the pleasures of tenure (something I never take for granted) is that I can now fully pursue the precept I give to students about how to write well: use all the words you need, but only the words you need. Clarity trumps all.

One result is that I used the word "trippy" in a monograph I published in 2020, and I just submitted a manuscript with the phrase "wordy hocus-pocus" (a re-expression of the idea of sophistry, in Plato's sense). I also start sentences with "But," but only when necessary. Its alternatives -- especially "however" -- weigh down my prose.

To be fair, though, I perceive clarity as a function of my imagined audience. The books with "trippy" and "wordy hocus-pocus" are addressed, almost like letters, to my students. I have another monograph under review where I imagine my audience as other professional academics, where a different notion of tone prevails, and my diction is far more conventional.

As for the different meanings of "argument" raised by Parasaurolophus, I think there's value to the technical sense he attributes to "argument" and "statement" to distinguish between them, but I also find that in everyday speech, "argument" also evokes something less technical. I tell my students they need to make an argument, meaning they need to stake out and defend a position, but I've run into the problem that "argument" can have two senses (the position staked out, and the defence), and I tend to mean both. The technical distinction between argument and statement might be one I'll begin making in class, although I don't teach composition. (I used to teach speech, but that was as a grad student, many more years ago than I care to admit.)

[Wahoo Redux]

I actually think our use of 'statement', 'argument', and 'valid' are the uses aimed for in English/comp. It's not hyper-specialized terminology, it just has a definite meaning which is typically overlooked or left to intuition (but shouldn't be).

A 'statement' is any sentence that can be either true or false--so, basically a declarative sentence (although fragments count, too, and we might be able to point to a few special cases, such as the Canadian 'eh?') . An 'argument' is a set of statements, at least one of which (a premise) is offered in support of at least one other (a conclusion). A 'valid' argument is one for which, if the premises are all true, then the conclusion must necessarily also be true ("it follows"; for that reason, no single statement can be valid). (A 'sound' argument, incidentally, is valid and has actually true premises [meaning the conclusion must therefore also be true].)

Thank you, Para. 

And this is exactly what we try to do in the research comp classes.  But these distinctions will help me think about the class...should I ever teach a class again.

And I would agree that I have never seen these ideas spelled out in a comp textbook, all of which are shite, IMHO.  For this reason, I never use comp textbooks.

[Hegemony]

Not my area, but I was listening to something the other day that reminded me that a lot of old English poetry starts with "Hwaet, which apparently is best understood as "so" in the sense of "hey, listen up. Essentially it was being used as a preposition.

A preposition? I'm not sure how it would be a preposition, even apart from the fact that it doesn't have an object. I would classify it as an exclamation. I've always thought the most accurate equivalent in modern English is "Yo!"

[Puget]

This thread reminds me of the book The mother tongue: English and how it got that way, by Bill Bryson. I'm not sure what the linguistic historians among us think about the accuracy of everything in it, but I found it to be a very entertaining look at all the oddities of English and its evolution. It certainly talks about how a lot of what we were taught as "rules" were totally made up based on Latin (as someone mentioned here).

Not my area, but I was listening to something the other day that reminded me that a lot of old English poetry starts with "Hwaet, which apparently is best understood as "so" in the sense of "hey, listen up. Essentially it was being used as a preposition.

A preposition? I'm not sure how it would be a preposition, even apart from the fact that it doesn't have an object. I would classify it as an exclamation. I've always thought the most accurate equivalent in modern English is "Yo!"

I would love to read something translated from old English to colloquial modern English that way-- I suspect that a lot of what we perceive as formal and fancy in older writing is just that the older style sounds formal and fancy to us now, when it was actually just how people talked then, and they were probably also lamenting the corruption of the language from the olden days.

[Caracal]

Not my area, but I was listening to something the other day that reminded me that a lot of old English poetry starts with "Hwaet, which apparently is best understood as "so" in the sense of "hey, listen up. Essentially it was being used as a preposition.

A preposition? I'm not sure how it would be a preposition, even apart from the fact that it doesn't have an object. I would classify it as an exclamation. I've always thought the most accurate equivalent in modern English is "Yo!"

I suppose that's right. I thought of it because it is somewhat similar in the sense that it is being used to create a sense of flow. I guess maybe the better example is the way older translations of the Bible often start a sentence with "and." Written formal English can become very clipped. If its true that starting sentences with prepositions is becoming more common, I assume its because it breaks up prose and avoids clipped short sentences without the need for a long dense sentence with a lot of clauses. As long as its clear what the so refers to, it shouldn't cause problems with clarity.

[ergative]

Not my area, but I was listening to something the other day that reminded me that a lot of old English poetry starts with "Hwaet, which apparently is best understood as "so" in the sense of "hey, listen up. Essentially it was being used as a preposition.

A preposition? I'm not sure how it would be a preposition, even apart from the fact that it doesn't have an object. I would classify it as an exclamation. I've always thought the most accurate equivalent in modern English is "Yo!"

I suppose that's right. I thought of it because it is somewhat similar in the sense that it is being used to create a sense of flow. I guess maybe the better example is the way older translations of the Bible often start a sentence with "and." Written formal English can become very clipped. If its true that starting sentences with prepositions is becoming more common, I assume its because it breaks up prose and avoids clipped short sentences without the need for a long dense sentence with a lot of clauses. As long as its clear what the so refers to, it shouldn't cause problems with clarity.

Do you mean conjunctions? Words like 'so', 'and', 'but', etc., which introduce clauses? Starting sentences with conjunctions can create a sense of flow, sure. Prepositions are words like 'in', 'on', and 'through', and introduce noun phrases, so they can't really do anything about the flow between clauses. I certainly haven't noticed any trend of starting sentences with prepositions in the way you describe.