Talk:Conjunction (grammar): Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Pat Palmer
(couple of possible ideas for this article)
imported>Pat Palmer
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}


== Ideas for this article ==
== Possible ideas for this article ==
Right now, this article is fine strictly in terms of grammar, but these is more possible richness.  I'll just drop a couple of ideas here and let them percolate.
# Could we somehow work in the everyday phrase "No ifs, ands, or buts"?   
# Could we somehow work in the everyday phrase "No ifs, ands, or buts"?   
# Of the three most common clause-linking words (and, but, or), ''and'' and ''but'' deserve special mention, because ''but'' perhaps tends to get used as a sort of (possibly unconscious) weapon.  ''But'' implies a contradiction to the preceding clause and can set up resistance or hurt feelings when people hear it, whereas ''and'' does not tend to create the same resistance.  This is something I learned as a helpful "people skill" and off the top of my head, I don't know how to present it, but I feel it might belong in this article, or linked to it somehow.  The challenge is to find a way to word things without needing to resort to ''but'' (or any of its workarounds). [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 03:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
# Of the three most common clause-linking words (and, but, or), ''and'' and ''but'' deserve special mention, because ''but'' perhaps tends to get used as a sort of (possibly unconscious) weapon.  ''But'' implies a contradiction to the preceding clause and can set up resistance or hurt feelings when people hear it, whereas ''and'' does not tend to create the same resistance.  This is something I learned as a helpful "people skill" and off the top of my head, I don't know how to present it, but I feel it might belong in this article, or linked to it somehow.  The challenge is to find a way to word things without needing to resort to ''but'' (or any of its workarounds). [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 03:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:29, 17 January 2021

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Word or phrase that connects other items within a sentence, such as and in salt and pepper (co-ordinating conjunction) or because in Mary sighed because Bill was wrong (subordinating conjunction). [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Linguistics [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English

Possible ideas for this article

Right now, this article is fine strictly in terms of grammar, but these is more possible richness. I'll just drop a couple of ideas here and let them percolate.

  1. Could we somehow work in the everyday phrase "No ifs, ands, or buts"?
  2. Of the three most common clause-linking words (and, but, or), and and but deserve special mention, because but perhaps tends to get used as a sort of (possibly unconscious) weapon. But implies a contradiction to the preceding clause and can set up resistance or hurt feelings when people hear it, whereas and does not tend to create the same resistance. This is something I learned as a helpful "people skill" and off the top of my head, I don't know how to present it, but I feel it might belong in this article, or linked to it somehow. The challenge is to find a way to word things without needing to resort to but (or any of its workarounds). Pat Palmer (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)