You should never use a comma after the word "and."
This is another one that I (like, I presume, Hobbes) was taught at school but which I'm pretty sure has been debunked now.
Here is a related question for the grammaticists on the thread, though: I was also taught that a comma can represent a slight pause in sentence (as if when spoken). I presume this is what is going on in the sentence that Hobbes has quoted. The same applies to a semi-colon, but with the pause being slightly longer. Is this true, or is this grammatical bastardisation?
I had an argument about number 4 last year, with an English friend who teaches English to French people. He was staunchly, even abusively, in the 'none is always singular' camp. I'm going to send him that link, along with a lot of gros mots.
I'm glad about no.3 too, as it clears up my confusion about it. I was one of those who, as a child, was taught that it was bad so have avoided committing that apparently cardinal sin ever since. However, I'd seen increasingly frequent examples of such sentences recently and this threw me into confusion. Y'see, if starting a sentence with 'and' I had adopted the 'technique' of preceding it with '...' just to indicate that it was some kind of continuation of a point made in my previous sentence. But now I know the facts I realise I can stop that habit. And will act accordingly in future. (Ah, that felt good!)
Number 3 had me cheering. I've been making that argument since I was still at school, and it's one grammatical "rule" I almost always break in my writing. Much of this stuff is actually worth observing, even if it may not be correct, simply because it results in more elegant sentences. But that one is just a load of crap.
You can only break the "rule" sparingly, mind you, or you do sound like an idiot.
Leave a comment: