Talk:Grammatical conjunction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Information at Grammatical particle
Grammatical particle already has some text on conjunctions...maybe merge or move the text from there here or here there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DennisDaniels (talk • contribs).
[edit] Assorted complaints
If and/or is a disjunction than to say it is a conjunction perhaps isn't fair.
In addition it isn't a "english" "part of speech".
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.168.62.46 (talk • contribs).
- A conjunction is a word that links words, phrases, or clauses. There are three types of conjunctions: coordinating conjunctions, correlative conjunctions, and subordinating conjunctions. Coordinating conjunctions may join single words, or they may join groups of words, but they must always join similar elements: e.g. subject+subject, verb phrase+verb phrase, sentence+sentence. When a coordinating conjunction is used to join elements, the element becomes a compound element. Correlative conjunctions also connect sentence elements of the same kind: however, unlike coordinating conjunctions, correlative conjunctions are always used in pairs. Subordinating conjunctions, the largest class of conjunctions, connect subordinate clauses to a main clause. These conjunctions are adverbs used as conjunctions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.73.65.55 (talk • contribs).
[edit] "But" vs. "and"
I am seeking the distinction between the conjunctions "but" and "and"... Unfortunately, the site implies they are the same "Coordinating conjunctions...that join two items of equal syntactic importance." I believe there are subtle (and some distinct) differences in the various conjunctions... My current focus is defining the actual or implied differences between the terms "Separate BUT Equal" and "Separate AND Equal" I welcome your thoughts Wikipedia Community. sp8s@msn.com 67.9.104.10 15:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- I tend to think that "but" joins two generally contrasting ideas, while "and" connects two that are similar. 74.134.139.118 21:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Jello
[edit] For
I think placing for as the first example of a conjunction is very misleading. For is mostly used as a preposition: "He bought flowers for her", etc. The use as a conjunction is limited to quite formal writing: "He gave her the flowers, for he loved her so much." — AdiJapan ☎ 12:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- How is using for as a conjunction any different to using 'because' which is classed as a subordinating conjunction while for is classed as a coordinating conjunction? I could easily re-write that sentence ""He gave her the flowers, because he loved her so much.". What's the exact difference? (89.241.235.84 18:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC))
-
- One indicator — not a perfect one by any stretch — is that so-called "subordinating" conjunctions introduce a subordinate clause, which can be moved to the start of the clause containing them: "He gave her the flowers, because he loved her so much" can be re-written as "Because he loved her so much, he gave her the flowers." For does not have this property; we can say, "He gave her the flowers, for he loved her so much", but not *"For he loved her so much, he gave her the flowers." —RuakhTALK 18:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- In the first example, shouldn't the comma be omitted? ""He gave her the flowers because he loved her so much" Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- It depends what you're trying to say; if you're answering the question "Why did he give her the flowers?", no comma, but if you're answering a question like "Did he give her the flowers?" or "To whom did he give the flowers?" or "Who gave her the flowers?" or the like, then yes comma. That said, it's not always obvious exactly what implicit question a given sentence is trying to answer — that's just not how language works — so there are many cases where the comma can be present or absent. —RuakhTALK 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Very nice distinction! Out of context, it appears not to need the comma, but as you say, if it's adding tangential info... which is what makes copy-editing such a nuanced, fascinating, and time-consuming hobby! Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] List found in comments
I found the following in HTML comments in the article. -- Beland 19:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Should the following be listed anywhere?
afteralthough- as
- as far as
- as if
- as long as
because- before
- even if
- for
- how
- granted (that)
- if
- in case
- lest
- like
- on condition that
- provided
- providing
- since
- so
- so that
- supposing
- than
- unless
- until
- 'til
- till
- that
- though
- when
- whence
- whenever
- where
- whereabouts
- whereafter
- whereagainst
- wherealong
- whereas
- whereat
- whereby
- wherever
- wherefor
- wherefrom
- wherein
- whereinto
- whereinsoever
- whereof
- whereout
- whereover
- whereround
- whereso
- wheresoever
- wheresomever
- wherethrough
- wheretill
- whereunder
- whereunto
- whereupon
- whereup
- whether
- while
- whither
What about "forasmuch" and "inasmuch" ? Gregbard 10:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I crossed out words that have since been mentioned on the page. The article does a fine job of including examples of conjunctions, as it's not possible to include every conjunction (otherwise it would be cluttered or look like a list). However, a few common ones like as could be added. The compound words (where+..., forasmuch, inasmuch) are mostly old ways of saying things and not used colloquially, or they are used exclusively in legal mumbo-jumbo.
- Wikky Horse 02:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Examples
It might be prudent to include examples. I am not familiar with the topic to do so and could benefit from them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jgassens (talk • contribs) 16:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC).
[edit] BISAWAWE
BISAWAWE is a mnemonic? I feel like I need a mnemonic for the mnemonic. The Internet Anagram Server informs me that "I SAW A WEB" is an anagram of BISAWAWE. If you're feeling bold, substitute that in the article. --DavidConrad 18:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

