Yes, speakers of English use or rather than and to combine two objects:
He doesn’t like any fish or shellfish.
She doesn’t know how to knit or crochet.
You can’t have dogs or cats in this apartment.
If you use and, it sounds a little off and it can be unclear what you mean.
Eg. I don’t like rice and beans. I don’t like rice or beans.
The first sentence means I don’t like a dish that combines rice and beans into one dish. The second one means there are two things I don’t like: I don’t like rice and I don’t like beans.
You shouldn’t wear jeans or a t-shirt to an interview. You shouldn’t wear jeans and
Yes, speakers of English use or rather than and to combine two objects:
He doesn’t like any fish or shellfish.
She doesn’t know how to knit or crochet.
You can’t have dogs or cats in this apartment.
If you use and, it sounds a little off and it can be unclear what you mean.
Eg. I don’t like rice and beans. I don’t like rice or beans.
The first sentence means I don’t like a dish that combines rice and beans into one dish. The second one means there are two things I don’t like: I don’t like rice and I don’t like beans.
You shouldn’t wear jeans or a t-shirt to an interview. You shouldn’t wear jeans and a t-shirt to an interview.
The first one means jeans are wrong and a t-shirt is also wrong. The second one means jeans and a t-shirt together are wrong.
Yes, I think so. You can't use ‘ and ‘ in a negative sentence to mean you dislike both of two alternatives. But you can choose the correlative conjunctions : either…or.
I don't like tea or coffee. ( A grammar rule states you can't use ‘ and ‘ in this clause ).
I don't like either tea or coffee.
These examples mean the same thing. I read the second alternative is more emphatic. In casual contexts it's not that common because it's less straightforward.
A common way to use these conjunctions is - in affirmative sentences - to mention an alternative, a choice, … :
E.g. It's either black or grey. I can'
Yes, I think so. You can't use ‘ and ‘ in a negative sentence to mean you dislike both of two alternatives. But you can choose the correlative conjunctions : either…or.
I don't like tea or coffee. ( A grammar rule states you can't use ‘ and ‘ in this clause ).
I don't like either tea or coffee.
These examples mean the same thing. I read the second alternative is more emphatic. In casual contexts it's not that common because it's less straightforward.
A common way to use these conjunctions is - in affirmative sentences - to mention an alternative, a choice, … :
E.g. It's either black or grey. I can't remember.
I add that you can say, ‘ I like tea and coffee ‘. Or ‘ I like both of them ‘. They mean the same thing.
> How do native speakers use "or" in place of "and" in negative statements? Is using an "and" incorrect in a negative sentence?
The use of “or” and “and” is the same, whether the sentence is affirmative or negative or anything else. “And” joins; “or” separates.
If two actions go together as a single combined action, we use “and” whether we are affirming or negating that combined action.
* People w
> How do native speakers use "or" in place of "and" in negative statements? Is using an "and" incorrect in a negative sentence?
The use of “or” and “and” is the same, whether the sentence is affirmative or negative or anything else. “And” joins; “or” separates.
If two actions go together as a single combined action, we use “and” whether we are affirming or negating that combined action.
* People who were passing by stopped and stared at the naked man on the balcony. (→ affirmative)
* People who were passing by did not stop and stare at the naked man on the balcony—they just walked on as if everything was normal. (→ negative)
We use “and” in this case because the two actions “stop” and “stare” go together as part of one combined action. In the second sentence, we are negating the whole combined action as if it were a single action.
However, if we want to negate two actions as separate actions, we use “or”. We want to say that neither action happened, and the word that expresses the idea of “neither” is “or”.
* She did not scream or cry when she saw the big black dog run towards her.
This means that she neither screamed nor cried. She did not do either of those two actions, separately. We can look at it in mathematical terms, using the mathematical system of bracketing, in which a common element in two expressions can be placed outside brackets, which contain the two expressions without the common element— as in “2 ( x + y )”:
* “… neither screamed nor cried …” (→ the common element is the negations “neither” and “nor”)
→ “… did not (scream or cry) …” (→ the negative common element is moved outside the brackets and the negative form “nor” is changed to the affirmative form “or”)
As you can see, “or” makes perfect sense in this case, since we are negating each action separately and saying that neither action happened as separate actions.
Here are some other examples:
* You should not stop or speak to anyone on the way. (→ you should not stop, you should not speak—you should do neither of these two actions)
* I will not stand and wait in line ...
How do native speakers use “or” in place of “and” in negative statements? Is using an “and” incorrect in a negative sentence?
While using “and” in negative sentences is not necessarily incorrect, it can lead to ambiguity regarding the speaker’s intent. Example: “I don’t like apples and oranges.” This could be interpreted as the speaker’s not liking both apples and oranges, when taken either together or separately.
In contrast, “I don’t like apples or oranges” is very clear: the speaker dislikes both apples and oranges, regardless of whether they are considered together or separately.
You can use “and” without any modifier if there’s no chance of confusion. — “Arthur and Jean cannot come to the meeting.”
If you want to imply just one of them can come, you would say it thus: “Arthur and Jean cannot both come to the meeting.”
You are mistaken. I have no idea where you got that from. Perhaps, you are thinking about “nor “
We use “and” when there are two or more, and “or” when there are only two.
I don’t like spiders and snakes./ I don’t like milk or cream in my coffee. You don’t like creepy creatures in general. You don’t like either of the two alternatives.
“Or” is a co-ordinate conjunction, and Disjunctive or alternate Conjunctions.
It may join two persons or things.
Examples:
Black or white will do. (joins two colour words…..nouns/ adjectives )
John or Smith may come today.( joins two words….nouns)
He or she may be out. (joins two words….pronouns)
To stop or proceed, it is up to you. ( joins two words….verbs)
Slow or steady are the two opposite faces of a coin. (joins two words….adverbs )
In or out makes no difference. ( joins two words….prepositions )
Yet or still, use the befitting conjunction. ( joins two words….conjunctions)
Ah or aha, any one befits
“Or” is a co-ordinate conjunction, and Disjunctive or alternate Conjunctions.
It may join two persons or things.
Examples:
Black or white will do. (joins two colour words…..nouns/ adjectives )
John or Smith may come today.( joins two words….nouns)
He or she may be out. (joins two words….pronouns)
To stop or proceed, it is up to you. ( joins two words….verbs)
Slow or steady are the two opposite faces of a coin. (joins two words….adverbs )
In or out makes no difference. ( joins two words….prepositions )
Yet or still, use the befitting conjunction. ( joins two words….conjunctions)
Ah or aha, any one befits there. ( joins two words….interjections)
Sarah cut all tall trees or dried wood that was dumped there
( joins two phrases )
Do not touch the mouse or play with it. ( joins two clauses )
“And” is a coordinate conjunction. Cumulative or Copulative we call it. It joins two elements of equal rank.
That was a black and white movie.
(joins two words….nouns/adjectives)
Delhi and Mumbai are two cosmos cities. ( joins two words….nouns)
She and he go together. ( joins two words….pronouns)
Fair and lovely is cosmetics’. ( joins two words….adjectives )
Go and come are two opposite action verbs. ( joins two verbs)
Quick and fast makes no difference. ( joins two words….adverbs)
What is the difference between beside and besides? ( joins two prepositions )
Yet and still make the same sense. ( joins two conjunctions)
Bravo and well done express appreciation. ( joins two interjections )
They went into the wood and inside the forest. ( joins two phrases )
The cow got up and slowly walked away. ( joins two clauses )
And /or cannot be used together in a sentence.
This is what I can advise on your question.
A Biologist Dedicated to Solving the Human Condition
Jeremy Griffith is an Australian biologist who has dedicated his life to explaining the central dilemma of human life: the human condition – how to reconcile our extraordinary capacity for love and empathy with our equally undeniable capacity for selfishness, cruelty, and destruction.
While many avoid this most confronting of subjects, Griffith has pursued it with unusual clarity and determination. Eminent ecologist Professor Stuart Hurlbert once remarked, “I am stunned & honored to have lived to see the coming of ‘Darwin II’.”
Early Life and C
A Biologist Dedicated to Solving the Human Condition
Jeremy Griffith is an Australian biologist who has dedicated his life to explaining the central dilemma of human life: the human condition – how to reconcile our extraordinary capacity for love and empathy with our equally undeniable capacity for selfishness, cruelty, and destruction.
While many avoid this most confronting of subjects, Griffith has pursued it with unusual clarity and determination. Eminent ecologist Professor Stuart Hurlbert once remarked, “I am stunned & honored to have lived to see the coming of ‘Darwin II’.”
Early Life and Conservation Work
Born in 1945 in rural New South Wales, Griffith was educated at Geelong Grammar School and graduated as a biologist from the University of Sydney. In his early twenties, he became known for leading the most thorough search ever conducted for the Tasmanian Tiger, a project that drew national and international attention. His pioneering use of camera traps in that search is now standard in wildlife research.
He later founded a successful furniture design business, but his deeper concern remained the psychological problems of human life.
Explaining the Human Condition
From the 1970s onwards, Griffith dedicated his mornings to thinking and writing about the human condition. After years of work, he presented what he argues is the first fully accountable, biological explanation of it: the unavoidable clash between our instinctive orientations and our conscious intellect.
Basically, the ability that science has given us to understand that our gene-based, naturally selected instincts were only able to provide orientations to the world means we can now appreciate that when our nerve-based, self-managing, fully conscious mind emerged and began carrying out experiments in managing our life from a basis of understanding the world, our inflexible, “dictatorial,” non-understanding instinctive orientations were inevitably going to be intolerant of and condemning of our conscious mind’s instincts-defying, self-managing experiments in understanding, which is our necessary search for knowledge.
But without this reconciling and redeeming explanation – that science has finally made possible – of the difference between the gene and nerve-based learning systems (which is that genes can orientate but nerves need to understand), our conscious mind had no way to counter this feeling of condemnation and criticism from our instincts, other than to attack the “criticism”, try to prove it undeserved, and to block it from its thoughts. This was the genesis of our immensely heroic, psychologically upset, angry, egocentric, and alienated HUMAN CONDITION.
What is so indescribably wonderful is that this “Instinct vs Intellect,” “genes can orientate but nerves need to understand” obvious (now that it has been explained) GOOD reason for our angry, egocentric and alienated, “good and evil”-stricken, instinctive-self-or-soul-corrupted, “fallen” human condition has finally lifted the so-called “burden of guilt” from the human race and ended the need for our defensive angry, egocentric, and alienated behaviour, thereby bringing about the psychologically redeemed, reconciled and healed transformation of our species.
Publications and the World Transformation Movement
Griffith’s first book, Free: The End of the Human Condition, appeared in 1988, followed by Beyond the Human Condition (1991), A Species in Denial (2003), and many others. His 2016 work, FREEDOM: The End Of The Human Condition, is regarded as his “summa masterpiece” – a comprehensive account of his explanation. THE Interview (2020) is recommended as the ideal introduction to Griffith’s work.
To support the dissemination of this knowledge, Griffith founded the World Transformation Movement (WTM) in 1983, a non-profit organisation now with more than 80 Centres worldwide.
Reception and Endorsements
Griffith’s work has attracted significant acclaim in addition to Professor Hurlbert’s extraordinary “Darwin II” remark.
Professor Harry Prosen, former President of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, wrote: “I have no doubt this biological explanation of the human condition is the holy grail of insight we have sought for the psychological rehabilitation of the human race.”
In reviewing Griffith’s book FREEDOM, Professor Scott. D. Churchill, former Chair, Psychology Department, University of Dallas, wrote, “Nothing Dr. Prosen has said about the immense importance of this book is an exaggeration. This is the book all humans need to read for our collective wellbeing.”
Summary
Jeremy Griffith is not just a biologist but a thinker who has devoted his life to confronting humanity’s most intractable problem. By explaining the human condition in biological terms, he has aimed to redeem human life, relieve us of guilt, and make possible the transformation of our species. Read more about Jeremy Griffith’s life at www.humancondition(.)com/jeremy-griffith/.
For those wanting to explore his work, all his books, essays, and video presentations are freely available at www.humancondition.com.
“Or” implies a dichotomy or one of two choices, as in, “do you want vanilla or chocolate ice cream?” In computer logic, this is known as XOR or “Exclusive OR”. An XOR gate’s output goes high when one or the other input is high, but not if both inputs are high. If neither input, or both inputs, are high, the output stays low.
“And/or” implies one of two choices or both. as in “I’ll take cash and/or bank transfer.” In other words, I’ll take the payment all in cash, all as a bank transfer or part payment in one form and the rest in the other. In computer logic, this is OR. An OR gate’s output goes
“Or” implies a dichotomy or one of two choices, as in, “do you want vanilla or chocolate ice cream?” In computer logic, this is known as XOR or “Exclusive OR”. An XOR gate’s output goes high when one or the other input is high, but not if both inputs are high. If neither input, or both inputs, are high, the output stays low.
“And/or” implies one of two choices or both. as in “I’ll take cash and/or bank transfer.” In other words, I’ll take the payment all in cash, all as a bank transfer or part payment in one form and the rest in the other. In computer logic, this is OR. An OR gate’s output goes high if either input is high, or both. It only stays low if neither input is high.
Belly up> dead, similar to what some fish do when they die
Fuck-off> go away, leave me alone, get off, go to hell, shut up, whatever, etc.
Ugly as sin> something so disturbingly ugly (not necessarily appearance0
Sleeping in> sleep later than usual on purpose or by accident
Easy as pie> a simple task easily accomplished
Curtain call> actors return to stage to acknowledge applause at end of play
Piece of cake> something that’s easy to do
Sick as a dog> extremely sick usually with stomach or bowel problems
Thin as a rail> thinner than usual, so one nearly sees bones through skin
Off his rocker>
Belly up> dead, similar to what some fish do when they die
Fuck-off> go away, leave me alone, get off, go to hell, shut up, whatever, etc.
Ugly as sin> something so disturbingly ugly (not necessarily appearance0
Sleeping in> sleep later than usual on purpose or by accident
Easy as pie> a simple task easily accomplished
Curtain call> actors return to stage to acknowledge applause at end of play
Piece of cake> something that’s easy to do
Sick as a dog> extremely sick usually with stomach or bowel problems
Thin as a rail> thinner than usual, so one nearly sees bones through skin
Off his rocker> when one acts wild and uncontrollable
Dressed to kill> dressed in the best alluring fashion, especially women
Balls to the wall> movement with extreme energy or speed without caution
Bought the farm> dead and gone, passed away, expired
Drinks like a fish> the habit of drinking to much alcohol
Slow boat to China> to partake in an extremely long and enjoyable trip
Don't lose your cool> act out in opposite to one’s usual relaxed manner
Shitting in tall cotton> doing better than usual after tough times as reward
The whole nine yards> WW2 pilots firing full magazine of 50 cal. ammo
Hoping against hope> hoping after knowing hope doesn't help, at all
Throw under the bus> sacrifice another for own personal gain w/no regard
Snug as a bug in a rug> when one is in a comfortable and safe position
Got him/her by the balls> to have control over one, to have at one’s mercy
On the tip of my tongue> almost know what you want to say but can’t recall
Quiet as a barnyard owl> metaphor- how the owl quietly waits to pounce
Quiet as a church mouse> metaphor- easier than quiet as a library mouse
Let the cat out of the bag> tell a secret the group tried to keep hidden
Burning the midnight oil> work all night to finish a task, study, work etc.
You missed a barn burner> remarkably unexciting sport event, a yawner
Not for all the tea in China> I won't do that for anything you can offer
Not in a month of Sundays> 1mo of Sundays, about 28 weeks, a long time
Built like a brick shit-house> describes a beautiful, curvaceous woman
He wiped the floor with him> if one beats another badly in a fair fight
Knocked him into next week> if one beats another by a KO in fair fight
Crazier than a shit-house rat> to act insane and disturbed without control
A day late and a dollar short> lazy to you screw self out of a good thing
A baby's arm holding an apple> describes a well endowed man’s erect penis
Between a rock and a hard place> to choose between equally bad options
Like a chicken with its head cut off> to act a frenzied, distracted, crazy way
If it were a snake it would've bit me> how could one not notice the obvious
Couldn't count ten with his socks off> one is so stupid and thinks it normal
Could've knocked me over with a feather> amazed to hear the unexpected
Doesn't know one’s ass from one’s elbow> pertains to a stupid clueless one
There's more than one way to skin a cat> choose to persevere w/out option
Out of the frying pan and into the fire> out of a bad place and into another
Never look a gift horse in the mouth> never refuse or question a good thing
Who wears the pants in the family> who makes important family decisions
Laughing all the way to the bank> making lots of easy money after success
Not a snow balls chance in hell> refers to something not having a chance
A few cards short of a full deck> if one’s brain is unable of proper function
The squeaky wheel gets the oil> complaining people get the most attention
Not playing with a full deck> one who doesn’t choose use full brain power
Playing loose with the facts> to twist the facts to fit the argument at hand
One can short of a six-pack> similar to- a few cards short of a full deck
Another one bites the dust> if one falls from the fight if two side disagree
Dropped like a hot potato> when one refuses to deal with a tough issue
Penny wise pound foolish> one who frets the small stuff to ignore the issue
Not a dry eye in the house> so heart breaking all are reduced to tears
Three sheets to the wind> intoxicated to the point one can't walk straight
Took me to the cleaners> forfeit more than necessary to get what one needs
Made him walk the plank> facing the consequences after being convicted
Playing it close to the vest> conceal one’s full strength facing the opponent
Uglier than three people> combine the physical appearance of 3 people to 1
Dumb as a box of rocks> to possess the intelligence of any brainless object
When hell freezes over> a thing that never should, would, or could happen
Skeletons in the closet> to forever hide away family secrets from the world
Walking on thin ice> to intentionally put one’s self in a precarious position
Cool as a cucumber> to continue relaxing as the situation grows worse
Spilled the beans> to disclose all one knows– or, let the cat out of the bag
Bats in the belfry> to think and act erratically, similar to the flight of bats
Counting sheep> a form of thought mantra to numb one’s mind to sleep
Out like a light> deep in sleep or to suddenly lose consciousness, or KO'd
Toys in the attic> to discover the slight latent craziness of another
Lost his marbles> after one has lost the ability to function normally
Smart as a whip> clear, quick, decisive, especially in the young
Loose as a goose> comparing one to water fowl (unfair to the goose)
Feather your nest> to store away available items, as an opportunist
Crying like a lamb> comparison a baby's cry to a lamb’s vocalization
Walking on water> the supposed ability to perform miracle like deeds
Drunk as a skunk> a poorly used metaphor used because, rhyme
Luck of the Irish> not luck, but being positive in a bad situation
Got his bell rung> get KO’d in a boxing match, like the bell ending a round
Hail Mary pass> a final grand attempt to be victorious, a last chance try
Dumb as a mule> comparing one to a mule (unfair to the mule)
Kicked the bucket> died, passed away, stopped living- past tense
Hit a home run> to achieve success in a task with one try
Crazy as a loon> (have we covered this one?)
Pearl necklace> what semen looks like when on a woman’s chest
Sent up river> origin- sent up the River Hudson to Sing-Sing prison, NY
Sick as a dog> comparison to a sick dog, used to avoid school or work
When pigs fly> description of an event presumed could never occur
High as a kite> metaphor- the effects of drug intoxication alcohol
Slept like a log> comparison to a sleeping log (lay like a log)
Lighter than air> claim an object is light, "Look hon, lighter than air."
Crazy like a fox> when one is smart yet exhibits craziness to all
Cleaned his clock> to thoroughly beat up someone in a fight
Working like a dog> a poor analogy, as a dog doesn’t work
Sleeping like a baby> poor analogy to how baby sleeps, up-down-up-down
Threw in the towel> officially remove one from the competition
Strapped to the gills> having more than one could possibly require
Dressed to the nines> dressed in the best, including accessories
Like a bat out of hell> to move extremely fast and with purposeful intent
Whistling in the dark> comfort yourself to distraction in a terrible situation
Diamond in the rough> an unknown quality which later comes to fruition
Sent to the big house> judge sentences a guilty person to the penitentiary
Assholes and elbows> hustle one’s ass and elbows off the chair and table
Given the pink slip> fired, laid off, get ur walking papers, dealt a blow
Pardon my French> apologize for swearing in mixed company
Up to his armpits> nearly filled to the brim with whatever it is
Sweet as a peach> referring to a bright, charming, proper young woman
He got the chair> referring to one scheduled to die in the electric chair
Quiet as a mouse> yes, another quiet mammal, this time, the mouse
Pushing up daisies> referring to one who has been buried as plant food
Like a house on fire> the quickness at which an event progresses
It takes two to tango> remarking that there is another side to any story
Walking on egg shells> afraid of reprimand from a particular person
Canary in a coal mine> to have advance warning of danger
He sang like a canary> a person who folds under police interrogation
It came out of left field> causing instant surprise out of nowhere
Come hell or high water> overcome any obstacle which presents itself
Got to go to the head> need to find a washroom, restroom, a naval term
Cat got your tongue> speechless- hearing a heretofore hidden truth
What are some conversation idioms that native English speakers use, but non-native speakers rarely use?
I'm bushed> dog tired. Done, D,U,N, Done. So tired, I misspelled done.
Yes, I wrote this. ha haha Verification Link https://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app
How do native speakers use the words or conjunctions "in that" and "in the sense that" in sentences?
The phrase “in that” is used to introduce explanatory information that provides further details about something that the person just said. It is often used to provide a factual reason for making some claim. Here is an example:
- He is a liar in that he denies being present at the meeting.
In this sentence, the “in that” clause presents the speaker’s reason for calling the subject a liar. The point of the sentence is not to say that the person is a liar generally, but only in this particular instance
How do native speakers use the words or conjunctions "in that" and "in the sense that" in sentences?
The phrase “in that” is used to introduce explanatory information that provides further details about something that the person just said. It is often used to provide a factual reason for making some claim. Here is an example:
- He is a liar in that he denies being present at the meeting.
In this sentence, the “in that” clause presents the speaker’s reason for calling the subject a liar. The point of the sentence is not to say that the person is a liar generally, but only in this particular instance in which he is lying about this particular thing. Even though the “in that” clause provides a reason, it is not quite the same as “because”. The reason here is more in the nature of evidence than a logical reason.
Here is another example:
- I was very fortunate as a child in that my parents allowed me a great deal of freedom to do as I pleased.
Here, again, “in that” presents a sort of reason why the speaker considers himself or herself fortunate, but this is not so much a logical reason as evidence on which the judgement of being fortunate is based. The sentence is saying: “I was fortunate in this way” as opposed to some other way of being fortunate—for example:
- I was very fortunate as a child in that my parents were rich and gave me everything that I could wish for.
We often use “in the sense that” in the same way as “in that”—and some people may even tell you that “in that” is a shortened form of “in the sense that”. In many cases, this is true. For example in the second sentence given above, we could, correctly, say:
- I was very fortunate as a child in the sense that my parents allowed me a great deal of freedom to do as I pleased.
Here, “in the sense that” is used to clarify the way in which we are using the particular word “fortunate”. The added information tries to make clear the sense in which the word “fortunate” is being used in this specific situation.
Strictly speaking, “in the sense that” should be used when explaining the particular way in which a word is being used or applied to something. Here is an example:
- Whales are mammals in the sense that the female of the species produces milk with which to feed her young.
As you can see, the “in the sense that” clause is explaining the sense in which the word “mammal” is being applied to whales.
Here is another exanple:
- Tomotaes and squashes are fruits rather than vegetables in the sense that they develop from flowers and contain seeds inside them.
Here again, we are explaining the sense in which the word “friut” can be applied to tomatoes and squashes. Now take a look at this sentence:
- Tomatoes and squashes are considered vegetables in the sense that they are cooked and eaten in the same way that actual vegetables are.
Here, we are presenting the “sense” or meaning of the word “vegetable” as it is applied to tomatoes and squashes.
There is much more than can be said on this topic, but this should be sufficient to give you a general idea of how the two phrases are used.
You’ve been lied to. There’s no rule against starting a sentence with and or but—and never has been.
I was an English professor for 30 years. I used to promise my students $100 in cash if they could find the alleged rule against starting sentences with and or but in any reputable grammar book, old or new. Despite frantic searches, nobody ever collected the money.
Every English-language book, magazine, and newspaper you’ve read in your entire life has sentences starting with and or but. Start looking at your reading matter!
There are many urban legends about English. This is one of them. A Princet
You’ve been lied to. There’s no rule against starting a sentence with and or but—and never has been.
I was an English professor for 30 years. I used to promise my students $100 in cash if they could find the alleged rule against starting sentences with and or but in any reputable grammar book, old or new. Despite frantic searches, nobody ever collected the money.
Every English-language book, magazine, and newspaper you’ve read in your entire life has sentences starting with and or but. Start looking at your reading matter!
There are many urban legends about English. This is one of them. A Princeton University study found that professional writers start 10% of their sentences with and or but —they’re immensely useful transitions.
If you still have doubts, look at some of the classic books about writing, starting with Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style. I just pulled it out of my bookcase. Here’s what I found on page 1: “But such forms as Moses’ Laws….” Nowhere, of course, do Strunk and White tell you it’s wrong to start a sentence this way.
You’ll hear people say that you can’t start sentences with but in formal writing. Nonsense. Look at the King James Bible, the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, the plays of Shakespeare and Shaw, the novels of Austen and Dickens—right up to the Harry Potter books.
While you’re at it, check Fowler’s Modern English Usage, the most respected grammar resource in the English language. Every library has a copy. Fowler has an essay refuting the widespread myth that you can’t start a sentence with and or but.
I first heard the alleged “Don’t start a sentence with and or but” rule from my third-grade teacher. She was a lovely woman and a terrific teacher. But she wasn’t an English major or a professional writer. Go to a REAL expert when you have questions about writing, and you’ll get better answers!
There has never been a rule against starting a sentence with and or but - or any other word in the English language.
I used to promise my college students $100 in cash if they could find that rule in any grammar book, old or new. Despite frantic library searches, nobody ever claimed the money.
Just about everything you’ve read in English in your entire life has sentences starting with and and but, including the textbooks you used in school and college, Shakespeare’s plays, the Gettysburg Address, and the King James Bible.
But don’t take my word for it! Start looking at your own reading materials.
There has never been a rule against starting a sentence with and or but - or any other word in the English language.
I used to promise my college students $100 in cash if they could find that rule in any grammar book, old or new. Despite frantic library searches, nobody ever claimed the money.
Just about everything you’ve read in English in your entire life has sentences starting with and and but, including the textbooks you used in school and college, Shakespeare’s plays, the Gettysburg Address, and the King James Bible.
But don’t take my word for it! Start looking at your own reading materials. Every English-language book, magazine, and newspaper in your house has sentences starting with and and but.
I won't focus on historical accuracy. Just on language.
There are grammatical problems with all three examples. They're close to what a native speaker might say or right, but are incorrect, and a bit awkward. Let's take them one-by-one, here's how I would write them (with some embellishment).
1. According to historical records, paper-making was invested by the chinese by the 16th century. When the technology was transmitted to Europe, the European reaction was overwhelmingly positive, and the technology was widely adopted for a variety of purposes.
Explanation: 1. "... Chinese invented..." I
I won't focus on historical accuracy. Just on language.
There are grammatical problems with all three examples. They're close to what a native speaker might say or right, but are incorrect, and a bit awkward. Let's take them one-by-one, here's how I would write them (with some embellishment).
1. According to historical records, paper-making was invested by the chinese by the 16th century. When the technology was transmitted to Europe, the European reaction was overwhelmingly positive, and the technology was widely adopted for a variety of purposes.
Explanation: 1. "... Chinese invented..." It should be "the Chinese invented..." Because Chinese is almost always an adjective; here, you are referring to the Chinese *people*... when you have a singular countable noun, or a *specific sort* of plural countable noun (for example, "the rats under my house are noisy" (specifically, the rats under the house, as opposed to rats in general). 2. "... invented Paper-making" should be "invented paper-making." No need to capitalize "paper." Simple typo there? 3. "... making the European astonished..." Two problems here. First, it should be "the Europeans" because, like "Chinese" above, "European" is almost always an adjective. Here, you are referring to the European people. Second: "... making [whoever] astonished." Is awkward. As an active, transitive verb (of the form X astonished Y) it suggests that Y was completely blown away, as if Y had seen something almost magical or supernatural. A little softer would be of the form (X was astonished...) To use the passive form is much more subtle, and avoids awkwardness. So you could just substitute "and the Europeans were astonished." Less awkward, but still more subtle. Maybe, if you want to keep it simple and smooth, something more like, "and the Europeans were highly impressed."
Now, for the rest, I'll give quicker answers in the form of corrections, with little commentary (partly because I think I may be over-explaining things, and because some of the errors were already addressed).
2. "As history records indicate, the Chinese invented paper-making in the 16th century. When it was transmitted to Europe..."
3. "Historical records indicate that by the 16th century the Chinese had already invented paper and introduced the technology to Europe..."
The words “and” and “but” are conjunctions, that is, words that are used join items, phrases or sentences together.
The role of “and” is to join two or more things together in an additive way, e.g. “I love to go walking and I do so as often as I can”. I could say, “I love to go walking. I do so as often as I can”, but joining these two sentence into one makes the whole thing smoother. However, if I just said, “And I do so as often as I can”, without the first part, you wouldn’t know what I was talking about. The second part makes sense when it follows the first part.
In real life conversation, w
The words “and” and “but” are conjunctions, that is, words that are used join items, phrases or sentences together.
The role of “and” is to join two or more things together in an additive way, e.g. “I love to go walking and I do so as often as I can”. I could say, “I love to go walking. I do so as often as I can”, but joining these two sentence into one makes the whole thing smoother. However, if I just said, “And I do so as often as I can”, without the first part, you wouldn’t know what I was talking about. The second part makes sense when it follows the first part.
In real life conversation, we might not necessarily be grammatically correct. And we might leave gaps whilst thinking about the next thing we want to say. See what I did there? Real life conversation is often not grammatically correct. So, think of playscripts. When writers are trying to create something like real dialogue, there are pauses, interruptions, and grammatical incorrectness is to be expected.
By the way, “but” has a different role. It is another conjunction, but it joins two ideas that are not of a similar meaning. Rather, the first sentence presents one perspective, the second sentence presents something counter to it - opposing it in some way. For example, “I thought this question would be easy to answer but I found it needed some thought”.
Again, in real-life dialogues and those designed to emulate them, breaking the grammatical rules can make it more realistic. I can imagine someone coming across something totally unsuspected and a little bit shocking, and just stammering out: “ But … but… what……”
Traditional grammar teaches us that it is incorrect to start a sentence with “and” or “but” because these words are conjunctions and their role is to join things. This is not so much a belief but a rule or dogma. It is helpful to learn and apply such rules if you want to write formal prose (such as essays and job applications) that will impress those readers who appreciate material that they regard as grammatically correct. You can also choose to break those rules as you wish, as is often done in poetry and in dialogue for plays or novels.
Q: “What is the reasoning behind the belief that starting a sentence with "and" or "but" is incorrect?”
I’m sorry, but you're wrong. You can never use neither instead of or.
Either…or.
Neither … nor.
They must be used paired, as I wrote them. They are a kind of correlatives.
They serve to connect two choices that can be represented by plain words, phrases, or clauses of the same type.
It's either black or grey ( connecting words ).
You can either pre or post-datate the documents. I don't mind ( connecting prefixes ).
You can either call me at home or the office ( connecting phrases ).
Either you love me or you don't ( connecting clauses ).
Either I drive to the airport or I get a taxi ( connecting clause
I’m sorry, but you're wrong. You can never use neither instead of or.
Either…or.
Neither … nor.
They must be used paired, as I wrote them. They are a kind of correlatives.
They serve to connect two choices that can be represented by plain words, phrases, or clauses of the same type.
It's either black or grey ( connecting words ).
You can either pre or post-datate the documents. I don't mind ( connecting prefixes ).
You can either call me at home or the office ( connecting phrases ).
Either you love me or you don't ( connecting clauses ).
Either I drive to the airport or I get a taxi ( connecting clauses ).
The opposite of either…or is neither…nor. You use it to make a negative statement connecting items.
We got so wet. We had neither umbrellas nor raincoats with us.
Neither our families nor our friends know that we got married.
Other possibilities, but they don't have anything to do with the correlatives, either…or, neither… nor.
Anyway ->
A. I don't like this wine.
B. Neither do I
B. Me, neither ( informal )
B. I don't like this wine either ( formal )
Also is fine.
“Also, one should consider the weather.”
“And” at the start of a sentence makes it a dependent phrase with the first part missing. “And he went to the store” begs the question, what else did he do first ?But depending on context, that may be acceptable, and it is certainly common in speech.
Person 1: “John love to play poker.”
person 2: “And he likes to cheat.”
Person two is supplying the second half of the sentence begun by person one.
The reason you are taught never to start a sentence with “and” is to keep students from doing it incorrectly or too often. .It is easier just to say “d
Also is fine.
“Also, one should consider the weather.”
“And” at the start of a sentence makes it a dependent phrase with the first part missing. “And he went to the store” begs the question, what else did he do first ?But depending on context, that may be acceptable, and it is certainly common in speech.
Person 1: “John love to play poker.”
person 2: “And he likes to cheat.”
Person two is supplying the second half of the sentence begun by person one.
The reason you are taught never to start a sentence with “and” is to keep students from doing it incorrectly or too often. .It is easier just to say “don’t” and let them learn the nuances of usage later. Professional writers, who understand when its use is appropriate, do use it.
Sentence with “or”: “What are a couple of ways you enjoy spending your leisure time?” “I like to relax in my recliner with a crossword puzzle, or when I feel more ambitious I go for a walk outside.”
Sentence with “and/or”: “What would you like to do tonight?” “It would be nice if we could go to dinner and/or a movie and then come home and cuddle on the sofa.”
The first conditional is used to talk about something that might happen in the future under certain conditions.
Any of the modals can be used to talk about the future.
If it's sunny tomorrow, we…
- can go to the park
- could go to the park
- may go to the oark
- might go to the park
- should go to the park
These all express different ideas.
Can is the modal of ability. Could is the modal of possibility. Should is the modal of advisability. Etc.
I'm sure that you remember from your grammar books that will is the modal of volition.
We use it to express our willingness to do something.
In other words, when we offer, v
The first conditional is used to talk about something that might happen in the future under certain conditions.
Any of the modals can be used to talk about the future.
If it's sunny tomorrow, we…
- can go to the park
- could go to the park
- may go to the oark
- might go to the park
- should go to the park
These all express different ideas.
Can is the modal of ability. Could is the modal of possibility. Should is the modal of advisability. Etc.
I'm sure that you remember from your grammar books that will is the modal of volition.
We use it to express our willingness to do something.
In other words, when we offer, volunteer, promise, or refuse to do something.
So, when we say
- If it's sunny tomorrow, we'll go to the park.
we are making a promise.
Will is not the “future tense".
There is no future tense in English.
Will can be used to talk about the future. All of the modals can be used to talk about the future.
We use will to talk about the future ONLY when we offer, volunteer, promise, or refuse to do something or to make a prediction that's based on personal opinion rather than observable evidence.
The comma before an “and” is called an “Oxford Comma” and I used to dislike them intensely because they seemed unnecessary.
But… They are very useful when you are listing items that sometimes include multiples. That extra comma can also be used in front of the “or” when the list is of alternatives.
For example, if I wanted to list my favourite musical groups, I might want to include the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Simon and Garfunkel, and the Sex Pistols.
Notice how the comma before the final “and” helps to distinguish it from the pairing of Simon “and” Garfunkel. That is the Oxford Comma. An al
The comma before an “and” is called an “Oxford Comma” and I used to dislike them intensely because they seemed unnecessary.
But… They are very useful when you are listing items that sometimes include multiples. That extra comma can also be used in front of the “or” when the list is of alternatives.
For example, if I wanted to list my favourite musical groups, I might want to include the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Simon and Garfunkel, and the Sex Pistols.
Notice how the comma before the final “and” helps to distinguish it from the pairing of Simon “and” Garfunkel. That is the Oxford Comma. An alternative approach is to use an ampersand for Simon & Garfunkel but there is no alternative for the use in front of “or”.
I’m now converted.
You do not need to use the Oxford Comma if you don’t want to and, most of the time, you don’t need to. But, when you do need to, it is useful. And, if you aren’t used to using it, you sometimes won’t notice when it is needed because you might be thinking of “sweet and sour” as a single type of sauce and might not notice the “and” in there.
Unfortunately, using “can” instead of “will be able to” results not in a first conditional, but a zero conditional, which is normally used to make general statements about two conditions that exist simultaneously, so that if you see the one, then the other can be assumed to exist as well.
Use of a first conditional, on the other hand, identifies one condition as resulting from the other. And in at least some situations where people use “can”, this is in fact what is going on. The ability to perform some action is dependent on some pre-condition. This means that “will be able to” is in fact the
Unfortunately, using “can” instead of “will be able to” results not in a first conditional, but a zero conditional, which is normally used to make general statements about two conditions that exist simultaneously, so that if you see the one, then the other can be assumed to exist as well.
Use of a first conditional, on the other hand, identifies one condition as resulting from the other. And in at least some situations where people use “can”, this is in fact what is going on. The ability to perform some action is dependent on some pre-condition. This means that “will be able to” is in fact the better, more precise choice.
There are basically two reasons that native speakers may use “can” in this imprecise manner:
- They may be educationally underserved, so that they do not know better — they do not understand why the use of the present tense “can” is problematic in this context;
- They may be sufficiently well-educated to know better, but too lazy to prioritize precision and use four words to say something that can be conveyed at least understandably with only one.
The way native speakers mix up those words occurs when spelling them. The reason we mix them up is because of how our brain accesses the information. I am not an expert in psycholinguistics, so my explanation my be overly simple. But we have a large amount of vocabulary and other language information stored in the brain. When we want to write, our brain searches our memory for the proper English word according to meaning (semantic access), searches for the correct grammar rules, and searches for how to spell each word. There are many decisions happening in the brain at the same time, so it’s e
The way native speakers mix up those words occurs when spelling them. The reason we mix them up is because of how our brain accesses the information. I am not an expert in psycholinguistics, so my explanation my be overly simple. But we have a large amount of vocabulary and other language information stored in the brain. When we want to write, our brain searches our memory for the proper English word according to meaning (semantic access), searches for the correct grammar rules, and searches for how to spell each word. There are many decisions happening in the brain at the same time, so it’s easy to make a mistake. For example, I might decide to write, “So you’re the one who took my pencil.” As I write it, my brain tries to remember how to spell each word. But instead of searching by meaning (which is usual), my brain might search by the sound I heard in my mind (phonetic access). As a result, the spelling of “your” comes out through my pen instead of “you’re.” I write “So your the one who took my pencil,” and I don’t realize that my brain played a trick on me.
This kind of mistake might happen to some people more than others because each person’s brain has different tendencies in how it retrieves information. Some people also have learning disabilities which make it difficult to learn or remember spelling. Some people might associate this kind of mistake with a lack of education, but I believe this kind of mistake happens to everyone occasionally. Highly educated people are trained to monitor their writing, which means they are usually skilled at checking for mistakes during the writing process. While people with less education are often less skilled at seeing their mistakes. I constantly edit my writing, but I sometimes find this kind of spelling error and correct it quickly before I send my letter. Thus, it seems like I don’t make those mistakes. But when I write something fast without sufficient time to check, people discover the truth about me.
English spelling is always a challenge. Some research has suggested that 85% of our spelling ability is picked up naturally as we read. For this reason, after second or third grade in elementary school, many teachers no longer teach spelling as a subject in their class. Regardless, it remains a challenge even for native English writers.
I don’t believe it’s all that common, though I’ve only spoken English for about 70 years (My use of “only” is humorous btw, for any non-native English speakers!) It is used as two words primarily when one is trying to say “I want to be VERY clear about this so there can be NO question as to what I am saying!”
In normal, quick, day-to-day usage, particularly when one is stating a self-imposed decision based upon one’s own time or ability, people will usually use “couldn’t.”
- MJM, who has to remind himself he shouldn’t indulge in his frequent playing with language when answering a question ABOUT la
I don’t believe it’s all that common, though I’ve only spoken English for about 70 years (My use of “only” is humorous btw, for any non-native English speakers!) It is used as two words primarily when one is trying to say “I want to be VERY clear about this so there can be NO question as to what I am saying!”
In normal, quick, day-to-day usage, particularly when one is stating a self-imposed decision based upon one’s own time or ability, people will usually use “couldn’t.”
- MJM, who has to remind himself he shouldn’t indulge in his frequent playing with language when answering a question ABOUT language! LOL!
The word ‘but’ functions as preposition when it means ‘except’.
Example :
I can advise anybody but Ram.
Note : In the above example ‘but’ comes before the noun ‘Ram’. It is pre in position to a noun and establishes relation between two parts of this sentence , the first part being ‘I can advise anybody’ and the second part is ‘Ram. Hence ‘but’ in this sentence functions as a preposition.
One more exam
The word ‘but’ functions as preposition when it means ‘except’.
Example :
I can advise anybody but Ram.
Note : In the above example ‘but’ comes before the noun ‘Ram’. It is pre in position to a noun and establishes relation between two parts of this sentence , the first part being ‘I can advise anybody’ and the second part is ‘Ram. Hence ‘but’ in this sentence functions as a preposition.
One more example: There is nothing but confusion.
Note : In this case also ‘but’ functions as preposition.
Please be attentive:
In the following examples ‘but’ functions as conjunction.
a. She is ill but cheerful.
b. He is very wealthy but very unhappy.
Note: In the above example, ‘but’ joins or combines two clauses.
First clause ‘She is ill’ and the second one is ‘ cheerful.( she is cheerful)
Note : In the above two examples ‘but’ is used as an Adversative Conjunction which links two opposite or contrast statements. Hence here ‘but’ is used as
a co-ordinate conjunction and makes the sentences ‘Compound sentences.
Have a glance at my one or more examples :
A: There is no one but likes him.( who does not like him i.e everybody likes him )
B: Give everyman thy ear but a few thy voice.
Note : In the above mentioned two examples, ‘but’ joins two clauses. ( which are not of opposite nature. Hence it is not an adversative conjunction )Now here ‘but joins two clauses , the first one is a main clause and the second one is a subordinate clause. Hence here...
Jean Reynolds is entirely correct.
There is no rule against starting sentences with conjunctions, there never has been such a rule, and professional writers use such constructions all the time in both fiction and nonfiction.
Teachers who tell their students not to start sentences with “and" are generally the same teachers who tell their students not to use semicolons or the word “it.” They don't want to bother teaching their students how to write well, so they forbid them to use parts of speech or sentence constructions where mistakes are likely.
If you want to see how great writers put sentences
Jean Reynolds is entirely correct.
There is no rule against starting sentences with conjunctions, there never has been such a rule, and professional writers use such constructions all the time in both fiction and nonfiction.
Teachers who tell their students not to start sentences with “and" are generally the same teachers who tell their students not to use semicolons or the word “it.” They don't want to bother teaching their students how to write well, so they forbid them to use parts of speech or sentence constructions where mistakes are likely.
If you want to see how great writers put sentences together, open any novel or nonfiction book by a great writer and take a look. You are virtually certain to find plenty of sentences beginning with “and.” Also with “also.”
Either and neither can be used interchangeably appropriately in a sentence. However using the neither/nor is in itself a negative sentence. Grammatically you say the following.
Example: He found neither solace nor refuge that night camping in the pouring rain.
or
He did not find either solace or refuge that night camping in the pouring rain.
Consider the incorrect double negative: He did not find neither solace nor refuge that night camping in the pouring rain.
And this hilarious anecdote about double negatives: A linguistics professor was lecturing to his class one day, "In English," he said, "a d
Either and neither can be used interchangeably appropriately in a sentence. However using the neither/nor is in itself a negative sentence. Grammatically you say the following.
Example: He found neither solace nor refuge that night camping in the pouring rain.
or
He did not find either solace or refuge that night camping in the pouring rain.
Consider the incorrect double negative: He did not find neither solace nor refuge that night camping in the pouring rain.
And this hilarious anecdote about double negatives: A linguistics professor was lecturing to his class one day, "In English," he said, "a double negative forms a positive. In some languages though, such as Russian, a double negative is still a negative."
"However," he pointed out, "there is no language wherein a double positive can form a negative."
A voice from the back of the room piped up, "Yeah, right."
There’s no rule against starting a sentence with “and” and “but” - and never has been. Just about everything you’ve read in English in your entire life has sentences starting with those words. Start pulling books off your bookshelves to see for yourself.
Take a look at the Gettysburg Address, the plays of Shakespeare, your English textbooks in high school and college (if you still have them), the King James Bible, and every magazine and newspaper in your house.
And look at The Tale of Peter Rabbit by Beatrix Potter, the Declaration of Independence, and every novel and hardcover book you’ve ever
There’s no rule against starting a sentence with “and” and “but” - and never has been. Just about everything you’ve read in English in your entire life has sentences starting with those words. Start pulling books off your bookshelves to see for yourself.
Take a look at the Gettysburg Address, the plays of Shakespeare, your English textbooks in high school and college (if you still have them), the King James Bible, and every magazine and newspaper in your house.
And look at The Tale of Peter Rabbit by Beatrix Potter, the Declaration of Independence, and every novel and hardcover book you’ve ever read.
I used to offer my college students $100 in cash if they could find the alleged rule against it in any reputable grammar book, old or new. Despite frantic searches ($100 is a lot of money when you’re a college student!), nobody ever claimed the money.
To answer the question I think you were originally focusing on in the question details "it spread to Europe" is a better phrase than "it was transmitted to Europe". If you wanted to focus on the agency involved then you could say "it was introduced to Europe".
To answer the broader question actually posed, those sentences are not grammatically correct (I'll make specific suggestions later when I'm not on my phone, which resists cutting and pasting on Quora).
And to add a response to the question not actually posed, if you are writing in English the assumption will be that you are using the we
To answer the question I think you were originally focusing on in the question details "it spread to Europe" is a better phrase than "it was transmitted to Europe". If you wanted to focus on the agency involved then you could say "it was introduced to Europe".
To answer the broader question actually posed, those sentences are not grammatically correct (I'll make specific suggestions later when I'm not on my phone, which resists cutting and pasting on Quora).
And to add a response to the question not actually posed, if you are writing in English the assumption will be that you are using the western-style year dating convention unless otherwise explicitly stated, and in that system your dates are well out - paper making was developed in China somewhere before the second century and spread to Europe starting around the turn of the tenth/eleventh centuries (starting with Muslims living on the Iberian peninsula). And there's no evidence, so far as I know, that Europeans were "astonished" by it, although they were clearly impressed by its practical advantages for many purposes.
Languages have rules and they have conventions. English, having no official governing body, leans towards the latter. Basically, its rules are simply conventions upon which the self-appointed authorities all agree (the rabble, not so much).
I regularly start sentences with conjunction in fiction, where I usually strive for a conversational tone even in the third person. Were I to write non-fiction for publication, I’d probably only do so in rare cases for emphasis.
That said, such use of conjunctions can be problematic.
Dick and Jane went to the park. And they played games. But it got dark. So th
Languages have rules and they have conventions. English, having no official governing body, leans towards the latter. Basically, its rules are simply conventions upon which the self-appointed authorities all agree (the rabble, not so much).
I regularly start sentences with conjunction in fiction, where I usually strive for a conversational tone even in the third person. Were I to write non-fiction for publication, I’d probably only do so in rare cases for emphasis.
That said, such use of conjunctions can be problematic.
Dick and Jane went to the park. And they played games. But it got dark. So they went home.
A writer can lapse into this serial conjunction use where it is not necessary. By all means, start a sentence with a conjunction where needed. But don’t do it incessantly just because you can.
To end a sentence? Yes, it is not considered correct. You can start a sentence with “But” or “And”, but except in very informal colloquial conversations or writing you can’t end with either of them.
In my local Scottish dialect we do sometimes end a sentence with “but”. It has the same force as “though”.
“She’s a nice wee lady. Her dog’s no sae nice but.” = She’s a nice little woman. Her dog’s not so nice, though.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen or heard a sentence ending in “and”, but.
Go to the library and start pulling books off the shelves - any books written in English. Every one of them has sentences starting with “and” (and with “but” as well).
Go to the magazines next and do the same thing. Every article has sentences starting with those two words.
Now start pulling English grammar books off the shelves. Look for the “you can’t start a sentence with ‘and’ and ‘but’” rule. You won’t find it in any of them.
And now you can answer your question yourself! Don’t you feel empowered? You don’t have to be a victim of these urban legends!
Go to the library and start pulling books off the shelves - any books written in English. Every one of them has sentences starting with “and” (and with “but” as well).
Go to the magazines next and do the same thing. Every article has sentences starting with those two words.
Now start pulling English grammar books off the shelves. Look for the “you can’t start a sentence with ‘and’ and ‘but’” rule. You won’t find it in any of them.
And now you can answer your question yourself! Don’t you feel empowered? You don’t have to be a victim of these urban legends!
The original question is:
Why do so many native English-speakers commonly use "I" and "me" incorrectly?
Answer:
It's part of an unfortunate, endemic situation in the U.S. More and more people either do not receive a proper education in English, or do not care enough to accept or use it if it is available to them. If you have the opportunity to meet a Chinese student (a good place is here on Quora), note the superb education in the English language that Chinese students receive, even though they are not required to use it in their lives. Americans, it seems, are content to learn their language fro
The original question is:
Why do so many native English-speakers commonly use "I" and "me" incorrectly?
Answer:
It's part of an unfortunate, endemic situation in the U.S. More and more people either do not receive a proper education in English, or do not care enough to accept or use it if it is available to them. If you have the opportunity to meet a Chinese student (a good place is here on Quora), note the superb education in the English language that Chinese students receive, even though they are not required to use it in their lives. Americans, it seems, are content to learn their language from their peers rather than from qualified teachers. And in most cases, their peers are wrong.
You've asked us to compare two pairs of sentences in which there are four types of difference.
(1). “I am” and “I'm” are both grammatically correct and have essentially the same meaning. You will usually hear the contraction “I'm” being used, unless the speaker is being emphatic, for example to assert the truth of something being doubted, e.g., “…but I am 18!”
(2). “I am in a home” or “I’m in a home” would refer not to your own home but would mean that you are living in a “nursing home” (convalescence or long-stay) or an “old people's home” (which might euphemistically be called a “rest-home”).
(
You've asked us to compare two pairs of sentences in which there are four types of difference.
(1). “I am” and “I'm” are both grammatically correct and have essentially the same meaning. You will usually hear the contraction “I'm” being used, unless the speaker is being emphatic, for example to assert the truth of something being doubted, e.g., “…but I am 18!”
(2). “I am in a home” or “I’m in a home” would refer not to your own home but would mean that you are living in a “nursing home” (convalescence or long-stay) or an “old people's home” (which might euphemistically be called a “rest-home”).
(3) “I am in home” is grammatically incorrect, but you can say “I'm in the house” (in contrast to being “in the garden”).
(4) During a phone call you might well say, “I'm at home”.
(5) When you arrive home, you might call out a shortened version as a greeting, “I'm home!”
(6) I'm in my home" is not a standard phrase because, by definition, home is your personal space, so the “my” is superfluous. (It may become relevant in discussions about shared living space, e g., “This is my home too…)
Q: “Is it grammatically incorrect to say "I am at home" and "I am in home"? Why do people use these phrases instead of saying "I'm at home" or "I'm in my home"?”
Well, we don’t think about it and “determine” whether or not to use it.
We can delete it when it is the object rather than the subject of a relative clause. But only an ESL teacher knows that as a fact.
The book that she lost was red -> The book she lost was red. Because the clause is she lost it
The dog that bit me was brown. You can’t omit it because “it bit me” the word that replaces the subject.
I think (that) we can always omit the word that when it introduces a noun clause, like this one.
So after constructions like I think that. . . I heard that . . I know that .. . I understand that. . .
I t
Well, we don’t think about it and “determine” whether or not to use it.
We can delete it when it is the object rather than the subject of a relative clause. But only an ESL teacher knows that as a fact.
The book that she lost was red -> The book she lost was red. Because the clause is she lost it
The dog that bit me was brown. You can’t omit it because “it bit me” the word that replaces the subject.
I think (that) we can always omit the word that when it introduces a noun clause, like this one.
So after constructions like I think that. . . I heard that . . I know that .. . I understand that. . .
I think that he’s coming-> I think he’s coming.
This reminds me of a joke I heard decades ago: Two girls are talking and one says to the other “What times the party at?”, The second girl says “You shouldn’t end a sentence with a preposition, it’s bad grammar!”, So the first girl thinks a moment, and replies “What time’s the party at, BITCH?”
Gotta love it!
David’s answer explains the reason why you would use “neither” to agree with a negative sentence.
Examples:
“I don’t like snakes.” “Neither do I.” (The negative is “neither”.)
“I don’t like snakes.” “I don’t like them either.” (The negative is “don’t”.)
So you don’t have to use “neither” but you have to change the construction to avoid it.
The word “and” is a conjunction, and must conjoin something before it to something else, which must follow. It has alternative forms for when reversing the word order according to various other rules. If you have swapped about phrases in permitted ways and would end up with an ‘and’ at the end, it becomes “also” or “as well”. “Jack saw a carrot in the sink; maybe some beets, also/as well.” is equivalent to “Jack saw a carrot in the sink, and maybe some beets.”
Being a synonym for certain forms of ‘that’, which can play something like eleven different roles, the rule for ‘so’ is more ambiguous.
The word “and” is a conjunction, and must conjoin something before it to something else, which must follow. It has alternative forms for when reversing the word order according to various other rules. If you have swapped about phrases in permitted ways and would end up with an ‘and’ at the end, it becomes “also” or “as well”. “Jack saw a carrot in the sink; maybe some beets, also/as well.” is equivalent to “Jack saw a carrot in the sink, and maybe some beets.”
Being a synonym for certain forms of ‘that’, which can play something like eleven different roles, the rule for ‘so’ is more ambiguous. When ‘so’ really means one of those variations on ‘that’, it can easily appear wherever that ‘that’ would appear. “You must make it so.”, “We should do so.” where the ‘so’ means ‘that way’ or ‘that [thing]’ is just fine. And there are other cases, but they are harder to summarize.
But if what you want to do is introduce a causation the ‘so’ like ‘because’ and ‘since’ and all the other conditional conjunctions also joins the outcome to its reason and must sit between them. You cannot take something like “I gave your regards so you would feel better” and apply different rules that would leave the so at the end. In simple cases it always sticks to the reason. “So you would feel better, I gave your regards”, you can’t split this in a more complicated way that would offset the body of either phrase and isolate the so. Like the terminal ‘and’ it would have to take some alternate form, like ‘as a result’, or ‘on that account’. “I thought you would feel better, and I gave your regards on that account”.
