There's been something which has always annoyed me. When in the course of a declarative sentence, one swerves and makes it a question, how should it be punctuated? Should it be:

1. Kim is a miser, and why is that?

or

2. Kim is a miser; and, why is that?

or

3. Kim is a miser. And, why is that?

or

4. Kim is a miser. Why is that?

haltingly, I'd venture yet another version..

Kim is a miser; why is that?

I should have thought that all versions were acceptable and its a matter of stylistic preference as to which one to use.

My preference would be for tsuwm's version.

You don't need a comma after "and", so 2. and 3. are out. The others are all OK in my view, but, like Richard, I'd probably go for tsuwm's version.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
You don't need a comma after "and", so 2. and 3. are out. The others are all OK in my view, but, like Richard, I'd probably go for tsuwm's version.

I too agree with tsuwm's version.

I'd go with two sentences.

Kim is a miser. And why is that? (I have no problems starting sentences with "and" )

As arnie says, "You don't need a comma after "and", so 2. and 3. are out." Further, #3 is out for the additional reason that when a semicolon is used between clauses, in lieu of a period, it may not be followed by "and". (Contrast a semicolon used in lieu of a comma, between nouns or noun-phrases.) If those errors in 2. and 3. are corrected, they become tsuwm's and Bob's versions respectively, so we have four versions. To reiterate, they would be:

1. Kim is a miser, and why is that?
2. Kim is a miser; why is that? (tsuwm's)
3. Kim is a miser. And why is that? (Bob's)
4. Kim is a miser. Why is that?

All are in my view proper English. (I, like Bob, have no objection to beginning a sentence with a conjunction.)

However, though I think all are proper English, I do not think they have the same meaning. To me, #1 is strongly a rhetorical question, conveying a clear sense that the speaker is about to explain why Kim is miserly. #4 in contrast is strongly non-rhetorical, wondering why Kim has that trait. #3 is like 1, and #2 is like 4, but less strongly.

Thanks all. I never much thought about the comma after starting a sentence with a conjunction, but I do it pretty consistently.

quote:

You don't need a comma after "and", so 2. and 3. are out.

This authority agrees with you, Arnie, and I am 100% sure, without checking, that Strunk and White would, too. Yet, if one pauses after the "and," it is perfectly acceptable to put a comma there. I'd not agree that those 2 are "out" because of that.

I like Shu's analysis and would agree. When I originally read them, I knew they seemed different in meaning. Shu articulated it well.

quote:

Yet, if one pauses after the "and," it is perfectly acceptable to put a comma there. I'd not agree that those 2 are "out" because of that.

Oh, no it isn't!

Whatever makes you think that?

Kalleh,

From "Rules for Comma Usage" (the "authority" you link to):

quote:

One of the most frequent errors in comma usage is the placement of a comma after a coordinating conjunction. We cannot say that the comma will always come before the conjunction and never after, but it would be a rare event, indeed, that we need to follow a coordinating conjunction with a comma. When speaking, we do sometimes pause after the little conjunction, but there is seldom a good reason to put a comma there.

Even the link I posted showed that sometimes they accept a comma after a conjunction. I will look at my sources this weekend and get back to you.

It's a matter of the sources to which you refer. Some would say "It's a matter of the sources you refer to" is wrong; others would say it's not. It's also a matter of our individual pet peeves.