In the last while I’ve been noticing more and more when reading that authors are using “and so…” to connect phrases. This seems redundant to me and I find myself grimacing every time I see it used. After all, it’s two conjunctions, right (although one is subordinate)? Somewhat akin to saying, “I’d love to go to the hop with you, and but I’ll have to think about your request.”
I was just doing some medical transcription and a doctor used it in a letter. I thought, “I’m not typing that. It’s one or the other–not both.”
I’ve got four grammar books in my office and I checked every one of them. “And so” isn’t mentioned in any of them nor is it used as an example of sentences using conjunctions, even when the sentences are very similar to those where I’ve seen “and so” used.
I can’t answer your comments, that would have slipped right by me but…I received a mass e mail from a vice president of a very reputable major regional health facility. The guy was a doctor and started a sentence in this e mail, “Me and Doctors…”
That reminds me of an almost impossible twisting of English used by a close family member. Occasionally she will say something like, “Roger and I’s kids are going” or “Roger and I’s house payment is due.” cringe
There’s a huge amount of confusion and misinformation about how to handle a two element object in a sentence. For a while, there was such a stress on not using “me” in a subject pair that people started hypercorrecting the same pair when they occurred as objects.
Me and John were talking to Mary.
John and I were talking to Mary.
Mary was talking to John and I.
Mary was talking to me and John.
Sure. It’s correct, although we’re talking about clauses not phrases. Fowler’s objection is about style, or rather (as many of his are) about snobbery.
If I had to guess, I’d posit that pairing them adds an element of time; of one thing leading to another that’s not present when either are alone.
I think it’s the late Linda Ellerbee’s fault. Didn’t she always say “And so it goes?”
The Weekender’s particular objection are all the history shows where the historian consultant uses a non-past tense to describe something a dead famous person thought or did.
“So you see, Adams is now admonishing Jefferson about … He writes another letter and even tells Abigail that…”“” This is delivered to describe a situation.
Drives me nuts. Adams is dead. Everything he did should be in past tense dammit. I don’t get a more understanding of urgency by someobdy using a different verb tense.
I think this really took off with Ken Burns’ shows…
And so the barely literate chimes in: Isn’t this up there with arguments about whether or not it is kosher to begin sentences with the word “And” or “But”? My simple understanding is to consider these as incomplete sentences, or as sentence fragments.
I think Susnfx’s example is poor usage. The “and” does not belong in this case. I have seen “and so” used successfully as the beginning of a second phrase of a longer sentence, e.g. “and so, in conclusion, we shall …” etc. but not as, "And so, in conclusion, we shall … " unless you accept sentence fragments.
John and I were talking to Mary. -comes from - I was talking to Mary.
Mary was talking to John and me. - comes from - Mary was talking to me.
The answer is that, yes, they’re sentence fragments, but people talk in sentence fragments all the time. How OK it is depends on how formal you’re trying to be.
John and I were talking to Mary. → comes from > - I was talking to Mary.
Mary was talking to John and me. - > comes from > - Mary was talking to me.
Yes - cutting back to a single subject or object, and matching the case agreement* is the way to go if you’re uncertain.
*All english nouns used to change according to case (subject/object/etc - also called noun declension) the way a lot of other languages do, but in modern english, only pronouns do so any longer.
He/him
She/her
Who/whom
Incidentally, if you want to be certain you’re using “whom” correctly, try your sentence with “him”, instead. If it works, you’re safe using “whom”.
The other issue is: are you a scribe, or are you an editor?
Routinely I have to retype my customers’ template letters. I have to bite my tongue a lot. But it is their letter and it’s my job to write the programs, not correct either their grammar or their stylistic excesses.
The thing is, “so” also has an adverbial function, synonymous with “thusly”, “in this/that manner”, “consequently”, “as a result”, “for that reason”, etc.
“She will be moving out of the state soon, and for that reason she will wait to make a decision on immunotherapy.”
I see nothing wrong with that. “And” and “so” have different functions in the original, and each word contributes to the meaning.
Similarly for “And so it goes”. Remove either word, and the meaning changes. It’s not the same as “The car has a working engine, and so it goes”, which is redundant.
Also … “Mine and Roger’s house payment is due.” That works, no?
No, you would always refer to the other person, Roger in this case, first. Themz mannerz.
The second point I wish to make is that the only possessive form for both “I” and “me” in this tense is “my” so your example does not equate to the original example given.
“Roger’s and my house payment is due.” - comes from - My house payment is due.
It’s never polite to mention yourself first unless you have to. If I were writing, I’d choose:
John & I were talking to Mary.
Mary was talking to John & me. (not a choice.)
Thanks for doing your best to try to explain things to me but I started reading and then everything went, “blah, blah, blah.” So I got a drink.