Grammar question: But, And

[GuanoLad]

I'm having this argument over when to use "and", or when to use "but".

The sentence is: "Kylie is not shy, but she is very pretty!"

He says I should've said: "Kylie is not shy, and she is very pretty!" because teh two clauses aren't really related.

However I say "but" is okay, because there's an "is not" and an "is".

I can't find a definitive ruling, though I admit his argument makes some sense. What should the sentence really be?

[Bromley]

I don't think he should be using a comma before "and".

Remove the comma in the second sentence and you have, to me, two different sentences. The first says that she's not shy and that this doesn't appeal to you (or that you'd normally expect only shy people to be pretty) but, despite this, her prettyness endears her to you.

The second that she is not shy and is very pretty. Although it's still your opinion, it's more a statement of fact as you see it rather than a reflection of your expectations concerning shy people.

All that's IMO though. I've no doubt other people read it differently.

[Walloon]

Whoever "he" is, is right. "Not shy" and "very pretty" are not opposite qualities that call for a "but" to join them.

[Hemlock]

Originally Posted by GuanoLad

I'm having this argument over when to use "and", or when to use "but".

The sentence is: "Kylie is not shy, but she is very pretty!"

He says I should've said: "Kylie is not shy, and she is very pretty!" because teh two clauses aren't really related.

However I say "but" is okay, because there's an "is not" and an "is".

I can't find a definitive ruling, though I admit his argument makes some sense. What should the sentence really be?

It depends on the context. Does her lack of shyness hinge on her prettiness? Does the reader expect her to be shy (or not shy) because of or despite of her prettiness? If you simply want to communicate that she is a) not shy, and b) pretty, then say so. There's no "but" if there's no contradiction.

[Balor]

As Hemlock indicates, either may be correct. There is a subtle difference between the two, and it depends upon what you are trying to say.

If you use "and" you are linking the two thoughts. She is both not shy and pretty. Since being pretty is usually positive, this implies that both are positive virtues in your mind.

If you use "but" you are saying something quite different. Although she is not shy (which you imply is a negative factor), on the positive side she is pretty. You are contrasting the two sides of the person.

[pjd]

See how i resist the temptation to make a pathetic joke about kylie's but(t).

[Balor]

Correction to my previous post - if you meant that Kylie, then the correct formation is "Kylie is not shy and is not very pretty".

[PookahMacPhellimey]

*non native speaker disclaimer*

I'm with Bromley on this one. You can say both, but the meaning is slightly different. The OP says his friends says "but" is wrong because prettiness and not being shy don't hinge on each other. Why shouldn't they? People have the strangest notions of what is attractive. If I'm an animal fetishist I could say: Kylie is not a giraffe, but she is very pretty. It would be similar to saying she is pretty despite not being shy, not being a giraffe or whatever. If you use "and" you are just stating she is one thing and another thing without them having anything to do with each other.

[GuanoLad]

I knew it was a thorny one.

And no, it's not THAT Kylie. (who I am a fan of, btw)

[Ponster]

From my girlfriend (the one who can't stop yawning)...

[quote]
As for the 'and' versus 'but' argument they're all kinda right (and it's a classic example of the dangers of grammar out of context*) in that it depends on the nuance you want to imply. Basically, you use 'and' to link two facts in a neutral way, there is no hint of the speaker's opinion.

When you use 'but' between two facts you are implying that it is surprising or unusual that both facts are true; or at least that the speaker finds it surprising or unusual that both facts are true.

A lot of the time English reflects the speaker's interpretation if the facts so it is very hard to say categorically that something is 'wrong' (this is especially true for the choice of which future or conditional form to use).



It could be that to most people there is no conflict between being pretty and being shy but to this guy there is. Or we could put a context into place and (oh my lord I'm using striaghtdope style language!) imagine that he is describing Kylie to a friend who likes girls who are shy and pretty so he's highlighting that she does have one of the characteristics required. Or someone has just described Kylie and he only agrees with half the description.

[Mathochist]

Originally Posted by Walloon

Whoever "he" is, is right. "Not shy" and "very pretty" are not opposite qualities that call for a "but" to join them.

One could take "shy" as a negative attribute (say, on deciding whether or not to ask someone out), and "very pretty" as a positive attribute. When totting up the score to make a decision, they definitely are "opposite qualities". Context, man, context!

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by Bromley

I don't think he should be using a comma before "and".

The comma technically does belong there. You should have a comma before any conjunction that is followed by an independent clause. However, an exception is sometimes made if the clause is very short. For example, most people will accept "John sings and he plays guitar." But it should be: "John sings, and he plays guitar." If the clause is dependent, then the comma need be omitted.
E.g. John sings and plays guitar not John sings, and plays guitar.

[Walloon]

Originally Posted by Mathochist

One could take "shy" as a negative attribute (say, on deciding whether or not to ask someone out), and "very pretty" as a positive attribute. When totting up the score to make a decision, they definitely are "opposite qualities". Context, man, context!

Re-read the sentence. She was "not shy" and "very pretty".

[Alto]

Sometimes by rephrasing the sentence you can figure out the nuances of what you're actually trying to say. If you agree with the statement:

"One thing you can say about Kylie is that she is not shy. Another is that she is very pretty," Then you want "Kylie is not shy, and she is very pretty!"

If you're happier with: "Despite the fact Kylie is not shy, she is still very pretty," then you want "Kylie is not shy, but she is very pretty!"

[pulykamell]

I managed to actually miss answering the OP.

I suspect you want to use "and" in your sentence, for the reasons Alto has stated. I doubt you meant "but" in this case, and it sounds really odd to me. Unless you find being not shy an undesireable quality.

[Alto]

I thought possibly he could mean something like. "Normally I'm only attracted to shy girls. But Kylie is very pretty."

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by Alto

I thought possibly he could mean something like. "Normally I'm only attracted to shy girls. But Kylie is very pretty."

I gave myself a little weasel room with my last sentence for this possibility. I just assumed not being shy was an attractive quality, but now I can see that perhaps Guanos's intention could require the "but" conjunction. Anyhow, your post explains the distinction clearly enough.

[pravnik]

I agree that either can be correct. It depends entirely on context and what the speaker is attempting to say.

Guy one: "I like really outgoing and attractive girls."
Guy two: "Kylie is not shy, and she is very pretty!"

or

Guy one: "I usually only like shy girls unless they are very, very attractive."
Guy two: "Kylie is not shy, but she is very pretty!"

[GuanoLad]

This is good. The conclusion that many of you have come to regarding the correct use of 'but' is exactly what I was thinking when I wrote it; I like shy girls, so not being shy was, in my mind, a negative trait. And I do like pretty girls, of course.

But I think the real mistake I made was that it's a bit of a clumsy sentence and can sound kind of wrong, even though it's probably right.

Incidentally, the 'He' in question is a coworker of mine.

[DrMatrix]

So, the answer to the OP is:

GuanoLad is right, but his friend is right too.

Or:

GuanoLad is right, and his friend is right too.

[Bromley]

Originally Posted by pulykamell

The comma technically does belong there. You should have a comma before any conjunction that is followed by an independent clause. However, an exception is sometimes made if the clause is very short. For example, most people will accept "John sings and he plays guitar." But it should be: "John sings, and he plays guitar." If the clause is dependent, then the comma need be omitted.
E.g. John sings and plays guitar not John sings, and plays guitar.

Bloody English teacher! Not only did he tell me (15 years ago now) to never comma before an "and", but he's also responsible for my comma fetish .

So, if I understand you correctly, the dependency test basically requires that I be able to delete everything up to and including the "and" and still have a sentence that scans? If I do, then I can comma. If not, not.

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by Bromley

Bloody English teacher! Not only did he tell me (15 years ago now) to never comma before an "and", but he's also responsible for my comma fetish .

So, if I understand you correctly, the dependency test basically requires that I be able to delete everything up to and including the "and" and still have a sentence that scans? If I do, then I can comma. If not, not.

If what follows "and" is a stand-alone sentence in its own right (i.e. an independent clause) then the comma is necessitated. If what follows "and" cannot stand alone (i.e. the verb is dependent on the subject of the clause preceding "and"), then no comma.