[Glen]

Hello Tim Murphy,
Why is it important not to end a line with a conjunction? My natural pause in a sentence often ends after a conjunction; logically, the importance of an "and", a "but", an "or" could make a big difference in the line; and, because this rule is generally accepted, by using a conjunction at the end of a line wouldn't emphasis be placed on the proceeding line?

[Tim Murphy]

My prejudice is confined to rhyming verse. Generally speaking one wants the emphasis imparted by rhyme to fall on words that carry weight. So I try to avoid rhyming on conjunctions, prepositions, pronouns, etc. It can certainly be done. But take a look at the four sonnets posted so far in the Bake-off. They overwhelmingly rhyme on nouns and verbs.

[Roger Slater]

Study helps us understand
we should not end a line with and.

Further study shows, what’s more,
we should not end a line with or.

Only a tin-eared fraud or nut
would think to end a line with but.

It’s an impulse you should curb.
End your lines with noun or verb.

[Rhina P. Espaillat]

But as Reb Tevye used to say, "On the other hand...," what if you want to create two rhythms in the poem, the rhythm set up by the meter and then, in counterpoint to it, the rhythm of the poem's "meaning"? Sometimes--often, in fact--I like to bury the important words in the middle of the line and end the lines with deliberately self-effacing words, including conjunctions and prepositions. That creates two musics, one for the ear and one for the head, and the reader really does hear them both: Frost's "sound of sense." That works with the enjambment to mimic conversation, so that the rhymes are subliminal, very light, but still there. There are so many rules that are only true when they're true, so many "don'ts" that are not supposed to work, but then sometimes they do, better than the "legal," in this or that specific poem.

[A. E. Stallings]

I'd agree with Rhina here. And any word can be the vital one in a line--including a preposition or a conjunction (prepositions are particularly underrated, as I've mentioned many times before). I'd have no problem rhyming on either. In fact, it might be a refreshing change from rhyming on a noun or verb, and such an enjambment (for it would almost inevitably be one), might carry the poem along. And I like the idea--Frost's?--of rhyming different parts of speech.

[Roger Slater]

In fact, I seem to recall a similar discussion during the first bake-off, where we had a sonnet (I'm blanking on which one) that dealt with whips and torture, and there was some discussion about the need in that context to bury the emotive, strong words within the lines since giving them the extra prominence of rhyme might be overkill. Anyway, I don't remember the details, but interested parties can dig up the old bake-off and have a look.

I'd also note that many lesser sonnets are bad because they save all their good words for the rhyming position, and the interiors of the lines seem like nondescript and boring ways of connecting the rhyme words. I'd say that rhyming on "unimportant" words, just to keep the sonic environment in place for the rest of the words in the middle of the lines, is perfectly justifiable. If a word isn't suitable for the rhyme position, perhaps it's not doing enough in the poem, period, and shouldn't be considered for the middle of a line either. Whether a word can be used to rhyme should depend, I think, not on its importance but on the same considerations that govern the use of enjambment for any part of speech, e.g., rhythm and syntax.

I was recently told that Rilke was the first poet in German to rhyme words like "und" (and), which raised many eyebrows at the time but is now considered to be acceptable.

[Tim Murphy]

Actually, I think the advice I gave is comparable to what Dana Gioia was doing in the first meter class at West Chester, when he said substitute only in the first foot of an IP line. I later upbraided him, and he said, "That's advice for beginners." I think that for advanced practitioners, the choices one makes are consonant with the voice one has. Rhina is highly meditative and speaks softly. I could not be more different, forever wanting to "sing" in as powerful a baritone as I can manage. By contrast there is an edginess, an element of play in Aliki's verse which is entirely her own. Different strokes for different folks. Finally, Roger's little doggerel is brilliant!

[robert mezey]

I don't think the question would admit of a set of rules--one decides on a case-by-case basis. But in general, if the poet
rhymes on a conjunction that would otherwise carry no weight,
it usually seems to me a technical flaw, a lazy solution.
But of course there are times when the sense dictates a stress on "and" or "but" and then the rhyme works beautifully. One
could say something similar about prepositions, but I think you have more freedom with them. Whenever someone tells me that one should never end a line (or a sentence) with a preposition, I quote this little Frost stanza:

Forget the myth.
There is no one I
Am put out with
Or put out by.

[Bruce McBirney]

In these familiar lines from "The Wasteland," Eliot has no qualms about rhyming on a conjunction. Of course, he's spoofing Goldsmith's poem from a different era, presumably to illustrate the breakdown of traditional attitudes. So I assume he's trashing the "rules" on purpose:

When lovely woman stoops to folly and
Paces about her room again, alone,
She smoothes her hair with automatic hand,
And puts a record on the gramophone.

[Julie Steiner]

Ah, Robert, thank you! I agree, there's nothing wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition. See
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxprepos.html

By the way, split infinitives are sometimes the most graceful way of expressing a thought, in which case they are okay, too. See
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexper...litinfinitives

And, while I'm at it, the French influence on our language did not end with vocabulary; this influence includes the emphatic use of the accusative form of personal pronouns in expressions such as "It is me" and "It is him" (analogous to "C'est moi" and "C'est lui"), which is why such expressions persist despite efforts to promote the more Latinate "It is I" and "It is he" construction. See
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxitsmev.html

Of course, there's something to be said for convention, too--even unsubstantiated convention--but when artificial rules are imposed on a language, the language can't be faulted for rebelling against them.

Julie Stoner