Conjunctions wiki

Conjunctions wiki DEFAULT


For the astronomical event, see Conjunction (astronomy and astrology).

Conjunctions are words which join phrases, clauses and sentences.[1]

Conjunctions have three basic forms which are shown in the table below.[2]

Form Words Sentences
Single Word and, but, because, although, or, etc. Do you want chips or cake?
Compound provided that, as long as, in order that/to, etc. You need to exercise in order to lose weight.
Correlative[3][4]both/and, either/or, neither/nor, not/but, not only/but also Either Monday or Tuesday is fine.

Not only should you eat fruit, but also vegetables.

Conjunctions also have two functions, as shown below.[1][2]

Type Function Position Example Sentences
Coordinating conjunctions Join equal (independent) parts of a sentence. Always come between the words/clauses that they join. Jack and Jill went up the hill.

The water was warm, but I didn't go swimming.

Subordinating conjunctions Join subordinate clauses to main clauses. Usually come at the beginning of subordinate clauses. I went swimming although it was cold.

Although some people say it's not correct to use conjunctions at the beginning of a sentences, many famous writers do so.[1][2]

References[change | change source]

5.Definition of Conjunctions, Examples and Practice Sets


Talk:Conjunction (grammar)

Information at Grammatical particle[edit]

Grammatical particle already has some text on conjunctions...maybe merge or move the text from there here or here there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DennisDaniels (talk • contribs).

Assorted complaints[edit]

If and/or is a disjunction than to say it is a conjunction perhaps isn't fair

In addition it isn't a "english" "part of speech".

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs).

A conjunction is a word that links words, phrases, or clauses. There are three types of conjunctions: coordinating conjunctions, correlative conjunctions, and subordinating conjunctions. Coordinating conjunctions may join single words, or they may join groups of words, but they must always join similar elements: e.g. subject+subject, verb phrase+verb phrase, sentence+sentence. When a coordinating conjunction is used to join elements, the element becomes a compound element. Correlative conjunctions also connect sentence elements of the same kind: however, unlike coordinating conjunctions, correlative conjunctions are always used in pairs. Subordinating conjunctions, the largest class of conjunctions, connect subordinate clauses to a main clause. These conjunctions are adverbs used as conjunctions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs).

Hello, and please sign your name from now on with four tildes. In any case, I would like to point out that this article is not entitled "English Conjunctions" but rather "Conjunctions", the cross-linguistic lexcial category. Jamutaq (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

"But" vs. "and"[edit]

I am seeking the distinction between the conjunctions "but" and "and"... Unfortunately, the site implies they are the same "Coordinating conjunctions...that join two items of equal syntactic importance." I believe there are subtle (and some distinct) differences in the various conjunctions... My current focus is defining the actual or implied differences between the terms "Separate BUT Equal" and "Separate AND Equal" I welcome your thoughts Wikipedia Community. [email protected] 15:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[]

I tend to think that "but" joins two generally contrasting ideas, while "and" connects two that are similar. 21:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Jello[]
You must remember that syntactic importance refers to the "balance" of the elements or clauses in relation to grammar, not to the elements or clauses [meaning] themselves. They are sometimes used differently.

"And" joins two things together into one group. Think "togetherness." :)

  • Ex: George and I are going to the mall.

->Two syntactically equal people (who are different) who will go to the mall together.

  • Ex: We want to buy shirts, shoes and socks.

->Three syntactically equal types of clothing (that are different) that will be bought (by a group of people who are shopping together).

  • Ex: We are then going to go to a restaurant and, after that, we plan to see a film.

->Two syntactically equal clauses that are joined together to show the order of what they will do together.

"But" is used to show contrast. Think "separation" or "difference."

  • Ex: George wants to go to the mall but I want to go to the hardware store.

-> Two syntactically equal clauses about two people who want to go to different places.

  • Ex: George, but not I, wants to go to the mall.

-> One clause which is subordinated by another clause about two people who want to go to different places.

  • Ex. He wants to buy shirts but not socks.

-> Two syntactically equal items that are not both of interest to the buyer.

  • Ex. After we eat, we are then going to go to the cinema, but George wants to see Star Wars and I want to see Jaws.

-> Two syntactically equal clauses that show a series of events, ending in the different movies the two people want to see.

"And" is used for both elements and clauses, as well as for ordinating, whereas "but" is usually used for connecting clauses and is not commonly used for connecting elements. ReveurGAM (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[]


I think placing for as the first example of a conjunction is very misleading. For is mostly used as a preposition: "He bought flowers for her", etc. The use as a conjunction is limited to quite formal writing: "He gave her the flowers, for he loved her so much." — AdiJapan☎ 12:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[]

How is using for as a conjunction any different to using 'because' which is classed as a subordinating conjunction while for is classed as a coordinating conjunction? I could easily re-write that sentence ""He gave her the flowers, because he loved her so much.". What's the exact difference? ( 18:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC))[]
One indicator — not a perfect one by any stretch — is that so-called "subordinating" conjunctions introduce a subordinate clause, which can be moved to the start of the clause containing them: "He gave her the flowers, because he loved her so much" can be re-written as "Because he loved her so much, he gave her the flowers." For does not have this property; we can say, "He gave her the flowers, for he loved her so much", but not *"For he loved her so much, he gave her the flowers." —RuakhTALK 18:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[]
In the first example, shouldn't the comma be omitted? ""He gave her the flowers because he loved her so much" Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[]
It depends what you're trying to say; if you're answering the question "Why did he give her the flowers?", no comma, but if you're answering a question like "Did he give her the flowers?" or "To whom did he give the flowers?" or "Who gave her the flowers?" or the like, then yes comma. That said, it's not always obvious exactly what implicit question a given sentence is trying to answer — that's just not how language works — so there are many cases where the comma can be present or absent. —RuakhTALK 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[]
Very nice distinction! Out of context, it appears not to need the comma, but as you say, if it's adding tangential info... which is what makes copy-editing such a nuanced, fascinating, and time-consuming hobby! Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[]

"For, yet, so" are not conjunctions[edit]

Of these seven words, only "and" and "but" and "or" are fully-satisfactory co-ordinators, though "nor" comes very close. "So" and "yet" are conjunctive adverbs like "however". But the preposition "for" doesn't even resemble any conjunctions (much less any co-ordinating conjunctions) in any way. (Although it can have a clause for its "object" or "complement". --Eldin raigmore (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[]

Do you have a source for this statement? I have a college-level grammar textbook published in 2009 that says that they are. Henrymrx (t·c) 22:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[]
More than that, Merriam Webster lists 'for' as a conjunction ( As an editor in the U.S., I know a good deal of us (fans of the AP and Chicago styles among others) use this is our primary source in these matters; I can't speak for an international audience though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[]
The assertion that "so", "yet", and "for" are not coordinating conjunctions is incorrect OR. Coordinating conjunctions in English can link main clauses -- clauses that could stand alone as a sentence:
A is true, so B is true. / A is true. So B is true.
A is not true, yet B is true. / A is not true. Yet B is true.
A is true, for B is true. / A is true. For B is true.
Furthermore, "so" and "yet" are not conjunctive adverbs like "however". We can punctuate as "A is not true, yet B is true"; but we cannot punctuate as "A is not true, however B is true" (despite the fact that one sometimes sees the latter mistake).
I'm removing the OR POV edit of 15:56, 13 March 2010 in this regard. (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[]


I found the following in HTML comments in the article. -- Beland 19:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Should the following be listed anywhere?

  • as
  • as far as
  • as if
  • as long as
  • before
  • even if
  • for
  • how
  • granted (that)
  • if
  • in case
  • lest
  • like
  • on condition that
  • provided
  • providing
  • since
  • so
  • so that
  • supposing
  • than
  • unless
  • until
  • that
  • though
  • when
  • whence
  • whenever
  • where
  • whereabouts
  • whereafter
  • whereagainst
  • wherealong
  • whereas
  • whereat
  • whereby
  • wherever
  • wherefor
  • wherefrom
  • wherein
  • whereinto
  • whereinsoever
  • whereof
  • whereout
  • whereover
  • whereround
  • whereso
  • wheresoever
  • wheresomever
  • wherethrough
  • wheretill
  • whereunder
  • whereunto
  • whereupon
  • whereup
  • whether
  • while
  • whither

What about "forasmuch" and "inasmuch" ? Gregbard 10:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[]

I crossed out words that have since been mentioned on the page. The article does a fine job of including examples of conjunctions, as it's not possible to include every conjunction (otherwise it would be cluttered or look like a list). However, a few common ones like as could be added. The compound words (where+..., forasmuch, inasmuch) are mostly old ways of saying things and not used colloquially, or they are used exclusively in legal mumbo-jumbo.
Wikky Horse 02:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Someone anonymous edited the paragraph on phrases that can be used as co-ordinating conjunctions to change "provided that" to "providing that". This was a mistake. The single word "providing" is often so used, as is the two-word phrase "provided that"; but "providing that" is much rarer and is considered awkward by many native speakers of English. For references, search the web for "providing that". Eldin raigmore (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[]


It might be prudent to include examples. I am not familiar with the topic to do so and could benefit from them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jgassens (talk • contribs) 16:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC).[]


BISAWAWE is a mnemonic? I feel like I need a mnemonic for the mnemonic. The Internet Anagram Server informs me that "I SAW A WEB" is an anagram of BISAWAWE. If you're feeling bold, substitute that in the article. --DavidConrad 18:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Conjunctions beginning sentences[edit]

I removed from this article the straitlaced assertion that sentences should not begin with coordinating conjunctions. It's a kind of polysyndeton, and perfectly acceptable. Vbbdesign (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[]

"not this nor that" = "not this or that" ?[edit]

I've seen people say both "or" and "nor" in phrases like that, is it the same thing in those cases? or is one of them the wrong word for the meaning?--TiagoTiago (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Rolled back edit[edit]

I rolled back through some edits that had introduced many errors into the page. (Someone thought adding a section on cobjunctions was funny, and someone else had eliminated all the periods and made them "ands" in another section -- this problem had survived a more extensive edit, but I didn't make the effort to combine the two, so if the previous editor wants to take a crack at it, fine by me...)

I also rewrote the section on starting sentences with coordinating conjunctions. It seemed to me to make more sense to frame it as a debate.

Wikinetman (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[]

Search redirect =[edit]

Could someone enter this article as a search result for "conjunction" when searching from the "search page? THKS. (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[]

why 'but' redirect at top[edit]

Why is there is a BUT link at the top of this page? But is no more important a conjunction than any other - I fail to see why it should get a special mention Willphase (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[]

"Whilst" and "now" as coordinating conjunctions[edit]

The article currently says "various others [besides the FANBOYS seven] are used as coordinating conjunctions, including whilst and now." (1) I'm not British, so could someone give me an example here of "whilst" being used as a coordinating conjunction, along the lines of this example for "or": "You could go or you could stay." / "You could go. Or you could stay." While the article gives a citation (that I don't have access to), I'm skeptical. (2) I'm extremely skeptical that "now" can be used as a coordinating conjunction. Again, can someone give an example here? (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[]

I've looked up the source given in the article, and here's what I found. It is indeed true that Fowler's Modern English Usage claims that John Algeo (International J. of Lexicography, vol. 1, 1988) states that "whilst" and "now" can be used as coordinating conjunctions. However, the examples that Fowler's gives are of them being used as subordinating conjunctions: "I would like to thank .... for their encouragement whilst I was writing this book." " Now ['Now that' in American English] the socialists have accepted the expensive red rose as their emblem, may I suggest...." Either Fowler's got it wrong and Algeo said they were subordinating conjunctions, or Algeo himself got it wrong-- I don't know which since I cannot get access to that issue of the journal he wrote in. However, I looked in Algeo's subsequent 2006 book British or American English? A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns (chapter 9 on conjunctions), and I found that both usages are given under subordinating conjunctions. So either Fowler's got it wrong about Algeo, or Algeo changed his mind. In any event, "whilst" and "now (that)" are subordinating conjunctions, so I will correct this Wikipedia article accordingly. (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[]

for as a coordinating conjunction[edit]

"He is gambling with his health, for he has been smoking far too long.") (though "for" is more commonly used as a preposition)

Isn't this sentence an example of a subordinating conjunction instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Examples for subordinated conjuncions[edit]

There are very clear and helpful examples of coordinating and correlating conjunctions. But when it comes to subordinated conjunctions it drifts off into a discussion of usage in other languages. Similar examples of subordinated conjunctions would be appreciated, and I sugget it would be better to put th eother languages discussion into a section of its own.

Baska436 (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Whether [or not][edit]

I've always wondered whether the use of "or not" in a sentence containing whether is completely superfluous. I hear/read it so often and to my mind it seems wrong. For example - "I haven't decided yet whether or not I'll buy that car", or "I haven't decided whether I'll buy that car or not". Either way, the or not seems pointless. Surely this works on it's own - "I haven't decided yet whether I'll buy that car". It doesn't seem to be lacking an "or not". (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC) DD[]

Serial comma before 'and'[edit]

At the beginning of the article, there is a definition of the 'and' conjunction and the example: "They gamble, and they smoke". The serial comma only gets applied when there is a list of three or more items. It really doesn't get used for simple separation. Shouldn't the example read "They gamble and they smoke"? Sunnyape (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[]

This is not an example of a serial comma. It's two independent clauses linked by a conjunction, which strictly speaking typically requires a comma. — (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[]

Contradictory edit in lede[edit]

An editor has added (and I have reverted) material to the following sentence in the lede:

Many students are taught that certain conjunctions (such as "and", "but", and "so") should not begin sentences, although this belief has "no historical or grammatical foundation".[1]

The added passage was:

of course, the conjunction of such a sentence would not be explicitly connecting two grammatical units (words, sentences, phrases or clauses), which provides the logical foundation for avoiding such a construction.

First, the resulting combined passage becomes self-contradictory, with the first half asserting one thing and the second half asserting the opposite. Second, the second half is self-evidently wrong: If a coordinating conjunction appears at the start of one sentence, it links the previous sentence with that sentence. Third, while the existing passage is footnoted to a reputable source, the added material has no source given and thus is WP:Original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[]

  1. ^University of Chicago (2010). The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.). Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. p. 257. ISBN.

"neither", "no more", and "only"[edit]

I am not an expert on British English, nor do I have access to the Algeo and Burchfield sources, so I cannot verify the coordinating conjunctions "and nor", "but nor", or "or nor". However, the examples given for "neither", "no more", and "only" are clearly not being used as conjunctions, so I'm removing them (although I'm thinking you might be able to make a case for "neither", just with a better example). Can anyone who does know something about British English verify the other three? (They don't have examples, and they're in the same sentence as the ones which don't belong there, so I'd just like to make sure). --Brjaga (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[]

I was the one who put in all of these, about a year ago, after I found them in the indicated sources. I'm pretty sure that the specific examples I gave were drawn from those sources. The ones, with examples, that you've reverted are:
"neither" ("They don't gamble; neither do they smoke"), "no more" ("They don't gamble; no more do they smoke"), and "only" ("Can we perform? Only if we practice").
Of these, it seems clear to me that "neither" and "no more" are synonyms for "nor" in these sentences; replace them with "nor", and I don't think you'd dispute that "nor" is used there as a coordinating conjunction. I think you're just not familiar with that usage, but I've certainly seen it often enough, and not just in the source given. As for the example with "only", it looks to me like a subordinating conjunction since it's followed by a subordinate clause.
So I'm putting back in the "neither" and "no more" examples, which are certainly right. As for the "only" example, I invite further discussion as to whether the source is just wrong or whether there just needs to be a more appropriate example.
Also, the "and nor", "but nor", and "or nor" conjunctions are certainly used by the British, so they too should stay. Duoduoduo (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[]
Correction: the versions you reverted are not the same as the ones I put in a year ago (given above) -- someone must have messed them up since then. I'll revert to the originals. Duoduoduo (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[]
They were messed up on 7 August 2011 by User:MMcLaughlin2097. Thanks for catching it, Brjaga ! Duoduoduo (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[]
Sounds like "no more" and "neither" do belong there, but since the parts in question are in the section on Coordinating Conjunctions, I think "only" ought to be moved to the subordinating conjunction section (if it's not already there). I seem to remember at the time that I initially removed these that I thought "only" could be considered one, but I was only looking at whether it belonged in the coordinating conjunction section.--Brjaga (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Actually, I somehow missed the new (i.e. original) example for "only", which does seem to be coordinating. Thanks for fixing those examples, and teaching me something about British English. --Brjaga (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[]


Is the word also a necessary part of the correlative conjunction not only...but also?? I'm sure the following statement is valid:

Wikipedia has articles not only in English but in hundreds of languages.

There's no also in the above statement. Georgia guy (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[]

@Georgia guy: Sorry it's taken nine years to reply, but also isn't essential to the not only...but also phrase, which I refuse to identify as a correlative conjunction. Consider how "but" is the only conjunction in that phrase whereas not, only, and also are adverbs. Originally, correlative conjunctions applied only to two conjunctions that operated in pairs:
  • "I'm right whether you agree or you disagree.
Subsequently, various misguided linguists misapplied the correlative conjunction term to bifurcated phrases that include only one conjunction:
  • "Neither a borrower nor a lender be." (Here, "neither" is an ADV.)
  • "Both the cross country team and the swimming team are doing well." (Here, "both" is an ADV.)
  • "Football is as fast as hockey." (Here, the first "as" is an ADV.)
Most recently, crackpot linguist wannabes have maintained that phrases without any conjunction whatsoever are somehow correlative conjunctions:
  • "Just as many Americans love basketball, so many Canadians love ice hockey." ("as" and "so" are ADVs.)
  • "The more you practice dribbling, the better you will be at it." ("The" is always a DTRM.)
Why don't I fix the article accordingly? I don't see the point in swimming solo against the tide to save a ship that's already sunk and wrecked nearly beyond recognition. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Additional infobyte[edit]

Regards to this: 'Many students are taught that certain conjunctions (such as "and", "but", "because", and "so") should not begin sentences; although authorities such as the Chicago Manual of Style state that this teaching has "no historical or grammatical foundation".'

I actually speak Old English, and I have read historical Old English texts where conjunctions are used at the beginning of a sentence, so the practice has a long history (at least 1000+ years). Should this additional little bit of information be included. Gott wisst (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[]

Specific Concern[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Users, Have any of you noticed the fact that grammatical conjunctions have been used in the article itself (more specifically, the first paragraph)? Should it be changed to have no grammatical conjunctions before it has been explained? Your thoughts, please. Abdullah H. Mirza (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[]

To add to this, 'Microsoft Word' has a comma before a conjuction as a grammatical error: "If you are using a conjunction to connect only two items, it is incorrect to use a comma before the conjunction." See the sentence "In general, a conjunction is an invariable grammatical particle, and it may or may not stand between the items it conjoins." Is this poor grammar ? Interestingly, it did not bring up a violation when I pasted the above sentence into a document, yet it did for one of my own which was similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[]

History of starting sentences with conjunctions[edit]

I can explain the history of ending sentences with prepositions as follows:

Ending sentences with prepositions has always been standard in English. The rule that you can't do so is a rule of Latin grammar; its use in English derives from the impression that English is a Romance language like Latin, not a Germanic language as it really is.

Can anyone give info on the history of starting sentences with conjunctions in a similar way?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Extremely Anglocentric Article[edit]

As I've stated before, the title of this article is not English Conjunction, but rather simply Conjunction; hence, I suggest we make this article cross-linguistically relevant. As a related side note, this article's text is largely based on traditional grammar, rather than modern linguistics. I think we had best have information on conjunctions and maybe even corresponding structures in other languages; I could help somewhat with Chinese, and more so with Sumerian. Jamutaq (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

This article does mention some other languages, specifically the West Germanic ones. But it needs some expansion in this area. (Or perhaps, it could be renamed to "Conjunctions in English Grammar", or something similar?) I actually came to this article wondering how English conjunctions compare to conjunctions in other languages. For example, is the confusion between the logical concepts of "exclusive or" and "inclusive or" universal? If not, what languages provide counterexamples? Some research on this topic lead me to believe that classical Latin did have a distinction, with "aut" and "vel" being used, but I'm not certain I understood correctly. Is it known if any language has a unique conjunction for every one of the 16 binary truth functions? Also, apparently classical Arabic required all lists to contain an "and" after each element "I want an apple, an orange, a date, and a plum" would be "I want an apple and an orange and a date and a plum" Just random thoughts on conjunctions across languages, I guess. I hope this might help in expanding this article! JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Self-demonstration of starting sentences with conjunctions[edit]

The "Starting a sentence" section of the article currently has a couple of sentences that are clearly intended to serve as examples of the subject they're talking about:

But this superstition has "no historical or grammatical foundation". First-rate writers from across the English-speaking world regularly begin sentences with conjunctions. And they do it at all writing levels, even the most formal: [...]

While this sort of wink-wink-nudge-nudge "see, look, I'm doing it right now" demonstration might be appropriate on a TV Tropes page, I don't think it's appropriate on Wikipedia. In particular, the sentence beginning with "and" seems clearly shoehorned in for the sake of said demonstration. To be clear, I'm not disagreeing that it's fine English (and otherwise Wikipedia-appropriate) to begin sentences with conjunctions. But if we want to illustrate the concept, we should do so via explicit examples (of which a profusion is already found immediately beneath), not in this unencyclopedic way. (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I appreciate someone saying that and being bold enough to change the wording, since I also found it a bit cheesy. I might've tried to change it, but then been reverted. — Eru·tuon 02:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[]
I agree. Take note of the lead section, too. I might change it later. CtP(t • c) 19:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[]

I changed it, as it jars with me too. TrottieTrue (talk) 12:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]


Two of the examples of conjunctions used to start a sentence are from Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. But that novel is written from the point of view of Huckleberry Finn himself, who had very limited education and used nonstandard grammar frequently. So those aren't good examples of sentences beginning with conjunctions "in even the most formal writing". --Metropolitan90(talk) 02:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]

No semicolon preceding coordinating conjunction?[edit]

In the examples given for coordinating conjunctions, semicolons are used to link the two clauses, e.g. "they don't gamble; neither do they smoke". According to the Wikipedia article on semicolons, however, "[semicolons are used] between closely related independent clauses not conjoined with a coordinating conjunction, when the two clauses are balanced, opposed or contradictory" (italics mine).

Does anybody care to comment on this contradiction? Which one is correct? Which should be changed? MrSparkle713 (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[]

if only, than[edit]

Is "if only...than" a conjunction? "if only the ground is broken up once a year, than it will in many places with any amount of care."- Wild Apples by Henry David Thoreau117.216.31.248 (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Read: .... it will grow faster ... or ... than it will ...". --Boson (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Conjunction (grammar). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[]

Reasons that justify a statement as distinct from giving a reason for it[edit]

Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 reads as follows

Because and for are both used to introduce reasons that justify a statement as distinct from giving a reason for it: You must have forgotten to invite them, because they didn't turn up.He blushed, for he knew he had been caught out.

However, using the same two examples above, I do not know how I would "give a reason for a statement" instead. --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[]

Correlative conjunction: where... there; when . . . then; notwithstanding . . . yet[edit]

Garner's fourth edition, page 225, mentions where... there; when . . . then; notwithstanding . . . yet --Backinstadiums (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[]

  1. Price of hp elitebook 840
  2. Miniature horse hauler
  3. Woodgrain millwork baseboards


This article is about the American literary magazine. For other topics about conjunctions, see Conjunction (disambiguation).

Academic journal

Conjunctions is a biannual Americanliterary journal based at Bard College. It was founded in 1981 and is currently edited by Bradford Morrow. Morrow received the PEN/Nora Magid Award for Magazine Editing in 2007.

The journal publishes innovative fiction, poetry, criticism, drama, art and interviews by both emerging and established writers. It provides a forum for nearly 1,000 writers and artists "whose work challenges accepted forms and modes of expression, experiments with language and thought, and is fully realized art", according to the "Letter from the Editor" on its website. It aims to maintain consistently high editorial and production quality with the intention of attracting a large and varied audience. The project is meant to present a wide variety of individual voices.[1] The publication is unusually thick, often containing about 400 pages per issue.[2]

Conjunctions' editorial approach is often collaborative. Both the editor and the distinguished staff of active contributing editors — including Walter Abish, John Ashbery, Mei-mei Berssenbrugge, Mary Caponegro, Elizabeth Frank, William H. Gass, Peter Gizzi, Jorie Graham, Robert Kelly, Ann Lauterbach, Norman Manea, W.S. Merwin, Rick Moody, Joanna Scott, Peter Straub, William Weaver and John Edgar Wideman — rely on the advice of fellow writers across the country. Final selection of the material is made by the editor.[1]


  • Rick Moody's essay, "Notes on Lazarus," appeared in The Best American Essays 2018.
  • Richard Powers' short story, "Modulation," appeared in The Best American Short Stories 2009.
  • Joyce Carol Oates' short story, "Dear Husband," appeared in The Best American Mystery Stories 2009.
  • Kelly Link's short story, "Stone Animals," appeared in The Best American Short Stories 2005.
  • Rachel Blau DuPlessis's poem, "Draft 55:Quiptych", appeared in The Best American Poetry 2004.
  • Mei-mei Berssenbrugge's poem, "Chinese Space," appeared in The Best American Poetry 1998.

Conjunctions has also received more Pushcart Prizes than any other literary publication in recent years with the exception of Ploughshares.[3]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ ab[1]Archived 2012-02-01 at the Wayback Machine Web page titled "Letter From the Editor" at the Conjunctions website, accessed December 14, 2006
  2. ^"Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2006-10-22. Retrieved 2006-12-15.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) Larimer, Kevin, "The Functions of Conjunctions" article in Poets & Writers Web site, "News & Trends" section, undated but around October 2001, according to the article, accessed December 14, 2006
  3. ^"2011 Pushcart Prize Ranking". Perpetual Folly. Retrieved August 30, 2011.

External links[edit]

Conjunction and it's types... Coordinating , Subordinating and Correlative Conjunctions.

Logical conjunction

Logical connective AND

Not to be confused with Circumflex Agent (^), Capital Lambda (Λ), Turned V (Λ), or Exterior Product (∧).

Venn diagramof {\displaystyle A\land B\land C}

In logic, mathematics and linguistics, And (\wedge ) is the truth-functional operator of logical conjunction; the and of a set of operands is true if and only if all of its operands are true. The logical connective that represents this operator is typically written as \wedge or ⋅ .[1][2][3]

A\land B is true if and only if A is true and B is true.

An operand of a conjunction is a conjunct.

Beyond logic, the term "conjunction" also refers to similar concepts in other fields:


And is usually denoted by an infix operator: in mathematics and logic, it is denoted by \wedge ,[1][3]& or × ; in electronics, ; and in programming languages, , , or . In Jan Łukasiewicz's prefix notation for logic, the operator is K, for Polish koniunkcja.[4]


Logical conjunction is an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions, that produces a value of trueif and only if both of its operands are true.[2][3]

The conjunctive identity is true, which is to say that AND-ing an expression with true will never change the value of the expression. In keeping with the concept of vacuous truth, when conjunction is defined as an operator or function of arbitrary arity, the empty conjunction (AND-ing over an empty set of operands) is often defined as having the result true.

Truth table[edit]

The truth table of A\land B:[2][3]

ABA\wedge B

Defined by other operators[edit]

In systems where logical conjunction is not a primitive, it may be defined as[5]

{\displaystyle A\land B=\neg (A\to \neg B)}


{\displaystyle A\land B=\neg (\neg A\lor \neg B).}

Introduction and elimination rules[edit]

As a rule of inference, conjunction introduction is a classically valid, simple argument form. The argument form has two premises, A and B. Intuitively, it permits the inference of their conjunction.

Therefore, A and B.

or in logical operator notation:

{\displaystyle \vdash A\land B}

Here is an example of an argument that fits the form conjunction introduction:

Bob likes apples.
Bob likes oranges.
Therefore, Bob likes apples and Bob likes oranges.

Conjunction elimination is another classically valid, simple argument form. Intuitively, it permits the inference from any conjunction of either element of that conjunction.

A and B.
Therefore, A.

...or alternatively,

A and B.
Therefore, B.

In logical operator notation:

{\displaystyle A\land B}
\vdash A

...or alternatively,

{\displaystyle A\land B}
\vdash B



A conjunction A\land B is be proven false by establishing either \neg A or \neg B. In terms of the object language, this reads

{\displaystyle \neg A\to \neg (A\land B)}

This formula can be seen as a special case of

{\displaystyle (A\to C)\to ((A\land B)\to C)}

when C is a false proposition.

Other proof strategies[edit]

If A implies \neg B, then both \neg A as well as A prove the conjunction false:

{\displaystyle (A\to \neg {}B)\to \neg (A\land B)}

In other words, a conjunction can actually be proven false just by knowing about the relation of its conjuncts, and not necessary about their truth values.

This formula can be seen as a special case of

{\displaystyle (A\to (B\to C))\to ((A\land B)\to C)}

when C is a false proposition.

Either of the above are constructively valid proofs by contradiction.


commutativity: yes

associativity: yes

distributivity: with various operations, especially with or

idempotency: yes

monotonicity: yes

truth-preserving: yes
When all inputs are true, the output is true.

falsehood-preserving: yes
When all inputs are false, the output is false.

Walsh spectrum: (1,-1,-1,1)

Nonlinearity: 1 (the function is bent)

If using binary values for true (1) and false (0), then logical conjunction works exactly like normal arithmetic multiplication.

Applications in computer engineering[edit]

In high-level computer programming and digital electronics, logical conjunction is commonly represented by an infix operator, usually as a keyword such as "", an algebraic multiplication, or the ampersand symbol (sometimes doubled as in ). Many languages also provide short-circuit control structures corresponding to logical conjunction.

Logical conjunction is often used for bitwise operations, where corresponds to false and to true:

  •  =  ,
  •  =  ,
  •  =  ,
  •  =  .

The operation can also be applied to two binary words viewed as bitstrings of equal length, by taking the bitwise AND of each pair of bits at corresponding positions. For example:

  •  =  .

This can be used to select part of a bitstring using a bit mask. For example,  =  extracts the fifth bit of an 8-bit bitstring.

In computer networking, bit masks are used to derive the network address of a subnet within an existing network from a given IP address, by ANDing the IP address and the subnet mask.

Logical conjunction "" is also used in SQL operations to form database queries.

The Curry–Howard correspondence relates logical conjunction to product types.

Set-theoretic correspondence[edit]

The membership of an element of an intersection set in set theory is defined in terms of a logical conjunction: xAB if and only if (xA) ∧ (xB). Through this correspondence, set-theoretic intersection shares several properties with logical conjunction, such as associativity, commutativity and idempotence.

Natural language[edit]

As with other notions formalized in mathematical logic, the logical conjunction and is related to, but not the same as, the grammatical conjunctionand in natural languages.

English "and" has properties not captured by logical conjunction. For example, "and" sometimes implies order having the sense of "then". For example, "They got married and had a child" in common discourse means that the marriage came before the child.

The word "and" can also imply a partition of a thing into parts, as "The American flag is red, white, and blue." Here, it is not meant that the flag is at once red, white, and blue, but rather that it has a part of each color.

See also[edit]


External links[edit]


Wiki conjunctions

Conjunction (grammar)

Part of speech that connects two words, sentences, phrases, or clauses

Not to be confused with Grammatical conjugation or Conjunctive mood.

In grammar, a conjunction (abbreviatedCONJ or CNJ) is a part of speech that connects words, phrases, or clauses that are called the conjuncts of the conjunctions. This definition may overlap with that of other parts of speech, so what constitutes a "conjunction" must be defined for each language. In English, a given word may have several senses, being either a preposition or a conjunction depending on the syntax of the sentence. For example, after is a preposition in "he left after the fight", but it is a conjunction in "he left after they fought". In general, a conjunction is an invariable (non-inflected) grammatical particle and it may or may not stand between the items conjoined.

The definition of conjunction may also be extended to idiomatic phrases that behave as a unit with the same function, e.g. "as well as", "provided that".

A simple literary example of a conjunction is: "the truth of nature, and the power of giving interest" (Samuel Taylor Coleridge's Biographia Literaria).[1]

A conjunction may be placed at the beginning of a sentence:[2] "But some superstition about the practice persists."[3]

Coordinating conjunctions[edit]

Coordinating conjunctions, also called coordinators, are conjunctions that join, or coordinate, two or more items (such as words, main clauses, or sentences) of equal syntactic importance. In English, the mnemonic acronym FANBOYS can be used to remember the coordinators for, and, nor, but, or, yet, and so.[4] These are not the only coordinating conjunctions; various others are used, including[5]: ch. 9 [6]: p. 171  "and nor" (British), "but nor" (British), "or nor"[dubious – discuss] (British), "neither" ("They don't gamble, neither do they smoke"), "no more" ("They don't gamble, no more do they smoke"), and "only" ("I would go, only I don't have time"). Types of coordinating conjunctions include cumulative conjunctions, adversative conjunctions, alternative conjunctions, and illative conjunctions.[7]

Here are some examples of coordinating conjunctions in English and what they do:

  • For – an illative (i.e. inferential), presents rationale ("They do not gamble or smoke, for they are ascetics.")
  • And – a cumulative, adds non-contrasting item(s) or idea(s) ("They gamble, and they smoke.")
  • Nor – presents an alternative non-contrasting (also negative) idea ("They do not gamble, nor do they smoke.")
  • But – an adversative, presents a contrast or exception ("They gamble, but they don't smoke.")
  • Or – presents an alternative non-contrasting item or idea ("Every day they gamble, or they smoke.")
  • Yet – an adversative, presents a strong contrast or exception ("They gamble, yet they don't smoke.")
  • So – an illative (i.e. inferential), presents a consequence ("He gambled well last night, so he smoked a cigar to celebrate.")

Only and, or, nor are actual coordinating logical operators connecting atomic propositions or syntactic multiple units of the same type (subject, objects, predicative, attributive expressions, etc.) within a sentence. The cause and consequence (illative) conjunctions are pseudocoordinators, being expressible as antecedent or consequent to logical implications or grammatically as subordinate conditional clauses.

Correlative conjunctions[edit]

Correlative conjunctions work in pairs to join words and groups of words of equal weight in a sentence. There are many different pairs of correlative conjunctions:

  • either...or
  • not only...but (also)
  • neither...nor
  • both...and
  • whether...or
  • just
  • the...the
  • as
  • no sooner...than
  • rather...than
  • not...but rather


  • You either do your work or prepare for a trip to the office. (Either do or prepare)
  • He is not only handsome but also brilliant. (Not only A but also B)
  • Neither the basketball team nor the football team is doing well.
  • Both the cross country team and the swimming team are doing well.
  • You must decide whether you stay or you go.
  • Just as many Americans love basketball, so many Canadians love ice hockey.
  • The more you practice dribbling, the better you will be at it.
  • Football is as fast as hockey (is (fast)).
  • Football is as much an addiction as it is a sport.
  • No sooner did she learn to ski than the snow began to thaw.
  • I would rather swim than surf.
  • He donated money not to those in need, but rather to those who would benefit him.

Conjunctions of time[edit]


afterWe'll do that after you do this.
as long asThat's fine as long as you agree to our conditions.
as soon asWe'll get to that as soon as we finish this.
by the timeHe had left by the time you arrived.
long beforeWe'll be gone long before you arrive.
now thatWe can get going now that they have left.
onceWe'll have less to worry about once the boss leaves.
sinceWe haven't been able to upload our work since the network went down.
tillPlease hold on till the server reboots.
untilWe are waiting until you send us the confirmation.
whenThey can do what they want when they want.
wheneverThere is a good chance of rain whenever there are clouds in the sky.
whileI really appreciate you waiting while I finish up.

Subordinating conjunctions[edit]

See also: Conjunctive adverb

Subordinating conjunctions, also called subordinators, are conjunctions that join an independent clause and a dependent clause, and also introduce adverb clauses. The most common subordinating conjunctions in the English language include after, although, as, as far as, as if, as long as, as soon as, as though, because, before, even if, even though, every time, if, in order that, since, so, so that, than, that, though, unless, until, when, whenever, where, whereas, wherever, and while.[8]

Complementizers can be considered to be special subordinating conjunctions that introduce complement clauses: e.g. "I wonder whether he'll be late. I hope that he'll be on time". Some subordinating conjunctions, when used to introduce a phrase instead of a full clause, become prepositions with identical meanings.

The subordinating conjunction performs two important functions within a sentence: illustrating the importance of the independent clause and providing a transition between two ideas in the same sentence by indicating a time, place, or cause and therefore affecting the relationship between the clauses.[9]

In many verb-finallanguages, subordinate clauses must precede the main clause on which they depend. The equivalents to the subordinating conjunctions of non-verb-final languages such as English are either

Such languages often lack conjunctions as a part of speech, because:

  • the form of the verb used is formally nominalised and cannot occur in an independent clause
  • the clause-final conjunction or suffix attached to the verb is a marker of case and is also used in nouns to indicate certain functions. In this sense, the subordinate clauses of these languages have much in common with postpositional phrases.

In other West Germanic languages like German and Dutch, the word order after a subordinating conjunction is different from that in an independent clause, e.g. in Dutch want ("for") is coordinating, but omdat ("because") is subordinating. The clause after the coordinating conjunction has normal word order, but the clause after the subordinating conjunction has verb-final word order. Compare:

Hij gaat naar huis, want hij is ziek. ("He goes home, for he is ill.")
Hij gaat naar huis, omdat hij ziek is. ("He goes home because he is ill.")

Similarly, in German, "denn" (for) is coordinating, but "weil" (because) is subordinating:

Er geht nach Hause, denn er ist krank. ("He goes home, for he is ill.")
Er geht nach Hause, weil er krank ist. ("He goes home, because he is ill.")

Starting a sentence[edit]

See also: Disputes in English grammar

It is now generally agreed that a sentence may begin with a coordinating conjunction like and,[11]but,[12] or yet.[13] However, there has been a mistaken belief in some sort of prohibition, or what Follett's Modern American Usage called a "supposed rule without foundation" and a "prejudice [that] lingers from a bygone time" that English sentences should not start with conjunctions.[14]

People associate this mistaken belief with their early school days. One conjecture is that it results from young children's being taught to avoid simple sentences starting with and and are encouraged to use more complex structures with subordinating conjunctions.[11] In the words of Bryan A. Garner, the "widespread belief ... that it is an error to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as and, but, or so has no historical or grammatical foundation",[15] and good writers have frequently started sentences with conjunctions.[14]

There is also a misleading guideline that a sentence should never begin with because. Because is a subordinating conjunction and introduces a dependent clause. It may start a sentence when the main clause follows the dependent clause.[16]


  • "And now we have Facebook and Twitter and Wordpress and Tumblr and all those other platforms that take our daily doings and transform them into media."[17]
  • "So any modern editor who is not paranoid is a fool".[18]
  • "And strikes are protected globally, existing in many of the countries with labour laws outside the Wagner Act model."[19]

In other languages[edit]


In Warlpiri, a Pama-Nyungan language spoken in Australia, conjunctions function differently from English or other Germanic languages. In unembedded contexts, Warlpiri uses the coordinator manu, such that P manu Q translates to "P and Q": Cecilia manu Gloriapala yanu tawunu kurra means "Cecilia and Gloria went to town", but in the negative contexts, P manu Q translates to "neither P nor Q", such that kularnangku yinyi rampaku manu loli means "I won't give you cookies or lollipops", as kularnanagku is a form of the Warlpiri negative marker.[20]

See also[edit]


  1. ^Greenblatt, Stephen (2006). The Norton Anthology of British Literature, 8th Ed. Vol. D. New York: Norton. p. 478.
  2. ^Richard Nordquist. "Is It Wrong to Begin a Sentence with 'But'?". Retrieved 2015-11-26.
  3. ^Garner, Bryan A. (2001). Legal Writing in Plain English: A Text with Exercises. The University of Chicago Press. p. 20. ISBN .: "the idea that it is poor grammar to begin a sentence with And or But" is "nonsense baggage that so many writers lug around".
  4. ^Paul; Adams, Michael (2009). How English Works: A Linguistic Introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Longman. p. 152. ISBN .
  5. ^John, Algeo (2006). British or American English? A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns. Cambridge Univ. Press.
  6. ^Burchfield, R. W., ed. (1996). Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd ed.). ISBN .
  7. ^"Kinds of co-ordinating conjunctions". 2010-08-25.
  8. ^"Subordinating Conjunctions". 18 May 2017.
  9. ^"What are Subordinating Conjunctions?". Retrieved 2015-11-26.
  10. ^Dryer, Matthew S. (2005). "Order of adverbial subordinator and clause". In Haspelmath, Martin; Dryer, Matthew S.; Gil, David; Comrie, Bernard (eds.). The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford University Press. ISBN .
  11. ^ abMerriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage. Penguin. 2002. p. 69. ISBN .
  12. ^Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage. Penguin. 2002. p. 151. ISBN .
  13. ^Garner, Bryan A. (2016). Garner's Modern English Usage. Oxford University Press. p. 979. ISBN .
  14. ^ abGarner, Bryan A. (2016). Garner's Modern English Usage. Oxford University Press. p. 204. ISBN .
  15. ^Garner, Bryan A. (2010). "Grammar and Usage". The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 257. ISBN .
  16. ^Garner, Bryan A. (2016). Garner's Modern English Usage. Oxford University Press. p. 101. ISBN .
  17. ^"An Optimist's Guide to Political Correctness". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2015-11-26.
  18. ^"The case for liberal optimism". The Economist. 2015-01-31. Retrieved 2015-11-26.
  19. ^"Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan - SCC Cases (Lexum)". January 2001. Retrieved 2015-11-26.
  20. ^Bowler (May 31, 2014). "Conjunction and disjunction in a language without 'and'": 1–3.

External links[edit]

Conjunction and it's types... Coordinating , Subordinating and Correlative Conjunctions.

Conjunction (astronomy)

Term of astronomy

In astronomy, a conjunction occurs when two astronomical objects or spacecraft have either the same right ascension or the same ecliptic longitude, usually as observed from Earth.[1][2] The astronomical symbol for conjunction is ☌ (in Unicode U+260C) and handwritten Astronomical conjunction symbol.png. The conjunction symbol is not used in modern astronomy. It continues to be used in astrology.[not verified in body]

When two objects always appear close to the ecliptic—such as two planets, the Moon and a planet, or the Sun and a planet—this fact implies an apparent close approach between the objects as seen in the sky. A related word, appulse, is the minimum apparent separation in the sky of two astronomical objects.[3]

Conjunctions involve either two objects in the Solar System or one object in the Solar System and a more distant object, such as a star. A conjunction is an apparent phenomenon caused by the observer's perspective: the two objects involved are not actually close to one another in space. Conjunctions between two bright objects close to the ecliptic, such as two bright planets, can be seen with the naked eye.

Passing close[edit]

A conjunction of Mars and Jupiter in the morning of 1 May 2011, when, about an hour before sunrise, five of the Solar System's eight planets and the Moon could be seen from Cerro Paranal, Chile.[4]

More generally, in the particular case of two planets, it means that they merely have the same right ascension (and hence the same hour angle). This is called conjunction in right ascension. However, there is also the term conjunction in ecliptic longitude. At such conjunction both objects have the same ecliptic longitude. Conjunction in right ascension and conjunction in ecliptic longitude do not normally take place at the same time, but in most cases nearly at the same time. However, at triple conjunctions, it is possible that a conjunction only in right ascension (or ecliptic length) occurs. At the time of conjunction – it does not matter if in right ascension or in ecliptic longitude – the involved planets are close together upon the celestial sphere. In the vast majority of such cases, one of the planets will appear to pass north or south of the other.

Passing closer[edit]

However, if two celestial bodies attain the same declination at the time of a conjunction in right ascension (or the same ecliptic latitude at a conjunction in ecliptic longitude), the one that is closer to the Earth will pass in front of the other. In such a case, a syzygy takes place. If one object moves into the shadow of another, the event is an eclipse. For example, if the Moon passes into the shadow of Earth and disappears from view, this event is called a lunar eclipse. If the visible disk of the nearer object is considerably smaller than that of the farther object, the event is called a transit. When Mercury passes in front of the Sun, it is a transit of Mercury, and when Venus passes in front of the Sun, it is a transit of Venus. When the nearer object appears larger than the farther one, it will completely obscure its smaller companion; this is called an occultation. An example of an occultation is when the Moon passes between Earth and the Sun, causing the Sun to disappear either entirely or partially. This phenomenon is commonly known as a solar eclipse. Occultations in which the larger body is neither the Sun nor the Moon are very rare. More frequent, however, is an occultation of a planet by the Moon. Several such events are visible every year from various places on Earth.

Position of the observer[edit]

A conjunction, as a phenomenon of perspective, is an event that involves two astronomical bodies seen by an observer on the Earth. Times and details depend only very slightly on the observer's location on the Earth's surface, with the differences being greatest for conjunctions involving the Moon because of its relative closeness, but even for the Moon the time of a conjunction never differs by more than a few hours.

Superior and inferior[edit]

As seen from a planet that is superior, if an inferior planet is on the opposite side of the Sun, it is in superior conjunction with the Sun. An inferior conjunction occurs when the two planets lie in a line on the same side of the Sun. In an inferior conjunction, the superior planet is "in opposition" to the Sun as seen from the inferior planet.

Positional astronomy.svg

The terms "inferior conjunction" and "superior conjunction" are used in particular for the planets Mercury and Venus, which are inferior planets as seen from the Earth. However, this definition can be applied to any pair of planets, as seen from the one farther from the Sun.

A planet (or asteroid or comet) is simply said to be in conjunction, when it is in conjunction with the Sun, as seen from the Earth. The Moon is in conjunction with the Sun at New Moon.


In a quasiconjunction, a planet in retrograde motion — always either Mercury or Venus, from the point of view of the Earth — will "drop back" in right ascension until it almost allows another planet to overtake it, but then the former planet will resume its forward motion and thereafter appear to draw away from it again. This will occur in the morning sky, before dawn. The reverse may happen in the evening sky after dusk, with Mercury or Venus entering retrograde motion just as it is about to overtake another planet (often Mercury and Venus are both of the planets involved, and when this situation arises they may remain in very close visual proximity for several days or even longer). The quasiconjunction is reckoned as occurring at the time the distance in right ascension between the two planets is smallest, even though, when declination is taken into account, they may appear closer together shortly before or after this.

Average interval between conjunctions[edit]

The interval between two conjunctions involving the same two planets is not constant, but the average interval between two similar conjunctions can be calculated from the periods of the planets. The "speed" at which a planet goes around the sun, in terms of revolutions per time, is given by the inverse of its period, and the speed difference between two planets is the difference between these. For conjunctions of two planets beyond the orbit of Earth, the average time interval between two conjunctions is the time it takes for 360° to be covered by that speed difference, so the average interval is:

{\displaystyle {\frac {1}{|1/p_{1}-1/p_{2}|}}}

This does not apply of course to the intervals between the individual conjunctions of a triple conjunction. Conjunctions between a planet inside the orbit of Earth (Venus or Mercury) and a planet outside are a bit more complicated. As the outer planet swings around from being in opposition to the sun to being east of the sun, then in superior conjunction with the sun, then west of the sun, and back to opposition, it will be in conjunction with Venus or Mercury an odd number of times. So the average interval between, say, the first conjunction of one set and the first of the next set will be equal to the average interval between its oppositions with the sun. As for conjunctions between Mercury and Venus, each time Venus goes from maximum elongation to the east of the sun to maximum elongation west of the sun and then back to east of the sun, an even number of conjunctions with Mercury take place. The average interval between corresponding conjunctions (for example the first of one set and the first of the next) is 1.599 years, based on the orbital speeds of Venus and Earth.

The following table gives these average intervals, in sidereal years, for combinations of the nine traditional planets. Since Pluto is in resonance with Neptune the period used is 1.5 times that of Neptune, slightly different from the current value. The interval is then exactly thrice the period of Neptune.


Notable conjunctions[edit]

Conjunction of Venus (left) and Jupiter (bottom), with the nearby crescent Moon, seen from São Paulo, Brazil, on 1 December 2008
Moon, Jupiter (top), and Venus (right) at dusk seen from Madrid, Spain, on 20 June 2015


In early December 1899 the Sun and the naked-eye planets appeared to lie within a band 35 degrees wide along the ecliptic as seen from the Earth. As a consequence, over the period 1–4 December 1899, the Moon reached conjunction with, in order, Jupiter, Uranus, the Sun, Mercury, Mars, Saturn and Venus. Most of these conjunctions were not visible because of the glare of the Sun.


Over the period 4–6 February 1962, in a rare series of events, Mercury and Venus reached conjunction as observed from the Earth, followed by Venus and Jupiter, then by Mars and Saturn. Conjunctions took place between the Moon and, in turn, Mars, Saturn, the Sun, Mercury, Venus and Jupiter. Mercury also reached inferior conjunction with the Sun. The conjunction between the Moon and the Sun at new Moon produced a total solar eclipse visible in Indonesia and the Pacific Ocean,[5] when these five naked-eye planets were visible in the vicinity of the Sun in the sky.


Mercury, Venus and Mars separately reached conjunction with each other, and each separately with the Sun, within a 7-day period in August 1987 as seen from the Earth. The Moon also reached conjunction with each of these bodies on 24 August. However, none of these conjunctions were observable due to the glare of the Sun.[6]


In May 2000, in a very rare event, several planets lay in the vicinity of the Sun in the sky as seen from the Earth, and a series of conjunctions took place. Jupiter, Mercury and Saturn each reached conjunction with the Sun in the period 8–10 May. These three planets in turn were in conjunction with each other and with Venus over a period of a few weeks. However, most of these conjunctions were not visible from the Earth because of the glare from the Sun.[6] NASA referred to May 5 as the date of the conjunction.[7]


Venus, Mars and Saturn appeared close together in the evening sky in early May 2002, with a conjunction of Mars and Saturn occurring on 4 May. This was followed by a conjunction of Venus and Saturn on 7 May, and another of Venus and Mars on 10 May when their angular separation was only 18 arcminutes. A series of conjunctions between the Moon and, in order, Saturn, Mars and Venus took place on 14 May, although it was not possible to observe all these in darkness from any single location on the Earth.[6]


A conjunction of the Moon and Mars took place on 24 December 2007, very close to the time of the full Moon and at the time when Mars was at opposition to the Sun. Mars and the full Moon appeared close together in the sky worldwide, with an occultation of Mars occurring for observers in some far northern locations.[8] A similar conjunction took place on 21 May 2016.


A conjunction of Venus and Jupiter occurred on 1 December 2008, and several hours later both planets separately reached conjunction with the crescent Moon.[9] An occultation of Venus by the Moon was visible from some locations.[10] The three objects appeared close together in the sky from any location on the Earth.


Main article: 2012 Venus Jupiter Mercury conjunction


At the end of May, Mercury, Venus and Jupiter went through a series of conjunctions only a few days apart.


June 30 - Venus and Jupiter come close together in a planetary conjunction; they came approximately 1/3 a degree apart. The conjunction had been nicknamed the "Star of Bethlehem."[11]

Venus-Jupiter Conjunction of June 30, 2015


On the morning of January 9, Venus and Saturn came together in a conjunction[12]

On August 27, Mercury and Venus were in conjunction, followed by a conjunction of Venus and Jupiter, meaning that the three planets were very close together in the evening sky.


On the morning of November 13, Venus and Jupiter were in conjunction, meaning that they appeared close together in the morning sky.


On the early hours of January 7, Mars and Jupiter were in conjunction. The pair was only 0.25 degrees apart in the sky at its closest.[13]


Talitha Borealisin conjunction with the comet C/2020 F3 (NEOWISE)on 18 July 2020 21:30 UTC with an attitude von 17° above the north horizon of Berlin(image height = 4°). At the lower edge of the picture, a bit left from the centre there is the neighbour star Alkaphrah(Kappa Ursae Majoris respectively Talitha Australis). The distance between Talitha Borealis and C/2020 F3 was seven arc minutes.

During most of February, March, and April, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn were close to each other, and so they underwent a series of conjunctions: on March 20, Mars was in conjunction with Jupiter, and on March 31, Mars was in conjunction with Saturn. On December 21, Jupiter and Saturn appeared at their closest separation in the sky since 1623, in an event known as a great conjunction.

Conjunctions of planets in right ascension 2005–2020[edit]

Main article: List of conjunctions (astronomy)

See also[edit]


  1. ^Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office and United States Naval Observatory (2012). "Conjunction". Glossary, The Astronomical Almanac Online. Archived from the original on 2013-06-15. Retrieved 2012-07-08.
  2. ^Jean Meeus (1991). Astronomical Algorithms. Willman-Bell Inc., Richmond, Virginia.
  3. ^Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office and United States Naval Observatory (2012). "Appulse". Glossary, The Astronomical Almanac Online. Archived from the original on 2013-06-15. Retrieved 2012-07-08.
  4. ^"Planetary Conjunction over Paranal". ESO Picture of the Week. ESO. Retrieved 2011-05-02.
  5. ^Espenak, Fred (2004). "Total Solar Eclipse of 1962 Feb 05"(GIF image file). NASA Eclipse Web Site. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Retrieved 12 June 2013.
  6. ^ abcMeeus, Jean (1983), "Chapter 1, Planetary Phenomena, 1976-2005", Astronomical Tables of the Sun, Moon, and Planets (1 ed.), Richmond, Virginia: Willmann-Bell, Inc., pp. 1.1–1.35, ISBN 
  7. ^"The Planetary Alignment of 5 May 2000". National Space Science Data Center - NASA. Retrieved 5 May 2016.
  8. ^Paulson, Murray D. (2007). "Mars: The 2007 Opposition". Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. 101 (6): 242–245. Bibcode:2007JRASC.101..242P.
  9. ^"Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2009-07-06. Retrieved 2017-07-12.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  10. ^"Occultation of Venus 2008 December 01 16h UT1". The Astronomical Almanac Online. Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office. Retrieved 2012-09-12.
  11. ^"Venus and Jupiter Get Bright and Tight in This Week's Sky". 29 June 2015.
  12. ^[permanent dead link]
  13. ^"Mars/Jupiter conjunction on January 7 |". Retrieved 2018-01-11.

External links[edit]


You will also like:


1152 1153 1154 1155 1156