grammaticality - Is there an instance where 'and' could not replace 'but'?


For instance, I would normally write the following sentence:



Many were the dangers arrayed against me, but I had no fear.



Is it grammatically incorrect to write instead:



Many were the dangers arrayed against me, and I had no fear.



I noticed this whilst speaking with a co-worker, and found he extremely rarely used the conjunction 'but', favoring 'and' instead. Though it sounds strange to me, I cannot find anything to say this is grammatically incorrect.



Answer



The conjunction but means the same thing as the conjunction and, in most cases. They both contrast with the disjunction or.


There are plenty of idioms that use but, like but for that, nothing but the best, But why?, and the like, but in normal use the logic is the same.


The difference between and and but in non-idiomatic usage is that
but carries a presupposition that something else was expected.



  • Bill washed the dishes and Mary dried them.
    (no presupposition)

  • Bill washed the dishes but Mary dried them.
    (presupposes that Mary was not expected to dry them)


Other words can be used to implicate expectations, like beside(s), except, or instead (of), but they're not coordinating conjunctions like and, or, and but.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

verbs - "Baby is creeping" vs. "baby is crawling" in AmE

commas - Does this sentence have too many subjunctives?

grammatical number - Use of lone apostrophe for plural?

etymology - Where does the phrase "doctored" originate?

phrases - Somebody is gonna kiss the donkey

typography - When a dagger is used to indicate a note, must it come after an asterisk?

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"