Apparently, there exist things called copulative conjunctions. I know this because, as I was flipping through my Chicago Manual of Style looking for something useful, the word “copulative” leapt off the page at me.
I skimmed the paragraph, driven by the same scholarly mind-set that caused me to look up another “c” word the minute I got my new dictionary. Alas, reality threw a wet blanket onto my prurient fascination with copulative conjunctions. (Though my highbrow inquiry regarding the other “c” word was paid off in spades.)
I quickly concluded that copulative conjunctions are of no real interest. Apparently, the term survives only because grammar snobs cling to it so tightly: It’s the most excitement many of them ever get. To us normal people, it’s just a name for something we can use just fine even without knowing the term. Still, in the interest of actually providing some information, here’s the whole idea behind copulative conjunctions, which are a type of “coordinating conjunction”: Copulative conjunctions add on more information to the first part of a sentence. The Chicago Manual lists “and,” “also,” “moreover,” and “no less than” as copulative conjunctions and gives the following examples: “One associate received a raise, and the other was promoted,” and “The jockey’s postrace party was no less exciting than the race itself.”
I suppose if I were really hard up for adult entertainment I could read something lurid into these examples of jockeys and raises. But I have a satellite dish, so no need for that.
Chicago tells us that copulative conjunctions are also referred to as “additive conjunctions.” Had they called them that in the first place, I never would have looked them up.
Copulative conjunctions, obviously, are just a category of conjunctions—a label. Understanding what the label refers to lends no real insight into conjunctions. Sure, scholars need names and descriptions for things that most of us do without thinking, but that doesn’t mean I have to know all these labels in order to use the language correctly.
Here’s another reason not to bother learning what the experts say about all the different types of conjunctions: They can’t even decide how many different types exist. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Grammar and Style says there are only three types. Chicago lists seven; Garner mentions only two.
No matter how you count them, conjunctions are pretty simple stuff. Some are even made easy to remember by pop culture icons such as Alicia Silverstone—“as if”—and Jennifer Lopez—“but.”
Just as “Schoolhouse Rock” taught me years ago, conjunctions are connectors, “hooking up words and phrases and clauses.” They include:
and
for
or
yet
when
before
even though
unless
since
although
though
wherever
so
but
after
because
where
until
so that
whenever
in order that
as long as
as soon as
Some word pairs that work together also work as conjunctions, such as:
both . . . and
neither . . . nor
whether . . . or
as . . . as
so . . . as
either . . . or
not only . . . but also
if . . . then
where . . . there
All these are called “correlative conjunctions,” in case you care, which I recommend you don’t, especially since this name isn’t smutty.
Some words that are usually adverbs can be used as conjunctions, too. They include “nevertheless,” “otherwise,” and “consequently.”
Assuming that most of these are familiar to you, you already know how to use conjunctions. Understanding copulation is optional.