This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books: Reference works This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook This article is supported by the Reference works task force. English Language This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I created this page after finding there was none despite the comparable page on the far more recent MAU by Garner. Praise for Follet's MAU by by august figures of American letters suggest that if Garner is notable enough, so is Follett. The page on the man is even more in need of expansion than this page for I could find hitherto almost nothing on his life apart from this posthumous publication. Iph (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lest anyone reading these comments conclude that, if anything, Follett was excessively traditional or prescriptive, it is worth quoting briefly from Follett's entry on the commonest English conjunction in which he is at pains to sweep away what he considers a long-outdated and erroneous stricture: "and. A prejudice lingers from the days of schoolmarmish rhetoric that a sentence should not begin with and. The supposed rule is without foundation in grammar, logic or art. ... "

This may be so, but citation please. Without it, it's unsourced editorializing. 86.151.4.97 (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]