And then.
ap
"Then" is not a conjunction. You can't say, "He ate, then slept" if
you wouldn't say, "He ate, slept". It should be, "He ate and then
slept".
In some ways that is good advice. If you follow it you will not write
a sentence like this (from the Guardian):
The sow meanwhile will be renamed "Vernon God Little" in honour of the
book, then made into sausages.
(At first I thought the book was made into sausages.)
In practice, though, I find it difficult to avoid the simple
connecting "then" when writing fiction, which, being a narration of a
series of actions, is of necessity a "then"-intensive medium.
True, you can't say "He ate, slept" (except when being very arty), but
you can say, "He ate, slept, snored, and dreamed." So surely you can
say, "He ate, then slept, snored and dreamed". (And leaving out the
"and" parcels the elements more closely together.)
You can leave the "and" out in ellipsis. That doesn't mean you're
trying to use the "then" as a conjunction, in my opinion.
One other thing. "Then" sounds better at the beginning of a sentence
than "and then", to me. Almost every time.
Peasemarch.
Mike Lyle
Just a matter of good ole stylistic discretion and sensitivity, of
which you always appear to have scads. Instinctively I agree with your
interpretation of joining "then" as not in itself a conjunction but
the ellipsis of one. This may seem a rule of the utmost triviality or
even considerable perversity to some, and it might also be taken as
yet another case of foreign grammatical terms disguising from us the
peculiar flexibility of our language; but I think it's important for a
professional to have a view or at least a feeling -- keeping one's
tools sharp again.
Keep that oilstone clean!
Mike.
Linz
>Do you agree with this, which I read somewhere:
No.
>"Then" is not a conjunction. You can't say, "He ate, then slept" if
>you wouldn't say, "He ate, slept". It should be, "He ate and then
>slept".
The construction seems perfectly acceptable to me. "He ate, then
drank, and then belched loudly" would work nicely too.
>In some ways that is good advice. If you follow it you will not write
>a sentence like this (from the Guardian):
>
>The sow meanwhile will be renamed "Vernon God Little" in honour of the
>book, then made into sausages.
>
>(At first I thought the book was made into sausages.)
I didn't read any ambiguity in the sentence.
>In practice, though, I find it difficult to avoid the simple
>connecting "then" when writing fiction, which, being a narration of a
>series of actions, is of necessity a "then"-intensive medium.
Don't try avoiding it, if you find it difficult or unnatural.
I'd wonder where you read this 'rule'.
--
"Here's song number one. Twenty-five to go after this."
Terry Wogan introduces the Eurovision Song Contest 2003.
Gary Vellenzer
qp1...@aol.com says...
> Do you agree with this, which I read somewhere:
>
> "Then" is not a conjunction. You can't say, "He ate, then slept" if
> you wouldn't say, "He ate, slept". It should be, "He ate and then
> slept".
>
This is a straw man. Your fallacy, which vitiates everything else in
your note, is to assume that you can set up a rule and insist that
language follow it.
Remember: the language is primary---your "rules" only reflect the actual
language, and, since they are made by you, do so only approximately.
Gary
AWILLIS957
>From: Linz sp...@nospam.lindsayendell.org.uk
>On 1 Jun 2003 03:52:27 -0700, qp1...@aol.com (ap) wrote:
>
>>Do you agree with this, which I read somewhere:
>
>No.
>
>>"Then" is not a conjunction. You can't say, "He ate, then slept" if
>>you wouldn't say, "He ate, slept". It should be, "He ate and then
>>slept".
>
>The construction seems perfectly acceptable to me. "He ate, then
>drank, and then belched loudly" would work nicely too.
>I'd wonder where you read this 'rule'.
It was lax of me not to give a reference, so I have checked through my books
and found the source.
It is by Barbara Wallraff. Here is her whole paragraph on "Then".
"Then" is not a conjunction, so unless you would say "He ate, slept," you
shouldn't say "He ate, then slept." It's "He ate and then slept." Here I'm
caviling at sources ranging from the Encyclopedia of Biological Sciences
("Abiotic synthesis of organic compounds, first simple then complex, preceded
the origin of life on earth") to The New York Times ("He opened with a tribute
to 'freedom fighters,' then turned to his main subjects: ribald jokes...,
run-ins with the police and the ups and downs of his career") and on to recent
fiction ("I put on some music and abluted, then made two Nescafés" - Absolute
Beginners, Colin McInnes). This construction is fairly common and you'll be in
pretty good company if you use it. But I happen to think you'll be in better
company if you don't. (Word Court. Barbara Wallraff. 2000.)
Mind you, this is a woman who thinks that Absolute beginners is recent fiction.
Peasemarch.
Linz
There you go then. Do as /you/ wish.
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> It was lax of me not to give a reference, so I have checked through my books
> and found the source.
>
> It is by Barbara Wallraff. Here is her whole paragraph on "Then".
>
> "Then" is not a conjunction, so unless you would say "He ate, slept," you
> shouldn't say "He ate, then slept." It's "He ate and then slept." Here I'm
> caviling at sources ranging from the Encyclopedia of Biological Sciences
> ("Abiotic synthesis of organic compounds, first simple then complex, preceded
> the origin of life on earth") to The New York Times ("He opened with a tribute
> to 'freedom fighters,' then turned to his main subjects: ribald jokes...,
> run-ins with the police and the ups and downs of his career") and on to recent
> fiction ("I put on some music and abluted, then made two Nescafés" - Absolute
> Beginners, Colin McInnes). This construction is fairly common and you'll be in
> pretty good company if you use it. But I happen to think you'll be in better
> company if you don't. (Word Court. Barbara Wallraff. 2000.)
>
> Mind you, this is a woman who thinks that Absolute beginners is recent fiction.
This is a woman who has no grasp of how language works. Consider "I
ate, drank, and went to bed." Take out the "and" and you have "I
ate, drank, went to bed." Not idiomatic. Nor is "I ate, drank" --
it if's a complete sentence. But the same three words, with the
same comma in the same place, can form a fully idiomatic *part* of a
sentence. Look at my first example again. Syntax and idiom change
as the words change.
The presence of "then" in sentences with compound predicates allows
the omission of the "and" preceding the final predicate:
I ate and then drank
I ate and drank
I ate, then drank
*I ate, drank
It works with other constructions as well: here's one from her book,
ibnvolving adjectives: "Abiotic synthesis of organic compounds,
first simple then complex, preceded the origin of life on earth."
Again, insertion of "then" allows a usage (elision of "and") that is
not allowed if it is not inserted. There may be some deep
explanation of why this is so, just as it is so that one can omit
the pronoun "that" when it functions as object within its clause but
not when it functions as subject:
Please hand me the book that I am pointing at
Please hand me the book I am pointing at
Please hand me the book that is lying on the table
*Please hand me the book is lying on the table
Please hand me the book lying on the table
I can define the rule, but I can't explain it linguistically. But
it is clear that Ms. Wallraff is equally unable to explain her
rule. Even to her, it comes down to a matter of taste: "This
construction is fairly common and you'll be in pretty good company
if you use it. But I happen to think you'll be in better company if
you don't." If that's the best she can do, she should stop deluding
herself and just give in.
--
Bob Lieblich
I think, then write
Ross Howard
<Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
>> Mind you, this is a woman who thinks that Absolute beginners is recent fiction.
>
>This is a woman who has no grasp of how language works. Consider "I
>ate, drank, and went to bed." Take out the "and" and you have "I
>ate, drank, went to bed." Not idiomatic.
It can be idiomatic if we assume that it's a curtailed list:
I ate, drank, went to bed... you know, the normal routine.
I'm also reminded of:
Woke up, fell out of bed,
Dragged a comb across my head.
-- Lennon/McCartney: "A Day in the Life"
Ross Howard
--------------------
(Kick ass for e-mail)
Mike Lyle
I can't disagree with all that you and Bob say, but can't help feeling
you're being a little dismissive of Albert's (Peasemarch's? -- I never
know what to call him) point. It *is* a question of style, and so it's
worth thinking about it to see if an underlying principle can be
found. There is a long, noble, and valuable tradition of trying to
identify stylistic rules.
That people will come to differing conclusions doesn't vitiate either
the conclusions or the discussion.
There will often in these discussions be an uncomfortable overlap or
mismatch in terminology between practitioners and those whose interest
is more purely linguistic; and on both sides we often behave in
discussion as though our toes have been trodden on, which, though I do
it myself constantly, is silly.
Mike.
Gary Vellenzer
mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk says...
are not helpful. There's a time and place for each of the variations.
Both are part of there English language.
Gary
Skitt
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>>> Mind you, this is a woman who thinks that Absolute beginners is
>>> recent fiction.
>>
>> This is a woman who has no grasp of how language works. Consider "I
>> ate, drank, and went to bed." Take out the "and" and you have "I
>> ate, drank, went to bed." Not idiomatic.
>
> It can be idiomatic if we assume that it's a curtailed list:
>
> I ate, drank, went to bed... you know, the normal routine.
>
>
> I'm also reminded of:
>
> Woke up, fell out of bed,
> Dragged a comb across my head.
>
> -- Lennon/McCartney: "A Day in the Life"
Damn! Reading the subject line I can't get this out of my head:
I plopped down in my easy chair and turned on Channel 2
A bad gunslinger called Salty Sam was chasin' poor Sweet Sue
He trapped her in the old sawmill and said with an evil laugh,
"If you don't give me the deed to your ranch I'll saw you all in half!"
And then he grabbed her (and then)
He tied her up (and then)
He turned on the bandsaw (and then, and then...!)
(chorus):
And then along came Jones
Tall thin Jones
Slow-walkin' Jones
Slow-talkin' Jones
Along came long, lean, lanky Jones
[...]
(And a thanks to Ray Stevens.)
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
R H Draney
>
>Damn! Reading the subject line I can't get this out of my head:
>
>I plopped down in my easy chair and turned on Channel 2
>A bad gunslinger called Salty Sam was chasin' poor Sweet Sue
>He trapped her in the old sawmill and said with an evil laugh,
>"If you don't give me the deed to your ranch I'll saw you all in half!"
>And then he grabbed her (and then)
>He tied her up (and then)
>He turned on the bandsaw (and then, and then...!)
>
>(chorus):
>And then along came Jones
>Tall thin Jones
>Slow-walkin' Jones
>Slow-talkin' Jones
>Along came long, lean, lanky Jones
>
>[...]
>
>(And a thanks to Ray Stevens.)
...for lifting the song from the Coasters....
The same subject line has another sort of resonance for anyone who's seen "Dude,
Where's My Car?"...r
ap
> > >This is a straw man. Your fallacy, which vitiates everything else in
> > > your note, is to assume that you can set up a rule and insist that
> > > language follow it.
I don't know that I did assume that. I said I didn't agree with the
idea, but because it was written in a published book about language, I
wanted to hear whether there was anything in the point or not. Since I
read it, I have turned quite a few "thens" into "and thens" with good
results; and so I do think that it's a matter worth considering. On
the other hand, Wallraff's counsel is impossible to follow all the
time, in practice, if only because there are more "ands" than enough
in the world already. There's nothing better than a curt "then" to get
you efficiently through a series of actions, in my opinion.
> > > Remember: the language is primary---your "rules" only reflect the actual
> > > language, and, since they are made by you, do so only approximately.
> >
> > I can't disagree with all that you and Bob say, but can't help feeling
> > you're being a little dismissive of Albert's (Peasemarch's? -- I never
> > know what to call him) point. It *is* a question of style, and so it's
> > worth thinking about it to see if an underlying principle can be
> > found. There is a long, noble, and valuable tradition of trying to
> > identify stylistic rules.
Or simply of learning the range of stylistic choices. I'm not really a
"rules" man, myself, but I like to try to undersand rules or experts'
preferences before I decide they're not for me or add them to my
choices.
> > That people will come to differing conclusions doesn't vitiate
either
> > the conclusions or the discussion.
> >
> > There will often in these discussions be an uncomfortable overlap or
> > mismatch in terminology between practitioners and those whose interest
> > is more purely linguistic; and on both sides we often behave in
> > discussion as though our toes have been trodden on, which, though I do
> > it myself constantly, is silly.
> >
> You're absolutely right---the OP's "you can't say" and "it should be"
> are not helpful. There's a time and place for each of the variations.
> Both are part of there English language.
>
> Gary
I agree.
Peasemarch.
Robert Lieblich
>
[ ... ]
> The same subject line has another sort of resonance for anyone who's seen "Dude,
> Where's My Car?"...r
Both of them?
--
Bob Lieblich
Who didn't see it
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney wrote:
>>
>[ ... ]
>
>>The same subject line has another sort of resonance for anyone who's seen "Dude,
>> Where's My Car?"...r
>
>Both of them?
It's better than you think....
It also led me to discover what the default parental-lockout password is on my
DVD player; the rental disc refused to play until I punched in the code, which I
knew perfectly well I had never set...and there was no indication of the factory
default code in the owner's manual...I had to go through a bunch of hacker sites
so I could watch this harmless bit of entertainment on the same machine that had
no problem showing me "Frankenhooker" some months earlier....r