comma or 'and' before 'then' [c. splice]: We ate, then we started...

[onemorning85]

Okay, does anyone else think that Dictionary.com's example for the third definition of then is incorrect?

3. next in order of time: We ate, then we started home.

That's a comma splice, right? There should be an and before the then.

<< See also Is "then" a connector? >>

 

[Loob]

Okay, does anyone else think that Dictionary.com's example for the third definition of then is incorrect?

3. next in order of time: We ate, then we started home.

That's a comma splice, right?There should be an and before the then.

It seems fine to me, onemorning85.... "Then" is a bog-standard conjunction in that sentence - no?

 

[Kumpel]

I wouldn't say it functions as a conjunction here.
Although 'not allowed' in English, two main clauses have been combined in one sentence without a conjunction, as is often done in colloquial language.

We ate; then we started home.
We ate and then we started home.

If that's the case, "We ate, then we started home" is perfectly acceptable, but like I said, I'd reserve it for (transcribing) spoken language only. - (I had to add transcribing, because, of course, you don't read a comma aloud... )

Lloyd

 

[ewie]

It looks like a bog-standard conjunction to me too. But then quite a lot of things do.

 

[Kumpel]

I know it seems I'm out-numbered, but I see it as an adverbial.
I can't think of any other conjunctions that show anything to do with order, which makes me think there aren't any. I'm sure there's something obvious I'm missing, though.

 

[Loob]

I wouldn't say it functions as a conjunction here.

I'm intrigued, Lloyd - why not?

(Exploring previous threads, I'm starting to think there may be an AmE/BrE difference here. But I can't, myself, see anything wrong with the topic sentence, whether as a spoken or written form....)

 

[atsamo]

Okay, does anyone else think that Dictionary.com's example for the third definition of then is incorrect?

3. next in order of time: We ate, then we started home.

That's a comma splice, right?There should be an and before the then.

Hi,

then adv... 2a soon after that; next: He walked to the door, then turned. (The New Penguin English Dictionary - 2000 edition)

 

[Kumpel]

I'm intrigued, Lloyd - why not?

I can't think of any other conjunctions that show anything to do with order, which makes me think there aren't any. I'm sure there's something obvious I'm missing, though.

Even if it is a BrE/AmE difference, we're both Brits, so it's just a case of differing opinions.

Lloyd

 

[Loob]

Here's an inconclusive previous thread, but one which includes several OED examples of the current construction: Is "then" a connector?

 

[timpeac]

Hi,

then adv... 2a soon after that; next: He walked to the door, then turned. (The New Penguin English Dictionary - 2000 edition)

This dictionary definition contradicts itself - you cannot replace "then" in the example given with the suggested synonyms of "soon after that" or "next". In both cases you would need to add a "and" before them. I don't think that throws light, though, on why the "and" can be omitted before "then". Personally, I wouldn't have seen anything to criticise in the original sentence either.

 

[onemorning85]

Personally, I wouldn't have seen anything to criticise in the original sentence either.

It's a comma splice. Then can not act as a fanboy.

I found the following on a college's Web site. This isn't the first source in which I've seen this, just the only one I have readily available. (My other sources are in print.)



Another frequent source of comma splices is the word then when that word joins two independent clauses. For example, the following is a comma splice:

• Mary won her first six matches in a row, then she lost the next five in a row.

 

[atsamo]

This dictionary definition contradicts itself - you cannot replace "then" in the example given with the suggested synonyms of "soon after than" or "next". In both cases you would need to add a "and" before them. I don't think that throws light, though, on why the "and" can be omitted before "then". Personally, I wouldn't have seen anything to criticise in the original sentence either.

There is no "soon after than" there, it is "soon after that".

 

[timpeac]

There is no "soon after than" there, it is "soon after that".

It was clearly a typo - now corrected. The point still stands that that dictionary example contradicts itself.

 

[Loob]

Then can never act as a fanboy.

What is a "fanboy"????

And why can't then act as one?

 

[onemorning85]

A fanboy is a way to remember the conjunctions: for, and, nor, but, or, and yet, which require a comma before them if they are surrounded by two independent clauses.

And I'm not sure why then can't act as one, but I do know that it just doesn't. (Hey I don't teach this stuff; I just aim to learn it.)

 

[onemorning85]

It was clearly a typo - now corrected. The point still stands that that dictionary example contradicts itself.

I don't actually see how it contradicts itself there. I think it's incorrect in the next definition of then, but I decided to leave that one alone:

4. at the same time: At first the water seemed blue, then gray.


The comma splice is really bother me (or what I swear is a comma splice), though. I wish I could contact Dictionary.com for this, but I don't think I can.

 

[Loob]

And I'm not sure why then can't act as one, but I do know that it just doesn't.

And I'm equally sure than it just does....

Let's agree to differ!

(Actually, I'm not sure I understand your 'fanboy' definition - but let's not go there.)

 

[timpeac]

I don't actually see how it contradicts itself there. I think it's incorrect in the next definition of then, but I decided to leave that one alone:

Because it suggests synonyms which can't act in the same same way as the word under definition as exemplified in the sample sentence.

He walked to the door, then turned > He walked to the door, next turned??

 

[Valvs]

The point still stands that that dictionary example contradicts itself.

I can't imagine why. The purpose of a definition is to explain the meaning of a word. It doesn't have to be able to be used instead of the word it explains — that's not how dictionaries work. Just because "next" or "soon after that" can't replace "then" in the provided example doesn't mean there is something wrong with the definition or the example.

 

[Kumpel]

4. at the same time: At first the water seemed blue, then gray.

Ignoring the comma issue, I think the dictionary is wrong here, anyway.

The following do not mean the same:
At first the water seemed blue, then grey.
(At first) the water seemed blue and grey at the same time. - (But then I realised it was blue and grey at different times...?)

At first & at the same time... no; it's nonsense.

Lloyd

 

[Kumpel]

A fanboy is a way to remember the conjunctions: for, and, nor, but, or, and yet, which require a comma before them if they are surrounded by two independent clauses.

And I'm not sure why then can't act as one, but I do know that it just doesn't. (Hey I don't teach this stuff; I just aim to learn it.)

I wouldn't use fanboy as though it were just another word in the English language. It's an acronym to help people learn, like you said. The only people who know it, are those to whom it has been taught specifically to learn whatever it was you explained it as.

Lloyd

 

[Kumpel]

The purpose of a definition is to explain the meaning of a word. It doesn't have to be able to be used instead of the word it explains — that's not how dictionaries work. Just because "next" or "soon after that" can't replace "then" in the provided example doesn't mean there is something wrong with the definition or the example.

I completely agree with you. That's the difference between a dictionary and a thesaurus.

Lloyd

 

[onemorning85]

Ignoring the comma issue, I think the dictionary is wrong here, anyway.

The following do not mean the same:
At first the water seemed blue, then grey.
(At first) the water seemed blue and grey at the same time. - (But then I realised it was blue and grey at different times...?)

At first & at the same time... no; it's nonsense.

Lloyd

Very true. (ahhh!)

 

[timpeac]

I can't imagine why. The purpose of a definition is to explain the meaning of a word. It doesn't have to be able to be used instead of the word it explains — that's not how dictionaries work. Just because "next" or "soon after that" can't replace "then" in the provided example doesn't mean there is something wrong with the definition or the example.

I completely disagree with this. If a dictionary defines a single word by a single other word then the assumption is that they are grammatically identical. This wasn't a gloss. "Then" can sometimes be replaced by "next", and "He walked to the door, then turned." is a fine sentence but by combining the two the dictionary entry becomes nonsense. Since we are specifically interested in this thread in whether "then" should be preceded by "and" it serves no purpose to have it defined by a word with different requirements in that regard.

 

[onemorning85]

And I'm equally sure than it just does....

Let's agree to differ!

(Actually, I'm not sure I understand your 'fanboy' definition - but let's not go there.)

I think the problem may lie in differences between BE and AE...

 

[onemorning85]

Timpeac, where is it defined as a single other word?

 

[Kumpel]

I completely disagree with this. If a dictionary defines a single word by a single other word then the assumption is that they are grammatically identical. This wasn't a gloss. "Then" can sometimes be replaced by "next", and "He walked to the door, then turned." is a fine sentence but by combining the two the dictionary entry becomes nonsense. Since we are specifically interested in this thread in whether "then" should be preceded by "and" it serves no purpose to have it defined by a word with different requirements in that regard.

As far as I'm aware, the definition of then is not being questioned, simply whether a comma or conjunction is required before it (or even if it's a conjunction itself).

Lloyd

 

[timpeac]

Timpeac, where is it defined as a single other word?

By "next" in the dictionary definition quoted, and "soon after that" (ok that one's not a single word but a short phrase - it's still not a gloss in the sense that "laughter" could be glossed by "sporadic exhalations of air in response to, or indicating humour").

 

[onemorning85]

Well, I agree that if one word is given, then the words should be interchangeable, but a short phrase is a different story.

 

[timpeac]

As far as I'm aware, the definition of then is not being questioned, simply whether a comma or conjunction is required before it (or even if it's a conjunction itself).

Lloyd

That's what I'm trying to get at - perhaps not clearly enough - suggesting that "next" or "soon after that" can help shed light on the issue of the "and" or comma isn't true because they don't function in the same way in this regard (you have to say "and soon after that turned" unlike the example of "then turned").

 

[Kumpel]

That's what I'm trying to get at - perhaps not clearly enough - suggesting that "next" or "soon after that" can help shed light on the issue of the "and" or comma isn't true because they don't function in the same way in this regard (you have to say "and soon after that turned" unlike the example of "then turned").

I see your point now, yes.

I'd say that ditching the and in "He ate (and) then went to bed" is an idiomatic violation of the not-combining-two-main-clauses-without-a-conjunction 'rule' - so to speak...

He ate, and soon after went to bed.
He ate and then then went to bed.
He ate, then went to bed.
He ate, then soon after went to bed.
(not - He ate and then soon after went to bed.)

I think that might add something more to the mix, but I'm unsure what.

Lloyd

 

[JulianStuart]

I might suggest that when then is used in the "guise of a conjunction", we consider the and elided (is that the right word? - I know ellipsified isn't, ellipted comes close, but the product is ellipsis or understood omission).

 

[Kumpel]

I might suggest that when then is used in the "guise of a conjunction", we consider the and elided (is that the right word? - I know ellipsified isn't, ellipted comes close, but the product is ellipsis or understood omission).

Yes, to elide. (n. elision)
It's another possibility.

So, the conclusion is basically:
It doesn't need an and, but the comma is necessary if the and is omitted.

Lloyd

[Addition: Although the word elided is the 'correct' word, I don't think it's the right one in this context. It's more omission than elision. - I know they kinda mean the same thing, but you know?]

 

[onemorning85]

By the way earlier I explained "fanboy." Unfortunately, I forgot that it's "fanboys" and left out the conjunction so.

 

[Loob]

So, the conclusion is basically:
It doesn't need an and, but the comma is necessary if the and is omitted.

I know I'm being disagreeably disagreeable - but I don't think the comma is necessary....

From yesterday's Daily Telegraph:
Gunman arrested after armed siege at Barclays Bank in Ashford, Middlesex
It is believed he entered the bank at 4pm brandishing a sawn-off shotgun then handcuffed the staff and customers using plastic cable ties and made them put on white boiler suits.

 

[onemorning85]

Eh, I still feel like a comma splice is occuring. @Loob, I'd love to know why you feel that this construction is acceptable. If that sound sarcastic that wasn't my intention. I'm just hoping to be challenged.