And then... as dependent

The first way

The girl was quiet for a moment then laughed.

Click to expand...

makes sense, and I nthink that's what you want to use. I don't think it's wrong; although it is not quite standard. I say go with it.

It sounds nice and loose. A style choice, perhaps. If it suits the voice then go with it, my little rubber ducky.

Hi, Fallen.

All your versions are correct. The original isn't. The confusion comes about because people tend to mistake "then" for a conjunction. It isn't; it's a connective adverb. If you want proof:


You cannot move conjunctions around like that. Thus, "then" does not conform to conjunction-rules.

The sentence:


also does not have a dependent clause. "(and) then laughed" is part of the main clause's predicate:


The predicate consists of two co-ordinated verb-phrases, rather than a single one. Both share the same subject. Since we're dealing with co-ordinated verb-phrases, we need something to co-ordinate them - whether it's a conjunction or a comma.

It's a bit tricky, though. "Then" has the tendency to "swallow" the conjunction, making conjunction-less co-ordination more easily acceptable:


But that doesn't make "then" a conjunction. For that reason I'd read Maryn's:


as a comma splice, same as I would:


And your:


is fine with me.

Fallen said:

Hey DawnS

So are you saying (solely with the): she was quiet for a moment then laughed example. you need either:

She was quiet for a moment and then laughed.
She was quiet for a moment, then laughed.
Not:
She was quiet for a moment then laughed.

Click to expand...

This. You need something to do the co-ordinating, and "then" isn't up to it. It does connect, but on a semantic level, not on a syntactic one. (In other words: My judgement differs from Maryn's.)

Maybe an analogy?


has a similar syntactic structure to:


Both have [Main clause] + [[conjunction] [adverb] [verb]].

There is a difference, though: "now" refers to the extra-textual context (now = moment of speaking), while "then" refers to the intra-textual context ("then" = this happens after what I just talked about). It's this meaning that makes it suited for co-ordinating two verbs (as in the above), but it can only do so semantically, not syntactically. Thus you need syntactic markers: either through a conjunction, or through a simple sequence (in which case you need the help of orthography - that is, a comma).

Now for a quick change of topic: figures of speech.

A simple sequence would normally end with a conjunction:


Leave out the "and", and you get the way it's normally quoted:


The name is "asyndeton".

You needn't repeat the "I"; instead of co-ordinating three main clauses, you could simply co-ordinate the verbs:


It's still an asyndeton, but now it doesn't work on the clause level, but the phrase level. See where this is going? You can now add "then":


What you have now is an asyndeton on the phrase level with an added adverb of sequence. You need the comma, because it's still a simple sequence (with a left-out conjunction).

But you needn't leave out the conjunction:


Note the Oxford comma above. Depending on your stance on that, it's optional. If it weren't a list of three, you need no comma:


Simple, no?

Ah, alas. No. You see, Maryn does know her stuff. I've said "then" is an adverb; Maryn has said it's a conjunction. It's a matter of theory. I'm not so sure about the particulars myself (which is why I shut up about it before), but I can give you a hint:

You can modify adverbs with other adverbs. Example "Only then":


However, if you use "then" in an asyndetonic structure, you cannot do this (or, at the very least, it's questionable):


Neither can you move it around:


Many of the things that make "then" an adverb (if you test it), don't apply in that specific case. So it does make some sense to call it a conjunction. Of course, if you do so, it's no longer an asyndeton, and nothing I said above applies. A conjunction is present.

Maryn said:

Like everything else, there are rules for this structure.

If you have an independent clause followed by a dependent clause (which often starts with a subordinating conjunction like although, since, because, while, unless, after, etc.), each has a subject and a predicate, and they are separated by a comma.

The girl was quiet for a moment, until she laughed.

Click to expand...

I'm quite certain that when a dependent clause follows an independent clause, such as your example, you do not need a comma (at least in American English).

Although, now that I think about it, there is sufficient contrast to warrant a comma; however, if the sentence were simply: The girl was quiet until she laughed, the comma would be eliminated.

If the dependent clause led off the sentence: Until she laughed, the girl was quiet for a moment. The comma would be correct.

I also vote for "She was quiet for a moment, then laughed" or "She was quiet for a moment and then laughed" but NOT "She was quiet for a moment then laughed" - IMO there's a natural pause before the "then" that needs to be observed.

The girl was quiet for a moment, then she laughed.

The girl was quiet for a moment then laughed.

The problems with the punctuations above is treating "then" (named various things, including conjunctive adverb and adverbial conjunction) as if it were a coordinating conjunction in the first example and a simple conjunction in the second. It can't function as either.

As they're worded, they should be punctuated as such:

The girl was quiet for a moment; then, she laughed.

There are two main clauses. "Then" works the same as other adverbial conjunctions like however, moreover, consequently, also, etc. Presently, many don't add the comma after "then," but it's correct.


The girl was quiet for a moment, then laughed.

As said, in this sentence "then" only begins a phrase, not a main clause, so a comma is correct.

Please note in post #15 above the phrases "it's correct" and "is correct."

"Correct" as in "not wrong"; however, they may not be right for your particular character's dialog, for your first-person narrator, nor for your third-person in-the-head narrative.