can someone help me?

Welcome to the forum, Almetca! This question would probably do better in the grammar section. Look for a board called "Grammar for grasshoppers."

(My short answer is, I don't know. Sorry! )

I'll move it over to the Grammar forum.

Well, according to one "expert" (not me, by the way), a subordinate conjunction introduces a dependent clause. So, I don't think so, since the clauses that follow both of your examples could be independent.
ie. It was no longer relevant can be independent w/o the "By the time she located what she was looking for."

This rule was shared with me by an ex-English teacher, so take it for what it's worth.

As for the transitions - my rule is my own - if the word implies a change or a shift in the story, then it is a transition. I'm sure there are many others on this board who can be of much greater help than me, though.

I would agree with sdarb. The only thing I would change is the "after all" one. I would put the "after all" first. I think it flows better that way. Then I would change the tense from past perfect to past.

"After all, he knew he was going to die."

That's a very powerful statement to make, and it deserves a powerful wording. Using the past perfect tense makes it a weaker statement. Using the past tense makes it stronger and more direct.

You might take the past perfect out of the accident one, too. Stronger without it.

Hope that helps. Persi

I don't know the answer to the original question, but I think moving 'after all' changes the meaning of the sentence.

How?

persiphone_hellecat said:

How?

Click to expand...

Putting the 'after all' at the end is using it in the semi-weird slang sense, where it means something like "despite what I thought." Like, "I guess I don't have cancer after all."

Putting it at the beginning, it means something more like, "Don't forget,". Like, "After all, you catch more flies with honey."

There the comma makes a ton of difference.

, after all vs after all. The original sentence used a comma.