Then/and then

'and then' is correct, but I usually go by ear on these sorts of things.

Read the "Learn Writing with Uncle Jim" thread in the Writing Novels forum. I believe the "and then" grammar wars were close to the beginning.

Personally, I lean toward simply "then", but it's frustrating when MS Word keeps wanting to correct it to "and then".

When I'm writing, I turn off MS Word's grammar and spell check. The squiggly lines are too distracting and make me self-conscious while I'm typing. Every once in a while I run the whole document through spell check to catch all the typos and argue with it regarding grammar.

If I catch them I delete every 'and' out of 'and then' and 99 times out of a 100 the sentence reads perfectly well. On the odd occasion when it feels right to use it for a precise meaning, I do so.

Omitting the 'and' is not something upon which everyone agrees but I find both the original poster's examples perfectly acceptable.

Thanks again guys! Thats another one that drives me crazy! I prefer just "then" too

In my small opinion, yup, and neither one will get you rejected.

mscelina said:

*stares blankly*

you mean they're BOTH right?

*swears and throws the Manual of Style at the wall*

$#(*&%#(%*&#()(#%*#&_%(*#&%_#(*%&_#(%*&

darn grammar...

Click to expand...

TheIT said:

Read the "Learn Writing with Uncle Jim" thread in the Writing Novels forum. I believe the "and then" grammar wars were close to the beginning.

Personally, I lean toward simply "then", but it's frustrating when MS Word keeps wanting to correct it to "and then".

Click to expand...

Did one side win? I can't remember.

I don't know the "right" answer, but unless there's a rhythmic reason to include the "and" in a particular case, removing it cuts one more word from your word count. I've not been using "and," but this was a question I'd meant to come and ask about. Sometimes I start my sentence with "Then," too. Again, rhythm.

mscelina said:

.

Click to expand...

Okay, this is driving me nuts. I'm doing line edits and I keep running into this problem. Do you use 'then' or 'and then' as a connective phrase? Although I eliminate most of these in rewrites and separate into two sentences, rhythmically I like the occasional then thrown into the mix. So, which is accurate:

1.) They would travel by ship to Glaucon’s holding of Phoclydies, then they’d march across land to Ceolliune-Callat.
-or-
2.) They would travel by ship to Glaucon's holding of Phoclydies and then march across land to Ceolliune-Callat.

Click to expand...

err . . . my opinion, for whatever it's worth:

1.) Your 1st example: Using a (naked) comma splice to combine two sentences.

They would travel by ship to Glaucon’s holding of Phoclydies, then they’d march across land to Ceolliune-Callat.

Click to expand...

You are using a comma (without a conjunction) to splice two sentences together. Usually this is a no-no in grammar, unless . . . err, yeah, well . . . and you sort of, kinda, coulda maybe use a naked comma here to splice the two sentences together (because they are like two parallel thingees, imo.), IF: you wanted to, knowing that you are using a comma splice but want to do it anyway for effect.
(So, yeah, basically, I agree with Bufty that you can use a comma splice here.)

(There are other acceptable exceptions, places where it's okay to use a (naked) comma splice to combine two sentences; and they often deal with the cases when one of the two sentences are real short, or both are real short, . . . or something like that, I think, and depending on the source, too, maybe.)

But I'd suggest that you don't use a comma splice like that too often or the reader/editor might think ya grammar ain't no good.

2.) Your 2nd example: A good sentence.

They would travel by ship to Glaucon's holding of Phoclydies and then march across land to Ceolliune-Callat.

Click to expand...

3.) Also a good sentence. (Based off of #2.) -- removing the adverb "then."

They would travel by ship to Glaucon's holding of Phoclydies and march across land to Ceolliune-Callat.

Click to expand...

The above is what I would probably try to use, unless there is a good reason not to. (By the surrounding context of the prose around this sentence, the "and" here has the connotation of "and then." imo.)

3.) Also a good sentence. (Based off of #2.) -- removing the adverb "then" and adding "would."

They would travel by ship to Glaucon's holding of Phoclydies and would march across land to Ceolliune-Callat.

Click to expand...

(As to "and then would march" or "and would then march," my guess is that they would both be good but perhaps just a bit bulky-sounding to the ear.)

4.) Also a good sentence. (Based off of #1.) -- using a period.

They would travel by ship to Glaucon’s holding of Phoclydies. Then they’d march across land to Ceolliune-Callat.

Click to expand...

5.) Also a good sentence. (Based off of #1.) -- using a semicolon.

They would travel by ship to Glaucon’s holding of Phoclydies; then they’d march across land to Ceolliune-Callat.

Click to expand...

6.) Also a good sentence. (Based off of #1.) -- adding a conjunction.

They would travel by ship to Glaucon’s holding of Phoclydies, and then they’d march across land to Ceolliune-Callat.

Click to expand...

-brer (Who really ought to be getting back to his wip, and who shouldn't be trying to skate off so much.)

There's a difference between the two choices. In the first one, "They would travel..." and "they'd march..." are independent clauses. In the second one, the omission of "they'd" makes it "They would travel ... and march...", a single sentence with a compound predicate.

Independent Clauses

mscelina said:

They would travel by ship to Glaucon’s holding of Phoclydies, then they’d march across land to Ceolliune-Callat.

Click to expand...

Definitely a comma splice.

Correct? Unnhh, well, ... With "then", it seems to be a little less egregious than the usual comma splice. So, I suppose using this could be a valid judgment call as long as you are aware of what you're doing.

brer said:

They would travel by ship to Glaucon’s holding of Phoclydies, and then they’d march across land to Ceolliune-Callat.

Click to expand...

Adding a conjunction. A classic solution for independent clauses. (Sorry, Uncle Jim!)

brer said:

They would travel by ship to Glaucon’s holding of Phoclydies. Then they’d march across land to Ceolliune-Callat.

Click to expand...

Two separate sentences. Another correct choice, although I might make the second sentence "They would march.." for the sake of parallel structure.

brer said:

They would travel by ship to Glaucon’s holding of Phoclydies; then they’d march across land to Ceolliune-Callat.

Click to expand...

A semicolon also works, when the ideas are more closely related than separate sentences would serve.

Compound Predicates

mscelina said:

They would travel by ship to Glaucon's holding of Phoclydies and then march across land to Ceolliune-Callat.

Click to expand...

Correct. A comma is not used for a compound predicate. (Unless there are more than two parts; then you have the listy thing. "He hopped, skipped, and jumped.")

brer said:

They would travel by ship to Glaucon's holding of Phoclydies and march across land to Ceolliune-Callat.

Click to expand...

I disagree with brer. Grammatically, it's correct, but the meaning is wrong. Removing "then" to leave "and" standing alone implies the actions are simultaneous, which is clearly impossible in this case.

brer said:

They would travel by ship to Glaucon's holding of Phoclydies and would march across land to Ceolliune-Callat.

Click to expand...

Again, grammatically correct, but the same problem of simultaneity. To make it worse, this one just sounds clunky.

Other Possibilities

They would travel by ship to Glaucon's holding of Phoclydies before marching across land to Ceolliune-Callat.

Click to expand...

My terminology is reaching the shaky point, but I think "marching across land..." is a participial phrase, which is in turn the object of the preposition* "before". Whatever it's called, no punctuation is needed.

After traveling by ship to Glaucon's holding of Phoclydies, they would march across land to Ceolliune-Callat.

Click to expand...

Same as above, but because the prepositional* phrase comes first, a comma is needed.

*I did some browsing and found this, which says "before" and "after" in those last two examples are subordinating conjunctions, not prepositions. But it confirms my comma usage for them. The same site also has a nice discussion of comma splices, specifically covering "and then".



(It sure would be nice to be able to quote quoted text without having to copy-and-paste it in. I've been on other forums, I think using this same software, where quotes automatically nested. </grumble>)

And then is one too may conjunctions, I'd use one or the other.
And for a simultaneous action, then for the next in sequence action.

You can add 'then' as 'then' or 'and then'.
It doesn't matter which you use, except that they have different cadences.

But do you want to use 'then' at all?


'Then'
-- is similar to 'next', 'second', 'later', 'after that', 'subsequently', 'following that' ... in that you have added it to show a sequence of events.
-- Or 'then' shows causality, like 'because'.

If you're not doing sequence or causality, are you sure you want to add 'then'?


I swept the floor and then I washed out the sink and then I drank a glass of water.
(It doesn't matter what order these happen in.)
I swept the floor, washed out the sink, and drank a glass of water.


Pillage the village and then burn the houses, you fool.
(it does matter what order event happen in.)

Open the book and then we'll know.
(Causality.)


There's nothing wrong with dropping 'then' into a sentence when it's not needed, but it's like unecessary 'thats'. I clean 'em out on general princples. Other folks don't. Different strokes.

err . . . since when did "then" become a conjunction?

Now I understand that "and" is a conjunction. And that "then" is an adverb (and also a noun).

Sometimes, a writer might break grammar usage in a sentence, but I'd hope the writer is aware of what that rule is that the writer is breaking, and that the writer would only do that breaking under certain/special conditions. Otherwise, a reader might think that the writer don't know grammar. . . . imo.

They would travel by ship to Glaucon’s holding of Phoclydies, then they’d march across land to Ceolliune-Callat.

This sounds as though a General is making battle plans. If that is the case, then I'd remove they'd, which, in my humble opinion feels redundant.