Korean Job Discussion Forums

[probablylauren]

I have a student who is questioning the use of 'then' in a sentence for an answer in the exam.

The sentence is

"Scarcely [Hardly] had she seen him before [when] she turned pale"

The student wrote "then" where " before [when] " is in the sentence (i.e. "Scarcely [Hardly] had she seen him then she turned pale"

My co-teacher told the student that only before[when] could be used, and the student wants to know why.

I thought that the sentence implies an unfinished action so therefore "then" can't be used?

Basically I have two questions
1. Can 'then' be used? Why/Why not?
2. What is the rule for using before[when] (i.e. why are they correct?)

I've got myself a bit confused and I wanted to get some help

[Seoulio]

Pretty sure that "then" is not good because there is no real cause and effect realtionship

If the sentence read "she looked at him clearly, then her face went pale." It implies that the look is what caused her paleness to come out.

The way you have it is is suggesting that the act of hardly looking was what made her pale, when we know it would actually be the act of seeing him at all that made her pale.

Its another stupid distinction of the English language but the sentence is technically grammatically wrong with the use of then as there is an absence of a clear causal relation,

NOt sure If I explained that well, or if it's even totally correct, but it sounds about right to me.

[probablylauren]

Your explanation helps. I think it supports a bit of what I've found already (i left it at work, and have forgotten). I keep getting confused, its like i'm walking in circles, and by the second step, i've forgotten the first.

I'll have a look tomorrow morning with my other notes.

Unfortunately, I think i'm going to have to go with my co-teacher, as I think the student wasn't even 'sent' to me (my co-teacher had no knowledge), and I'm not going to wreck a good working relationship by debating the co-teacher's decision, I just need reasons why then is wrong.

Grammar and all this jazz isn't my strong point, I'm a Science and IT teacher, and I struggle to provide reasons more than 'it just is'...we usually have a good old discussion and I learn as I go.

I think it would be great for all teachers here to have a strong grasp of grammar and am working towards improving mine. Luckily (maybe not) my job doesn't involve any 'teaching of English' but rather using English through random activities

[Seoulio]

[ChilgokBlackHole]

[T-J]

[ChilgokBlackHole]

[gerani1248]

Here's my two cents.

I think the difference between "before" and "then" in this situation is that "then" would connect two separate actions and complete phrases where "before" would allow the second action to modify the first.

She had eaten lunch before she went back to work. <<here, the second part modifies the first bit. It answers the question of when she ate lunch, and that it was before she went back to work.

She had eaten lunch, then she went back to work. <<can be written as two different sentences. She had eaten lunch. Then she went back to work.

I feel like both are correct, but since "then" creates two little short sentences, it would be better to use "before" which sounds better.

Hope this helps?

[T-J]

[ChilgokBlackHole]

[Privateer]

Question 1: Can 'then' be used? Answer: no.

IMHO, you can't use 'then' to connect a present perfect clause with a past simple clause if it's being used as a sequencer. Hence...

(1)"She had eaten lunch already, so she went straight back to work."

...works fine, and...

(2)"She ate lunch, then went straight back to work."

...also works fine, but...

(3)"She had eaten lunch, then went straight back to work."

...doesn't work because 'then' can only indicate sequence here, as with (2), but cannot indicate causation, as 'so' does in (1). Students learn to associate 'then' with causation, as with 'if ... then' statements and certain concluding statements ('Students, then, need to have dictionaries'), but overgeneralize its use.

If we put both clauses in the simple past, we can use 'then' as a sequencer:

(4)"She scarcely ate lunch, then she went back to work."

However, in...

(5)"She scarcely saw him, then she turned pale."

...'then' would be better replaced by 'but' or some other word, because the effect of 'then' is to mark a clear separation between two events which in fact are closely connected in this case. And even though replacing 'then' with 'but' in (5) gives you a good sentence, it doesn't mean the same thing as the sentence the student has a problem with.

Question 2: What is the rule for using before[when]?

'Before' and 'when' normally work the same way as other subordinating conjunctions, which is to say they head a dependent clause that can go either before or after an independent clause, but I think the sentence causing the problem for your student deserves separate consideration.

"Scarcely [Hardly] had she seen him before [when] she turned pale"

I think there's a rule here on sentences inverting subject and auxiliary verb for added emphasis but can't think what it is at the moment. However, the point is this isn't a normal 'before' or 'when' subordination because (a) you can only use these 2 adverbs here, and (b) you can't reverse the order of the clauses and retain the meaning:

"Before she turned pale, [had she?] she had scarcely seen him."

...obviously doesn't mean the same thing. Normally, 'Before she ate lunch, she finished her work' and 'She finished her work before she ate lunch' mean the same thing.

So I would teach this as a special sentence pattern (some would call it a collocation, but I prefer to think of it as grammar) with its own particular meaning, and say that in this particular pattern only 'before' or 'when' can be used!

[jugbandjames]

1. You guys are over thinking it. It's actually a very simple answer. "Then" is an adverb and "before" is a subordinating conjunction. With only "then" between the two clauses, it becomes a run-on sentence. So no, then cannot be used to subordinate an independent clause.

2. To form a compound sentence from two independent clauses, you need some kind of conjunction between the two independent clauses. I suppose that's the rule you're looking for. Although "then" and "before" have similar meanings, they are different parts of speech.

[probablylauren]

Wow thank you so much.

I definitely appreciate the explanation you gave Privateer, as well as jugbandjames's simple explanation.

Thanks to everyone for the help, I think I can fully answer my student's questions now, with the information I have here

Phew

[sketchforsummer]

If I may hijack the thread...

My textbook has the sentence " I praised my mom about her singing." I think it should be "for her singing", but I can't find a justification for either. Can anyone make a case for or against "for"?