Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[learner1]

Hello,

"Subsequently, he was sent to the hospital."

I have three questions about the sentence as follows:

1. Does 'subsequently' mean 'later' or 'afterwards'? Because 'later' and 'afterwards' are not the same meaning.

2.Is it fine to use 'was taken to' instead of 'was sent to' here?

3.What is the difference in meaning between
'He was sent to the hospital.'
and
'He was admitted to the hospital.'

Many thanks.

[CP]

1. It means at a later time, straight from the Latin for following after. Hence, afterwards and later are both appropriate.

2, 3. Yes, both are OK, but have slightly different meanings. If he was taken there, it means somone put him in a car or ambulance and transported him. If he was sent there, it means the doctor (or someone) decided that he should go there, advised him to go there, and then he went there, either by himself or with help.
_________________
You live a new life for every new language you speak. -Czech proverb

[Lorikeet]

If he was sent to the hospital, his doctor told him to go there. Just because he went there doesn't mean he would be admitted. If his problem was taken care of and then he was sent home, he wouldn't be admitted. If they decided to keep him in the hospital, he would be admitted. (This is U.S. usage. I don't know about other countries.)

[learner1]

Thank you CP and Lorikeet for your help.