Starting sentences with 'then'

[Ursa major]

I wouldn't disagree, TJ, regarding overuse of "that".

The first draft of my WIP1 was supersaturated with thats. I didn't notice how bad it was - or see it as any sort of issue, really - until someone else read it. (I had to resort to Word's Find function.)

If words were real-world objects, I'd have a whopping bill for landfill tax to pay.

 

[Mouse]

I've had a quick look through, highlighting all the thats, and I actually don't have too many of them. Yay! I've taken out a few so far. But I think I'm more of a thenner, rather than a thatter...

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think we can get far too distracted worrying about the number of "thens" and "thats" in our writing. I think I've said elsewhere, but I'm going to say it again (at my age, you tend to repeat yourself anyway): it is much too easy to start obsessing over a single word that nobody else is going to notice (unless they are already obsessing about it, too).

But here is one of the marvelous things about "that" -- if you use it in a lot of your sentences, and the time comes when an editor tells you to cut out a certain number of words, taking out as many "thats" as you can will help you reach your quota.

I used to think that cutting xxxx words meant lopping off whole sections, but you can do it a word or a phrase at a time and it all adds up (or, um, subtracts). I say leave in those "that's and "thens" so that you can use them to bargain with later!

(I am only half-joking about this.)

 

[Ursa major]

You are, of course, right, Teresa.


In my own case, with respect to my overuse of "that", I was told that it was distracting. (And this from a very sympathetic reader.)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I once (briefly) belonged to a critique group where all of the other members viewed the word "which" as a word that a writer should seek to avoid. Their contention was that almost any place you might use the word "which" you could substitute "that" and it would be better ... I don't remember why. It is true, by the way, that you really can make that substitution most of the time without altering the meaning of the sentence one bit, and it may in some of these instances (our grammar mavens should be able to tell us) even be more grammatically correct.

Being new to the critique process -- and because some of the writers in the group were professionals far more seasoned than I -- I took this to heart. For years I obsessed over the word "which" and excised it whenever possible. I think you can guess what happened: a mighty proliferation of "thats," following in such swift succession one on the other that they were treading on each other's heels.

So then, when I recognized what was happening, I had two problem words instead of just one. I genuinely agonized over this when I was editing my own work. I was stuck there for a long time. Then I finally noticed how many other writers, writers who were selling, writers whose work I admired and respected, seemed to have no compunction at all about using the word "which" when they could have used "that," even, dare I say it, without a comma in front of it!

Even twenty years later I still twitch when I use the word "which." I really have to force myself to use it when it could be "that," but I brace myself and do the deed when I see the "thats" piling up -- as they so often do in my writing.

All in all, I think that was a piece of advice which I could have done without.

 

[Omphalos]

I agonize over thens, thats and whichs all the time when Im writing the reviews I do. Overall Ive probably put more thought into trying to eliminate those instances then anything else. I also used to write exclusively on WordPad; just kind of a habit I got into from my poorer days. Now that Ive switched to Word Ive noticed that it nags me about this all the time. Whenever I have a "that" it suggests "which," and visa-versa.

 

[The Judge]

I once (briefly) belonged to a critique group where all of the other members viewed the word "which" as a word that a writer should seek to avoid.

Oooh. I wouldn't have lasted two minutes in that group. I love "which"! I even -- fellow grammarians avert your eyes -- have sentences beginning with it eg "Which was when I decided to join the circus" which my grammar checker gets very het up about.

Their contention was that almost any place you might use the word "which" you could substitute "that" and it would be better ... I don't remember why. It is true, by the way, that you really can make that substitution most of the time without altering the meaning of the sentence one bit, and it may in some of these instances (our grammar mavens should be able to tell us) even be more grammatically correct.

It's odd since I've always been led to believe that "which" was more formal than "that", but from my trusty dictionary:

The general rule is that, in restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described, which can replace that. However, in non-restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves only to give additional information, that cannot be used: this book, which is set in the last century, is very popular with teenagers but not this book, that is set... In US English it is usually recommended that which be used only for non-restrctive relative clauses.

Since -- I imagine -- your critique group was American, Teresa, it seems they were following standard American grammatical practice.

Incidentally, for those who like to see chapter and verse:

The word that can be omitted in standard English where it introduces a subordinate clause, as in she said (that) she was satisfied. It can also be dropped in a relative clause where the subject of the subordinate clause is not the same as the subject of the main clause, as in the book (that) I've just written ('the book' and 'I' are two different subjects). Where the subject of the subordinate clause and the main clause are the same, the use of the word that is obligatory, as in the woman that owns the place ('the woman' is the subject of both clauses).

Though personally I'd have said the woman who owns the place, it maintains in standard English** "that" is interchangeable with "who" in this context since it's been used for human and non-human references since at least the 11th century.

** presumably different from formal English, though.

 

[Mouse]

Now my brain hurts! Maybe I'll just stick to worrying about the 'thens' for now, though I've only really looked at the ones starting sentences, and even then I've left a couple in. I don't think I'll worry about looking for 'whichs' although I admit, I have changed them to 'that' a couple of times when the grammar checker told me to!

 

[Ursa major]

I think I'll stick to ducking whichs when I can...



*cough*



...but although my thats outnumber my whichs 14.75 to 1 in WIP1, doesn't mean they're absent (or even that rare).

(Thankfully, many/most of those still present are of the form "in which", "that one over there", etc.)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

It occurs to me that even in my "which-hunting" phase I did use the word in chapter titles:

Which the Sensitive reader may wish to Omit, but Ought to be read, nevertheless.

In which Our hitherto Resourceful hero finds his Powers severely Taxed.

And so forth.

But that was in a particular book where it seemed to be required.

 

[J Riff]

It's one thing to watch for. It's like ' It's. "
It's easy to use 'it's' to start sentences. And it's then that there's the issue of ' it's '....also.

 

[Mouse]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread of mine but I'm having trouble with 'then' again. Not starting a sentence with 'then' I'm over that. This time, having them half-way through a sentence. Sort of... list like, I suppose.

Examples from my WiP:

She tapped her chin with the remote, then changed the channel again.

She spat toothpaste into the sink and then froze.

Ambrose rubbed his temples, glared briefly at Mercer, then flopped back onto the bed and folded his arms across his naked chest.

She peered down the lane, looked up at the light, then turned and carried on her way, walking just a little faster.

He straightened his clothes, fussed with his hair briefly, then headed down the stairs.

There are many more.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I'm not anti then but here are your sentences without it:

She tapped her chin with the remote, pointed it at the TV and changed the channel again

She spat toothpaste into the sink and froze.

Ambrose rubbed his temples, glared briefly at Mercer and flopped back onto the bed with his arms folded across his naked chest.

She peered down the lane, looked up at the light, turned and carried on her way, walking just a little faster

He straightened his clothes, fussed with his hair briefly, and headed down the stairs.

 

[Hex]

I can't bear the word 'then' ('and then' makes me bang my head on the desk). This... difficulty of mine leads to all sorts of horrible sentences with no connecty bits.

Actually, though, I don't have a problem with any of your sentence above, so perhaps I'm getting over it.

Although the toothpaste one I might (given my little problem with and/then)write as:

'She spat toothpaste into the sink, glanced up, and froze.'

 

[Mouse]

The trouble with 'and' instead of 'then,' I think, is that it sounds like it's happening at the same time. So to me it would sound like she'd froze as she was spitting the toothpaste out, which is a weird mental image for me.

Adding the 'glanced up' in there does solve that problem though.

Gah! I dunno. Too much procrastinating.

 

[Hex]

I thought all your examples worked fine, and in some of them (though it hurts me to say it) the 'then' was absolutely necessary and ... *cough* *mumble* added to the sentence.

I liked it here especially:

"She tapped her chin with the remote, then changed the channel again."

 

[Mouse]

Ta. Maybe that was a bad example because I don't mind that one myself! The one I dislike it in the most is the last one: 'then headed down the stairs.'

I kinda like Anya's version but would like to avoid 'and.'

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I agree they worked, but seeing then in a sentence wouldn't concern me. I think in each case it improves the description. Pulling it out would either rely on the commas to carry the movement order or a lot of extra movement.

 

[Mouse]

I guess so. Maybe I'm worrying about nothing. I'm trying to see if I can spot them in the books I'm reading at the mo and haven't seen any yet (or they haven't stood out to me!) I feel like I shouldn't be doing it.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I opened my favourite book (Mist Over Pendle by Robert Neill) to page 33 randomly and found:

She looked at them idly, then with a little interest and at last searchingly; she began to feel a compulsion to look at it -- almost its compulsion.

page 34:
She hestitated, and then decided for the truth again.

It was first published in 1951, but you know I still read it several times a year and never get tired of it. As you can tell from the first he isn't shy about -ly adverbs either.