Than vs. Then How to Choose the Right Word

Because the words than and then sound alike, they are sometimes confused. Although they  were once used interchangeably—indeed centuries ago their spellings and pronunciations frequently interchanged—now there is a clear difference between them. Use than to make a comparison; use then to place events in time or things in order. How to Use Than The function word than is used to indicate a point of difference or comparison, as in: Shes taller than you are. Than usually follows a comparative  form,  but it can also follow words such as other  and  rather. The grandmasters of style, William Strunk and E.B. White, in their book, The Elements of Style, say that you should carefully examine any sentence with than to ensure that no essential words are missing. For example, if you say, Im probably closer to my mother than my father, this is an ambiguous sentence, say Strunk and White. Its unclear in this comparison if the speaker is closer to her mother than she is to her father or whether she is closer to her mother than her father is. To use than correctly, the writer could instead say, Im probably closer to my mother than I am to my father or Im probably closer to my mother than my father is. This makes the comparison clear in each case. How to Use Then The adverb then means at that time, in that case, or next, as in: He laughed and then he cried. This use of then orders events in terms of time. A similar use of then when placing events in order might be, I first went to the store, and then I got gas. Merriam-Webster notes that you can also use then to denote a previous time: Back  then, children played outside a lot more often. This means that in a previous era, children spent less time indoors. You can also use then to order items, as in: I first counted the bills and then counted the change. Or, Finish your homework, and then you can watch TV. Examples When trying to determine whether you should use than or then, remember that than makes a comparison, whereas then involves ordering events or items. Take the sentence: The quiz was harder than I had expected. In this case, you are making an implied comparison; the test was more difficult than your previous expectations of the test. By contrast, if you say: I answered two questions and then got stuck. You are ordering events; you first answered two questions and then (subsequently), you were stumped. George Orwell, in his classic book Animal Farm, shows how you can use both then and than in the same sentence: Snowball was racing across the long pasture that led to the road. He was running as only a pig can run, but the dogs were close on his heels. Suddenly he slipped and it seemed certain that they had him.  Then he was up again, running faster  than ever, then the dogs were gaining on him again. In the final sentence in this passage, the first use of then orders events, noting that Snowball, the pig, slipped and then was up again. The sentence then makes a comparison using the word than: Snowball was running faster than he ran before. Then the sentence again orders events: Snowball was running faster (than ever), but the dogs were then (subsequently) gaining on him. How to Remember the Difference The character Judge Daniel Phelan speaking to Detective Jimmy McNulty in the episode â€Å"One Arrest in the television show, The Wire, explained how to tell the difference between then and than in an impromptu grammar lesson: Look here, Jimmy. You misspelled culpable. And you’re confusing then and than. T-h-e-n is an adverb used to divide and measure time. Detective McNulty makes a mess, and then he has to clean it up. Not to be confused with t-h-a-n, which is most commonly used after a comparative adjective or adverb, as in: Rhonda is smarter than Jimmy. Additionally, both than and comparison have the letter a in them, and then and time both contain the letter e. Or you can remember that than is a comparative adjective or adverb, and both have the letter a, as in: This is bigger than that. By contrast, then and extra both have the letter e. When you are ordering a list or events, you are adding something extra to the previous item, as in: He did this, then he did that, and then he did this other thing. Sources Associated Press Stylebook, The. Basic Books, 2018.How to Use Then and Than | Ask The Editor | Learners Dictionary.Strunk, William, and E. B. White.  The Elements of Style. Allyn and Bacon, 2000.Then’ Versus ‘Than.  Quick and Dirty Tips, Grammar Girl, 27 Oct. 2017.

Love and Marriage Between Wickham and Lydia - 721 Words

Love and marriage between Wickham and Lydia Pride and Prejudice is the most successful and popular novel written by Jane Austen. It revolves around the intricacies of courtship and marriage between members of social classes, which, in this case, is her own class – the middle class. In Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen describes many different loves and marriages. Whereby, she can express her viewpoint that one’s character often reflects his or her marriage and attitudes towards love. In this essay, I want to focus and analyse the sex-oriented marriage between a dissolute Wickham and an empty-minded Lydia. Wickham first appears as a very charming fellow. As an officer in the regiment stationed at Meryton, Wickham is quickly judged to be a†¦show more content†¦Lydia is the youngest of the Bennet’s sisters. She is gossip, immature, and self-involved. She is also the favorite of her mother because the two have such similar characters. Mrs. Bennet’s affection has brought her into public at an early age; therefore, makes her become a stout, well-grown girl of fifteen. She has high animal spirits, and a sort of natural self-consequence, which the attentions of the officials, toShow MoreRelatedEssay on Pride and Prejudice1080 Words   |  5 PagesRough Draft 4. Compare and Contrast Elizabeth, Jane, and Lydia. Which one do you think will have the happiest marriage? Why? The concept of love is developed and endured throughout an healthy relationship in Jane Austen’s novel, Pride and Prejudice. She successfully incorporates different examples of marriage in nineteenth century and distinguishes the perfect marriage from the hopeless marriage. The definition of authentic love is caring for someone unconditionally. It means putting someoneRead MoreJane Austen s Pride And Prejudice1533 Words   |  7 PagesIn today s society, marriage is a significant bond that must be on the basis of love and understanding. Marriage is a relationship described as more for love and emotion rather than convenience or money. Through the experience of Lydia and Wickham, Charlotte and Collins, and Elizabeth and Darcy, Austen criticizes marriages based on infatuation, convenience and money, and emphasizes that marriage can only be successful if they are founded on mutual love. In the novel Pride and Prejudice, AustenRead More Pride and Prejudice Essay817 Words   |  4 Pages Throughout Jane Austen’s novels she suggests marriages that are for wealth are more common as those for love. This idea is revealed in the course of her novels by the examples of marriages she provides. One example is Willoughby and Miss Sophia Grey in Sense and Sensibility, married not because of love, but because it was the choice that promised financial security. Edward’s sister, Fanny Dashwood, opposed Lucy Steele and Edward Ferrars’ marriage because Edward came from a wealthy past, which LucyRead More Pride And Prejudice: Five Married Couples Essay1116 Words   |  5 Pagescouples. No two are alike. From the pure love which was experienced through Elizabeth and Darcy. To the love and attraction shared by Jane and Bingley. The convenience of marriage was portrayed through Charlotte and Mr Collins while Lydia and Wickham’s marriage was based on their desire, attractions and financial status. Mr and Mrs Bennet’s marriage was for their necessity. Austen reveals many messages through her characters on her major theme, being marriage. Elizabeth and Darcy share common interestsRead MoreJane Austen s Pride And Prejudice1304 Words   |  6 PagesPride and Prejudice, Jane Austen portrays themes of love, class, reputation, and marriage. From the beginning it is seen that the question of marriage is very important to the Bennet family. Upon not marrying, the girls cousin Mr. Collins will inherit Longbourn due to the absence of a male heir. This means that the family will become destitute since they won t have any support or a place to live. The only solution for them would be marriage. During this era, since women had to pay dowry, theyRead MoreAnalysis Of Jane Austen s Pride And Prejudice1313 Words   |  6 Pagesagainst marriage per se. Before feminism, [she] didn’t think [she] had any choice† (qtd. in Hass). Steinem is a strong feminist and advocate for women’s rights; however, she used to believe that when it comes to marriage, women simply had no choice. Similarly, women in nineteenth century England had little power in the decision, as families married off their daughters as quickly as possible and to the wealthiest man who proposed. Women followed the societal norms and did not marry for love, but insteadRead MorePride and Prejudice by Jane Austen Essay899 Words   |  4 PagesPride and Prejudice by Jane Austen From the start of Pride and Prejudice it is clear that marriage is one of the most important aspects of the novel with the famous opening line reading It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in a want of a wife. This opening line tells us about the plot and Mrs. Bennett fills in the gaps in the rest of the first chapter with Mr. Bingley taking on the role of the single richRead MorePride And Prejudice : A Comedy Of Characters1387 Words   |  6 Pagesused to deepen characterization and make clear the intended satire. The distinct differences between characters help to bring out Austen’s subtle satire because the negative qualities of certain characters are more blatant when surrounded by opposing positive qualities in another character. By comparing a fool like Lydia to a wit like Elizabeth, one who feels love like Darcy to one who feels lust like Wickham, and the unfeeling like Mr. and Mrs. Bennet to the feeling like Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner, JaneRead MoreJane Austen s Pride And Prejudice1649 Words   |  7 PagesPride and prejudice, a novel written by Jane Austen is a humorous  story about  love, status, courtship and life among  wealthy english gentlemen and the five daughters of Mr and Mrs Bennet; beautiful Jane,  intelligent Elizabeth, bookish Mary, immature  Kitty and unpleasantly wild Lydia. First publis hed in 1813 by Thomas Egerton of London, The Third-person omniscient, past tense written book is set in the Georgian era, during the Napoleonic Wars ( 1797- 1815) in Longbourn, rural England. It is writtenRead MoreHow Does Austen Present Marriage Within Pride and Predjudice1017 Words   |  5 PagesHow does Austen present marriage in Pride and Prejudice? Throughout ’Pride and Prejudice’ Jane Austen conveys the theme of marriage of being of paramount importance. The first line of ‘Pride and Prejudice’ defines the main themes of Austen’s’ novel, as well as subtly giving the reader an insight of Austen’s views of marriage. Her use of hyperbole ‘That a man in possession of good fortune, must be in want of a wife’ hints at a somewhat mocking and ironic tone on Austen’s part, which indicates to

Essay about the latest speech of ninoy aquino free essay sample

My beloved countrymen, good evening. Over the past few months, a few topics have come to be the focus of public discourse. With the cacophony of discordant voices coming from many different sides, perhaps the subject of the Pork Barrel and DAP has begun to leave you confused. I am asking you for a few minutes of your time in order to bring clarity to these issues. You are all witnesses to the conflict taking place. On one hand, there is you and your government, to whom you gave the mandate for change—a government that has implemented reform for the past three years and five months, pursuing the corrupt and working to alleviate poverty. On the other side, you have the corrupt officials allegedly involved in the Pork Barrel Scam. Might I remind those who have forgotten: The real issue here is stealing. This is the topic they have constantly tried to avoid ever since their wrongdoing was exposed. I can’t help but shake my head, since the first thing I expected was for them to at least deny the accusations. After all, is that not the natural reaction of anyone who is accused of anything? And yet, in the midst of all their extended counter-accusations hurled against me, not once have I heard them say: â€Å"I did not steal. † One would have hoped that out of respect for those who believed in, and voted, for them, these officials would have fulfilled their sworn duties. At the very least one would have expected them to explain how it happened that the beneficiaries of the NGOs they chose to fund was just a list of board passers seemingly culled from newspapers. But how can we take their excuses seriously, when after repeated instances of their giving money to the same NGOs, they had not once bothered to check if the funds they allocated actually reached the intended beneficiaries? This state of affairs is indeed difficult, even impossible, to explain away. And since it is exceedingly difficult to explain, it seems they have taken the advice of an old politician from their camp: If you can’t explain it, muddle it; if you can’t deodorize it, make everyone else stink; if you can’t look good, make everyone look bad. You have heard what they are saying: that we are all the same. My response: We are not the same. I have never stolen. I am not a thief. I am the one who goes after thieves. We appointed people of unquestionable integrity who are fulfilling their sworn duties. Did we not appoint the Commission on Audit leadership that reviewed the documents leading to the discovery of PDAF abuse? And now, can we not expect a fair and just investigation, because the Ombudsman we appointed walks alongside us along the straight path? Let me make it clear: The Disbursement Allocation Program is not pork barrel. Of the DAP releases in 2011 and 2012, only nine percent was disbursed for projects suggested by legislators. The DAP is not theft. Theft is illegal. Spending through DAP is clearly allowed by the Constitution and by other laws. DAP is only a name for a process in which government can spend both savings and new and additional revenues. Where did these funds come from? They came from our efforts to stop the connivance of some in bidding for contracts, in padding costs, overpricing, and kickbacks. They came from the proper spending of our budget. They came from good governance now seen in our GOCCs; just one example of this is the MWSS, an agency once buried in debt, and which now remits dividends to the national government annually. Savings, above-target collections, and new revenues are the results of good governance. And because of DAP, these funds were allocated to projects that were within the proposed budget and that had a clear benefit to the country. How does this mechanism work? Simple. There are some agencies that, for a variety of reasons, are unable to implement their projects right away; on the other hand, there are those that are very efficient in implementing their projects. When projects are stalled, naturally, we will not spend for them. We did not allow these funds to remain dormant. We looked for programs under implementing agencies that had proven themselves to be fast and efficient, and we channeled our savings into these programs—together with the additional revenue of the government. The benefits of these projects reached our countrymen faster and earlier, and we were able to spend the money allocated yearly in our National Budget more prudently and efficiently. You can decide for yourselves: Is this wrong? When has it ever been wrong to look for a constitutional way to serve our countrymen more effectively? DAP funded Project NOAH, which gives accurate and timely warnings during calamities. Also because of DAP, under the Training-for-Work Scholarship Program of TESDA, almost 150,000 Filipinos were able to study, and no less than 90,000 of them are currently employed. DAP also benefited our Air Force and the police. Through DAP, we were able to construct infrastructure in Mindanao and other parts of the country; restore the benefits of DepEd employees by paying their GSIS premiums, which had long been unpaid by the government; and fund many other programs and projects that have a real, tangible benefit to Filipinos. DAP also played an important role in our economic resurgence. According to the World Bank, DAP contributed 1. 3 percentage points to our GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2011. Let us compare: isn’t it true that, when they were still in power, we were called the â€Å"Sick Man of Asia†? Today, we can choose from a number of new labels: Asia’s fastest growing economy, Rising Tiger, Brightest Spark. And let’s include the investment grade status we received from the three most reputable credit ratings agencies in the world. This economic growth—and its positive effects, which have redounded to our countrymen, especially those in the margins of society—this is the product of principled spending, and not of stealing. Money once pocketed by the corrupt is now being used to help our people, particularly the poor. Let me also take this chance to explain the President’s Social Fund. There are times when we will need funds that can be disbursed quickly to meet sudden needs. For example: we needed funds to provide assistance to the families of soldiers and policemen who fell in the line of duty while responding to the threat posed by the MNLF-Misuari Faction in Zamboanga. There were also those who fell in the course of rescue and relief operations in the wake of Typhoon Sendong. The PSF funded these; without it, without calamity or contingency funds, they would have continued to suffer. Because these funds were abused in the past, people are saying that perhaps we will abuse them today—even if no one has accused us of stealing or of using them in the wrong manner. Some propose to remove them completely. Would this be just? If only it were that simple—but what would we then do in case of natural disasters? Even if we were lucky and Congress was in session, it would take at least four months of debate before Congress can approve the funding we need. If you are in Zamboanga, with a child crying from hunger, and government tells you that it cannot help you just yet, it would need to haggle with Congress first—how would you feel? We have the money, and we have the mechanisms that will ensure this money goes where it’s needed most. Would it be right to deprive our countrymen of the care they direly need? I repeat: The issue here is theft. I did not steal. Those who have been accused of stealing are those who are sowing confusion; they want to dismantle all that we have worked so hard to achieve on the straight path. We were stolen from, we were deceived—and now we are the ones being asked to explain? I have pursued truth and justice, and have been dismantling the systems that breed the abuse of power—and yet I am the one now being called the â€Å"Pork Barrel King†? This is what I say to them: If you think that this will stop me from going after you, if you think that you can divert the public’s attention, if you think you can get away with stealing from our countrymen—you have sorely underestimated me and the Filipino people. If there still remains some vestige of kindness in your hearts, I hope that you stop acting in self-interest, and instead act to help your fellowmen. When my father returned home on the twenty-first of August 1983, he had a speech prepared. Filipinos never got to hear it, because he was murdered right on the tarmac. In that speech, he quoted Archibald MacLeish: â€Å"How shall freedom be defended? By truth when it is attacked by lies. † Now that falsehood and deception are threatening the Filipino’s right to a clean and honest government, the truth stands as our most powerful weapon. Tonight, I laid out the truth of what has been happening in our nation. I hope that in the coming days, you will talk about this amongst yourselves—in your families, in the groups you belong to, between friends and colleagues, within your communities—and that you can arrive at an understanding and a resolve that aligns with the truth. My Bosses, we have fought so many battles. And I am grateful that no matter how foul the slander and the sabotage, you never let go, you never gave up. Together we proved that there are no tyrants if there are no slaves. Now, those who have abused our trust want to cast us off the course towards the fulfillment of our collective aspirations. I do not believe that you will let this pass. And so long as you are with me, I will continue to stand for our principles. I have no doubt that, whether or not I am in office, you, our Bosses whose minds and hearts are in the right place, will continue and will finish the fight. This knowledge is the source of my strength and my courage. After all, is it not true that, not too long ago, the system in place was one where the Filipino people had grown tired of dreaming, of fighting back, of doing their part? Today, there are so many of us who are collectively forging the positive and meaningful reforms that are taking place in society. I have every confidence that you will more actively choose to be on the side of what is right, what is truthful, and what is just. This is why I am thankful today, because I know that we will continue our march on the straight path. Thank you very much.

Locke And Rousseau Essays - Philosophy, Political Philosophy

Locke And Rousseau Although their ideologies sometimes clashed, and they came from two distinctly different epochs in the course of political development, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau's fundamental arguments address several similar points. These five main themes which significantly overlap and thus cannot be addressed separately, are the state of nature, the basis for the development of government, the primary intent of government, the state of war, and the ultimate effect of the state on the individual and vice versa. Despite these contradictions in belief, both men proved to be greatly influential in the course of the United States' democratic development. In both Locke's and Rousseau's state of nature, the only agreement they have is that men are born free and equal, with no higher authority with the exception of divine power. Locke adamantly believed that in nature, anarchy and a strong sense of insecurity among the people was prevalent. Rousseau, on the other hand, believed that people are unable to live life to it's fullest in the chaotic state of nature, and no rights are inherent. For Locke, nature was an ideal, a utopia, of sorts, the ultimate goal, while for Rousseau, it was an unnatural and tumultuous ordeal that could neither prevail in theory or practice. If the aforementioned ultimate goal were ever achieved, though, it would not last because it would degenerate into a state of war. Locke and Rousseau's foremost point of agreement is that the people must demonstrate consent in order for a successful government to begin to evolve. Locke maintained that this permission was generally tacit, implied solely by remaining a member of the civil society, or living under a government's rules. Ultimately, the first formation of government is by the consent of all. Rousseau states that consent must be explicit to form a community at first, also presuming that since the lives of people are unable to live their lives to the fullest potential in nature, that forming a community and government is the only logical means by which to form a fulfilling and meaningful life for all. Perhaps the issue over which Rousseau and Locke most fervently disagree is the role of government. Both philosophers establish that government is the ultimate way to ensure justice, morality, liberty, and protect the rights of the citizens, but that is where the similarities in the men's tenets end. Locke took a stance similar to that of modern-day republicans and libertarians. He believed the role of government is to create a perfect equilibrium between protecting the individual's natural rights and as well as maintaining security and protecting the individual's property. Rousseau, on the other hand, adhered to a greater reverence for the establishment of society, and felt that individual rights are subservient to the rights of society as a whole. In a state of nature, he claimed, citizens' rights are nonexistent, for there is no structure to foster them, and moreover, rights are derived from society. They do not occur naturally. He also believed that society must come together to find a general will, or the closest facsimile thereof, for no group of people have or will ever be able to reach a consensus as to what is best for all. Rousseau's general will is really very idealistic, as it is not the sum of individual wills, but rather one for the overall public good. In short, he believed that one must sacrifice natural freedom for civil freedom. Rousseau also held a negative view of human nature, claiming that that historically executives have cared very little about the best interest of their people. He did not believe, though, that an executive is sovereign, but that right lies in the people. Subsequently, Rousseau maintained that every government is subject to change that will inevitably occur when the will of the people changes, or when an executive doesn't follow the general will. Rousseau's aforementioned theory is very similar to the government the United States has today. Oftentimes individual freedoms are conceded for the good of society as a whole. Although each individual in the U.S. today may not agree to agree with the decisions made by our leaders, we are bound to the rules that the sovereign, the people, have created. Locke and Rousseau extensively contradicted each other on the concept of the nature of war, also. Rousseau pragmatically claimed that a state of war can only occur between two or more nations, never among individuals. Locke dissented, asserting that the state of war is simply a revolution against an invasion on sovereignty, be it individual or governmental. Although the