1

What is the difference between following sentences?

  1. I opened the envelope and found five hundred dollars.
  2. After I opened the envelope, I found five hundred dollars.

(Is there significant difference when using And & After ?)

Improve this question

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

For me, using "and" gives a much stronger sense of causality: I found the $500 because I opened the envelope (so the money must have been inside it).

The version with "after" can also mean that, and probably does mean that by default, but it doesn't feel as if it must mean that; I could still say "After I opened the envelope, I found $500" if I had just spotted the money under the coffee table.

Improve this answer
0

I think in this case both constructs refer to an action that took place immediately after opening the envelope, so there is not much difference between them.

Improve this answer
1
  • Not to me. They are implicitly different. The 2nd construction doesn't directly relate the money to the envelope, they could have been 2 separate events, linked only by the order they happened, not one being causal to the other. See Hellion's answer.
    – DoneWithThis.
    Nov 7, 2014 at 12:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .