We’ll have “nun” of that, thank you.
djm
I pick emmline.* She has that nunly aura about her. Together we will combat this wayward Pope and his waywarder ways.
*I hope she doesn’t mind, but if she does, I pick her anyway.
I was asked to intervene here, but I’m so baffled by this “then” and “than” thing that I hardly know how to respond. Are we saying that it is commonplace for Americans to use “then” and “than” interchangably? I have never noted such a thing, except as an occasional typo.
“Could of” and “would of” ought to be looked upon with some charity, particularly in informal writing. Don’t you think? It’s just a little mental processing slip when we fall victim to the use of “could’ve” and “would’ve” in popular speech.
I sense a certain level of ennui amonst the participants in this thread. That is, the natives seem restless.
oops, I just saw Dale’s post after I had submitted my last one and, not to be condescending or a copycat but I was going to originally mention that as well…that is I haven’t noticed people mixing up then and than either. Granted we don’t speak the king’s english and there does seem to be a growing compliance to mediocrity in many areas of education but as far as then and than go I think we’re cool. Maybe you’re mixing that up with our interchanging of for and fur…fur example… 
As far as walmart goes though alot of the prices are cheaper and I try to look for those items. Some of the prices are not as cheap as the big chain stores like safeway will have if they are on sale that week. Safeway also has alot fresher produce. So I’ll go to both places usually. …I live in between 2 walmarts. One is in a pretty affluent area where alot of silicon valley high-tech companies have either re-located or have campuses. In the other direction is the edge of one of California’s poorest counties based on per-capita income. What’s the difference between the 2 walmarts? The more affluent area genearally has cheaper prices than the poorer area’s. The other difference: In the poorer area people throw their trash, fast food bags etc. in the parking lot. You will rarely see that in the more affluent area’s parking lot.
No, it is my contention that using them interchangably is not standard usage, despite Cranberry’s pronouncement to the contrary.
I’ll concede the point in speech, as it is very difficult to distinguish a spoken could’ve from a spoken could of. But using could of (or would of, will of, or should of) in any writing, even informal, is inexcusable and displays a fundamental disregard for basic verb structure.
But all things considered, I doubt that you were called in simply as a grammar arbiter, knowledgeable though you may be in matters grammatical.
Oh, puh-lease! Its “could-a” and “would-a”. 
Dale was called in to arbitrate
as he is a poet,
His feet show it,
They’re Longfellows.
I have just recently bought a very expensive American textbook where it appears someone programmed their spell checker to remove every instance of “than”. For both use cases only the word “then” appears. I see this in US newspapers and magazines quite often, as well. My impression was the same as Cberry’s, that Americans considered the two words interchangeable.
djm
I hate to burst your bubble, but if you were to sneak a peek at the writing of the young Canadians I teach, you’d see the same type of errors. I’m not going to blame the American influence for this. Instead, I point at the increasingly sloppy speaking habits of large numbers of the masses.
“He goes…”
“She’s, like”
Nucular
could of
If they speak that way, they’ll write that way. One of the best cures is to correct the speech, assuming you pick your moments wisely. I have the advantage of teaching students who are learning English as a second language, so we’ve got somewhat of a clean slate to work with. 
Jef
my pet peeve
I love you anyway, M
Mary
I have lived in a trailer park 
Try a google search on “grammar usage then than,” and see what comes up. I’ll tell you what comes up – an entire page of grammar and usage sources, all of which distinguish between then and than. I’m not inclined to go digging any deeper; if you find a single reputable usage source that accepts them as interchangeable, please let me know. I stress reputable, not “Joe Critter’s Guide to Usin’ English.”
As for your textbook – obviously, it was not edited by Carol. And newspaper usage – People like Theodore Bernstein and John Bremner are no doubt spinning in their graves like cheap rotisseries.
Merely because the navvies and untutored have embraced a mis-usage does not of itself validate it.
Regarding the former, I disagree. It is, of course, in correct usage. But it doesn’t show a fundamental disregard for basic verb structure. It can often be an error that comes from a a cognitive glitch, not disregard of usage. I make errors of usage out of ignorance, but just as often I make errors which I readily catch on re-read. I don’t know if I’ve even made the “could of” error, but it wouldn’t surprise me, even though I know it’s incorrect. That’s why all good published writers have editors.
I think I’m pretty decent at grammar, but certainly no expert.
And, no, I wasn’t called in to be a grammar arbiter.
I’m not saying that, I don’t know most Americans. But the Americans I know, who speak a dialect known as Appalachian English ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_English ), do use the two interchangably (they’re pronounced the same) and we don’t all live in trailer courts and we are not “slack-jawed mumblers.” That’s culturally insensitive and just plain wrong. That’s what I’m saying.
When you say something like
(emphasis added)
You are just implying that speakers of my dialect are stupid, low in class, and full-on stereotypes, and you are being insensitive (I think “xenophobic” sounds better and fits more accurately).
I don’t know though…some of those triple-wides are butch.
But you did say that, asserting all the authority of a self-styled grammar maven.
You state that as though it were fact, when in fact, it is not. It’s speculation based on your own limited experience. (Recognize this?) And regardless of whether you grew up with it, it’s still not standard English, and you shouldn’t try to pass it off as such.
Fine, but you still don’t have to accuse people of being ignorant, slack-jawed mumblers who live in trailer courts and work behind the counter at Taco Bell.
That’s xenophobic, Love.
I’m a speaker of “Appalachian English” and I’ve never heard" then "and “than” used interchangably or pronounced the same
. And I lived part of my childhood in WVA and have relatives there still. They don’t speak them the same either. All speakers of this dialect do not use these words as one and the same.
But, I also know that words can be pronounced very different just a few “hollers” over. That’s probably why Cran’s experience is different when it comes to the use of the words.
Oh and Yaaaaayyy Cran for steppin’ up when that Pope feller started spouting them fightin words. 
Great link to the Appalachian dialect. It’s very intresting.
Yes, there must surely be an underlying air of sophistication that I am missing, as exemplified by the playful badinage displayed in the PM below.
A touch; I do confess a touch. I am cut to the quick by this witty, albeit bowdlerized, repartee.
There’s a reason I sent that message privately. You have no sense or courtesy. It’s not like I ever thought you did anyway. I’m blocking you right now. Goodbye.
Why, Gonzo, dear! How lovely to see you! Welcome! Welcome to the club!
I see you found your way here expediently enough. Tell me, do you like the new “Harvard” facade? Very calming, don’t you think?
Please make yourself comfortable! Just push that large dictionary out of your way . . .
. . . and, no, then and than are not interchangeable, nor are could/would have and could/would of. Or alot and a lot. Regardless of what you think you hear when people speak, the written form of that speech is still written . . . correctly.
Only for literary purposes can we dispense with correct writing, as in archie and mehitabel or when we are writing using “local color.”
As much as we may dislike it, we project an image of ourselves when we write. If it is important to us to write illiterately so that we can then accuse others of discriminating against us because we are in solidarity with the uneducated, then we should accept that we will one day find ourselves jobless. Which, in the case of some, appears to be what we want to begin with.
I usually prefer to go to our local chain for stuff but the past several times they’ve been out of the thing I needed. I get tired of having to then go over to Wal-Mart to get it. I’ve given up on them for anything except food and even then their meat is terrible.