Definitions for then-and-now
then-and-now

WiktionaryRate this definition:2.8 / 4 votes

1. then-and-nowadjective

   before-and-after

ChatGPTRate this definition:0.0 / 0 votes

1. then-and-now

   Then-and-now refers to a comparison between a previous time period or situation (the "then") and the present time or current situation (the "now"). It involves examining the changes, developments, or differences that have occurred over time and highlighting the contrasts between the two periods. This comparison can be applied to various aspects such as society, technology, fashion, culture, or personal experiences, providing insights into the evolution and progress that has taken place.

Anagrams for then-and-now »

1. now and then

How to pronounce then-and-now?

1. Alex

   US English

   David

   US English

   Mark

   US English

   Daniel

   British

   Libby

   British

   Mia

   British

   Karen

   Australian

   Hayley

   Australian

   Natasha

   Australian

   Veena

   Indian

   Priya

   Indian

   Neerja

   Indian

   Zira

   US English

   Oliver

   British

   Wendy

   British

   Fred

   US English

   Tessa

   South African

How to say then-and-now in sign language?

Numerology

1. Chaldean Numerology

   The numerical value of then-and-now in Chaldean Numerology is: 2

2. Pythagorean Numerology

   The numerical value of then-and-now in Pythagorean Numerology is: 1

Examples of then-and-now in a Sentence

1. RAS CARDO REGGAE:

   my reggae teaches the history of our people. it speaks about slavery then and now. how many americans know about the-1811 slave revolt? slavery built america. when I speak of reparation for slaves as black people this is something that should never be denied. why are the current politicians having a problem with reparation? why is there no slave monument in america? my reggae asks the questions!!

2. Sig Hansen:

   We were in the dark and then we had to rely on each other, you know, which was a really different -- and it kind of brought me back to the good old days because we did do a lot more communicating back then and now it's to each his own, and so it's been different.

3. Clay Peterson:

   Right before COVID hit, we were all in the school and it was some trial to go to the Olympic trials, and we had the whole school watching on this tiny little TV and we all went crazy, that was just then and now she’s in the Olympics, and then won gold, like, that’s … it’s insane. It’s hard to grasp for anybody here.

4. Clarence Thomas:

   , } The woman, we all know, was Anita Hill. And I was there as her story unfolded. Twenty-seven years ago, on Yom Kippur eve, I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in my role as President of the Women's Legal Defense Fund, which became National Partnership for Women Families for Women Families. I was joined by wonderful colleagues, including Professor Patricia King of Georgetown University and Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center. At the time I testified that Judge Clarence Thomas appeared to lack a demonstrated commitment to equal justice. I stated that Judge Clarence Thomas record cast grave doubt on Judge Clarence Thomas commitment to affirm and support fundamental principles of equal employment opportunity, the constitutional protections against gender discrimination and reproductive freedom. Judge Clarence Thomas record had shown an extensive pattern of disregard of principles of fundamental importance to women and Women Families. The ugly double standard over Kavanaughs so-called youthRead MoreOf course, the parallels between then and now are unmistakable. Shortly after my testimony, Hill's story was leaked to the press, and Anita Hill was asked to testify before the Senate. What happened next continues to be one of the most disgraceful episodes in our country's modern history. Anita Hill came before the Senate and was greeted by an all-male panel, led by Republicans who sought to prosecute Anita Hill, while Democrats, at best, remained neutral fact-finders. This phony trial resulted in a gross imbalance of power and meant that no one defended Anita Hill and no one prosecuted Judge Clarence Thomas. What was on trial was not the fitness of Judge Clarence Thomas to be the next Supreme Court justice but instead Hill's moral character and reputation as a woman. Immediately after the hearing, it was branded as a.

5. Clay Peterson:

   That was just then and now she’s in the Olympics, and then won gold, like, that’s … it’s insane. It’s hard to grasp for anybody here.