We talk about something occurring beforehand, so why don’t we talk about something happening afterhand? Actually, afterhand goes all the way back to 15th-century English, even though it’s not that commonly used today. This is part of a complete episode.
Transcript of “Why Not “Afterhand”?”
The other day I was talking with a friend about our plans for going to a play, and I was saying, should we have dinner beforehand or…
And then I immediately wanted to say, afterhand.
But we don’t, do we?
We don’t.
But, you know, I looked it up.
I mean, why in the world don’t we say afterhand if we say beforehand?
We would just say afterword?
Yeah, afterward or just after is what I ended up saying.
But it turns out that, of course, if you look in the Oxford English Dictionary, the word afterhand came into English about the same time as beforehand, and it’s a word.
It just didn’t thrive.
Yeah, it didn’t thrive like beforehand.
Isn’t that weird?
It is weird, yeah.
But there’s no law that says or no rule that says English has to be balanced in that way.
Well, goodness knows.
Goodness knows.
What rules are there?
Well, quite a few.
Not this one.
No, but I might just start using afterhand just to be contrary.
That would fit.
That would be you.
That would be me.
