After that vs. after which vs. afterwards

Question

A.  You put oil onto the pan.  After that, you place the fish and fry for five minutes.B.  You put oil onto the pan.  After which, you place the fish and fry for five minutes.C.  You put oil onto the pan.  Afterwards, you place the fish and fry for five minutes.1.  Which of the above is correctly used? and most natural?2.  If two or more are possible, what is the difference?3.  Could you please give other example sentences to show their difference?Please help.  I would really appreciate it.

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

A. You put oil into the pan. After that, you place the fish in and fry for five minutes.
B. You put oil into the pan. After which, you place the fish in and fry for five minutes.
C. You put oil into the pan. Afterwards, you place the fish in and fry for five minutes.

1. Which of the above is correctly used? and most natural?-- None, so I have corrected them. All of them are now possible, but none of them are worth 2 sentences. It should read: 'You put oil into the pan, and then place the fish in it and fry for 5 minutes.'

2. If two or more are possible, what is the difference?-- See #1

3. Could you please give other example sentences to show their difference?-- N/A

Anonymous · Answer

Thank you for your helpful answers.

Just a question, why "into" and not "onto", I'm imagining a pan that is flat and placing the fish (on?) it like placing a book on the desk, which is flat as well?

Mister Micawber1. Which of the above is correctly used? and most natural?-- None, so I have corrected them. All of them are now possible, but none of them are worth 2 sentences. It should read: 'You put oil into the pan, and then place the fish in it and fry for 5 minutes.'
2. If two or more are possible, what is the difference?-- See #1

For question #2, does it mean there's no difference between the corrected A, B and C? I don't see the answer in #1.

Anonymous · Answer

Also, if there's no difference between A, B and C, would you say "After that", "After which", and "Afterwards" are always interchangeable?

Mister Micawber · Answer

For question #2, does it mean there's no difference between the corrected A, B and C?-- No difference in meaning. If I had to guess, I would guess that natives most often say A: it's the most conversational.

Also, if there's no difference between A, B and C, would you say "After that", "After which", and "Afterwards" are always interchangeable?-- I would never say any two English words were 'always interchangeable'.

Anonymous · Answer

I see A is the most conversational and no two English words were always interchangeable. Thank you for your explanations.

On a different note, I've noticed something in your two sentences I'd like to ask something about. I hope you don't mind my curiousity.

Mister MicawberIf I had to guess, I would guess that natives most often say A: it's the most conversational.

Mister MicawberI would never say any two English words were 'always interchangeable'.

You used the simple present "say" in the first sentence, but I wonder why the simple past "were" was used in the second sentence. I would normally use the simple present "are" for this sentence. Could you please explain why "were"? How is it different in meaning from "are" in your sentence?

Mister Micawber · Answer

Notice that in the first sentence, 'say' is within a subordinate clause.

Anonymous · Answer

Thank you, Mister M.

Mister MicawberNotice that in the first sentence, 'say' is within a subordinate clause.

I'm not sure if I've understood correctly. "Were" in the second sentence is also within a subordinate clause, ie. I would never say (that) any two English words were 'always interchangeable'

I would normally use the simple present "are" for this sentence, like "say" in the subordinate clause of your first sentence. Am I missing something else which I should note? Please clarify.

If both "were" and "are" were OK in your second sentence, what would be the difference in meaning between them?

Mister Micawber · Answer

If I had to guess, I would guess that natives most often say A: it's the most conversational.
I would never say any two English words were 'always interchangeable'.

Sorry, I was thinking about your questions, but then I forgot. What I meant to suggest is that in the first sentence, 'say' is within a clause within the main clause, which to me suggests that is is more remotely affected by the conditional ('If I had to..., I would'), compared to 'were' in the 2nd sentence, which is part and parcel of the conditional ('I would never say (that)...were'). However, as you say, that may not be relevant; it was just a thought I had.

I would normally use the simple present "are" for this sentence, like "say" in the subordinate clause of your first sentence. Am I missing something else which I should note?-- Both are fine; the dependent 'be' can regress with the main verb or remain in the present if the condition still obtains 'now'. 'Would' is a past form of 'will' in addition to being a conditional form, so that probably affected my choice of 'were'. Also, the fact that you asked whether the 3 adverbials 'are interchangeable' in the previous post, so for me, your sentence was in the 'past'.

If both "were" and "are" were OK in your second sentence, what would be the difference in meaning between them?-- 'Were' probably makes the statement slightly more tentative, but I don't really sense any difference when I say them to myself.

Anonymous · Answer

Thank you, Mister M. I now understand why "were" was used and how it is different from "are" in the sentence in question. I just have some questions below I hope you can help me with. However, they are not really relevant to my original question.

Mister MicawberIf I had to guess, I would guess that natives most often say A: it's the most conversational.
I would ne

Mister MicawberIf I had to guess, I would guess that natives most often say A: it's the most conversational.
I would never say any two English words were 'always interchangeable'.

Sorry, I was thinking about your questions, but then I forgot. What I meant to suggest is that in the first sentence, 'say' is within a clause within the main clause, which to me suggests that is is more remotely affected by the conditional ('If I had to..., I would'), compared to 'were' in the 2nd sentence, which is part and parcel of the conditional ('I would never say (that)...were').

I'm a bit confused about identifying the clauses in the sentences. My understanding is as follows:

First sentence
Main clause: I would guess...
Subordinator: that

Clause within the main clause: natives most often say A: it's the most conversational.

Second sentence
Main clause: I would never say...
Subordinator: (that)
Clause within the main clause: any two English words were 'always interchangeable'.

1. Please confirm the above if correct.
2. If so, both "say" and "were" are in a clause with the main clause. I would say, then, from your explanation that they are remotely affected by the conditional. Please confirm.
3. I wonder why "were" in the second sentence is part and parcel of the conditional and why "say" in the first sentence is not considering that they are both part of a clause within the main clause. Please explain.

Mister Micawber · Answer

[If I had to guess], [I would guess [that natives most often say A: it's the most conversational]].
[I would never say] [any two English words were 'always interchangeable'].

1. Please confirm the above if correct.-- Yes.

2. If so, both "say" and "were" are in a clause with the main clause. I would say, then, from your explanation that they are remotely affected by the conditional. Please confirm.--Yes
3. I wonder why "were" in the second sentence is part and parcel of the conditional and why "say" in the first sentence is not considering that they are both part of a clause within the main clause. -- Because the 'if'-clause is part of the sentence package: see difference in bracketing.

After that vs. after which vs. afterwards

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions