Language evolves, but every now and then, it devolves. I mean, English is confusing enough as it is, so why do we insist on making it even more baffling?

Case in point: the growing tendency to use after at the end of a sentence. A buddy tells me, “I got in the car, and I went to the store after,” I’m left holding my breath.

And?

After what?

Where’s the word you’re modifying? Go on. Spit it out. I’m waiting.

But my buddy isn’t saying anything more, because apparently, he thinks “after” is the last word. It’s like a TV cliffhanger that never gets resolved because the show got canceled.

I keep holding my breath until I turn blue, finally exhaling when I realize he’s referring to the first part of the sentence: He went to the store after he got in the car. Oh. OK. Why couldn’t he have just said that?

Acceptable, but not preferable

More people lately seem to be using the word “after” this way, at the end of the sentence. According to the experts, it’s acceptable. But that doesn’t mean it’s right. Most people who hear “after” at the end of the sentence are left hanging, expecting something more. It’s one of the most infuriating trends in modern speech — especially since there’s a perfectly good alternative: afterward. If you see that word, it completes the speaker’s thought without any ambiguity. You know it refers back to the first part of the sentence.

(Some people use “afterwards,” as if creating some sort of faux plural gives the word more oomph. Trust me, it doesn’t.)

If you think “afterward” sounds too formal or antiquated, you can also clarify things by adding a word that explicitly refers back to the beginning of the sentence: “after that.” It’s more conversational, and it’s perfectly fine.

So, why not use one of these two options? Why insist on using “after”? Probably for the same reason we say “fab” instead of “fabulous,” or “info” instead of “information.” We’re too lazy utter an extra syllable or two. I get that. As long as most people know what you mean, I’ve got nothing against that. Everyone knows “limo” is short for “limousine” — even if not everyone can afford one. And so many people use “memo” now, a lot of them probably don’t even know it’s short for memorandum.

Clarity disparity

The problem with using “after” at the end of a sentence is that it’s not clear whether you’re planning to say something more, or whether you’re just referring back to the beginning of the sentence. Even if I’m reading and see a period at the end of the sentence, it’s still weird, because I recite the words in my head, so it sounds to my inner ear as though something’s wrong. When I see the period, it feels like I’ve been cruising along on the freeway at 70 mph and crashed headlong into a stalled-out truck in front of me that I didn’t see until the last minute.

Oopsie.

But don’t we often use “before” at the end of a thought or sentence? “I’ve never been here before” or “I didn’t know that before.” There’s no ambiguity there, though, because it always modifies the same unspoken word: “now.” I’ve never been here before now. I didn’t know that before now. That’s not the case with “after,” which seldom, if ever, modifies an implicit “now.”

Grammarians insist it’s acceptable to use “after” at the end of a phrase or sentence. But it’s also lazy and confusing, so please stop saying that!

The goal is to communicate clearly, after.

Sorry. I meant to write “after all.”