Following vs. After

[John]

In editing articles, I repeatedly come across sentences usually by the
same author who writes this way: "Following the Divine Liturgy, a
banquet was held in the church hall" or "Following vespers, a lecture
was presented". Always "Following" - never just "After".

I usually replace "Following" with "After" since "Following" jumps out
at me as unnecessarily verbose or even absurdly pretentious.

But sometimes I wonder if "Following" sounds more impressive to the
masses.

Thoughts?

[Purl Gurl]

Post by John
In editing articles, I repeatedly come across sentences usually by the
same author who writes this way: "Following the Divine Liturgy, a
banquet was held in the church hall" or "Following vespers, a lecture
was presented". Always "Following" - never just "After".
I usually replace "Following" with "After" since "Following" jumps out
at me as unnecessarily verbose or even absurdly pretentious.
But sometimes I wonder if "Following" sounds more impressive to the
masses.

Bless you, my son.

For your context, use of "following" enjoys a subtle context.

Your following is a smooth transition from an event into
another event. Use of following in your examples indicates
your liturgy and your banquet are one event; there is no
separation between the two events.

Use of "after" signals a subtle termination between events;
an event completely ends, then another event begins. This
creates a context of some remoteness between events.

Observe.

Following this sentence I will make a smooth transition
into a new sentence. I have found making a smooth transition
between sentences involves mentioning a topic or words of
a previous sentence.

After this sentence is terminated there will be a new sentence
lacking a smooth transition. I have learned a paragraph is
composed of two or more sentences.

Reading those two example sentences you can note my first
example does flow smoothly between sentences. My second
example does have some flow, but there is clear termination
of the first of two sentences.

Imagine. A liturgy begins to wind down and people begin
to anticipate a banquet. At liturgy close, people know
to move into a dining hall for a feast, and they do.
This is a "following" smooth transition.

Imagine again. A liturgy comes to an end. People know
there will be a banquet and know to wait until this
banquet is announced and escorts become apparent.
This is an "after" transition.

Purl Gurl

[Robert Lieblich]

Post by Purl Gurl

Post by John
In editing articles, I repeatedly come across sentences usually by the
same author who writes this way: "Following the Divine Liturgy, a
banquet was held in the church hall" or "Following vespers, a lecture
was presented". Always "Following" - never just "After".
I usually replace "Following" with "After" since "Following" jumps out
at me as unnecessarily verbose or even absurdly pretentious.
But sometimes I wonder if "Following" sounds more impressive to the
masses.

Bless you, my son.

I didn't detect a sneeze.

Post by Purl Gurl
For your context, use of "following" enjoys a subtle context.

And the rest is nonsense -- as is, for that matter, what I quoted.

Really, Kira, you ought to include warning signs in your posts on
usage like the one I briefly used for a sig a year or so ago. It
would save me a lot of effort.

[ ... ]

[cybercypher]

Post by John
In editing articles, I repeatedly come across sentences usually by
the same author who writes this way: "Following the Divine
Liturgy, a banquet was held in the church hall" or "Following
vespers, a lecture was presented". Always "Following" - never just
"After".
I usually replace "Following" with "After" since "Following" jumps
out at me as unnecessarily verbose or even absurdly pretentious.
But sometimes I wonder if "Following" sounds more impressive to
the masses.
Thoughts?

I get that all the time in medical articles, mostly in constructions
like this:

"The mice were injected with LPS (50 cc/kg) followed by TNF-alpha (10
cc/kg."

I always change such stuff to something like this:

"We injected the mice with LPS (...) and then with TNF-alpha (...)."

I also see "Following the LPS challenge, the mice were injected with
TNF-alpha (...)."

It's standard fare for medical writers here in Taiwan.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally
shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007;
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee

[Mark Brader]

Post by John
In editing articles, I repeatedly come across sentences usually by the
same author who writes this way: "Following the Divine Liturgy, a
banquet was held in the church hall" or "Following vespers, a lecture
was presented". Always "Following" - never just "After".
I usually replace "Following" with "After" since "Following" jumps out
at me as unnecessarily verbose or even absurdly pretentious.

Well, it is a bit that way, but it's also more precise. "After" can
mean immediately after, or any time after. "Following" is always
immediately after.

[cybercypher]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by John
In editing articles, I repeatedly come across sentences usually
by the same author who writes this way: "Following the Divine
Liturgy, a banquet was held in the church hall" or "Following
vespers, a lecture was presented". Always "Following" - never
just "After".
I usually replace "Following" with "After" since "Following"
jumps out at me as unnecessarily verbose or even absurdly
pretentious.

Well, it is a bit that way, but it's also more precise. "After"
can mean immediately after, or any time after. "Following" is
always immediately after.

I don't know where you get that false idea. Oh, sure, in the OP's
example it more than likely means "immediately after" because the two
activities presented more than likely occured in one day, but that's
not always true, especially in basic science literature, where, e.g.,
incubation overnight is followed (sometime afterward) by
immunohistochemical analysis or whatnot, often with several washings
and other treatments in between.

"Following" is no more or less precise than "after":

[quote W3NID]
Main Entry:3following
Function:preposition
Etymology:1following

: subsequent to : after in time *following the lecture the meeting
was open to discussion*

Main Entry:2after
Function:preposition

3 a (1) : later than a particular time or period of time : following
the expiration of *20 minutes after 4* *at a quarter after 8* *it's
half after 6* *events occurring after 1940* *after three days*
*condition of roads after the snow storm* (2) : immediately following
but not necessarily including the day, period, or date of event named
*thirty days after April 1* *two months after July* *ten days after
sight of a draft* b (1) : subsequent to and in consequence of *after
what you have told me, I'll be careful* *net income after taxes* (2)
: subsequent to and notwithstanding *even after the policeman's
warning, the driver continued to speed*
[/quote]

And the sentence provided by W3NID is stylistically poor to boot:
"The lecture after the meeting was open to discussion" is much
better, as is even "The lecture that followed the meeting was open
to discussion".
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally
shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007;
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee

[Skitt]

Post by cybercypher

Post by Mark Brader

Post by John
In editing articles, I repeatedly come across sentences usually
by the same author who writes this way: "Following the Divine
Liturgy, a banquet was held in the church hall" or "Following
vespers, a lecture was presented". Always "Following" - never
just "After".
I usually replace "Following" with "After" since "Following"
jumps out at me as unnecessarily verbose or even absurdly
pretentious.

Well, it is a bit that way, but it's also more precise. "After"
can mean immediately after, or any time after. "Following" is
always immediately after.

I don't know where you get that false idea. Oh, sure, in the OP's
example it more than likely means "immediately after" because the two
activities presented more than likely occured in one day, but that's
not always true, especially in basic science literature, where, e.g.,
incubation overnight is followed (sometime afterward) by
immunohistochemical analysis or whatnot, often with several washings
and other treatments in between.
[quote W3NID]
Main Entry:3following
Function:preposition
Etymology:1following

Post by Mark Brader
subsequent to : after in time *following the lecture the meeting was
open to discussion*

Main Entry:2after
Function:preposition
3 a (1) : later than a particular time or period of time : following
the expiration of *20 minutes after 4* *at a quarter after 8* *it's
half after 6* *events occurring after 1940* *after three days*
*condition of roads after the snow storm* (2) : immediately following
but not necessarily including the day, period, or date of event named
*thirty days after April 1* *two months after July* *ten days after
sight of a draft* b (1) : subsequent to and in consequence of *after
what you have told me, I'll be careful* *net income after taxes* (2)

Post by Mark Brader
subsequent to and notwithstanding *even after the policeman's

warning, the driver continued to speed*
[/quote]
"The lecture after the meeting was open to discussion" is much
better, as is even "The lecture that followed the meeting was open
to discussion".

No, no, no -- the meeting included the lecture and a subsequent discussion.
Your two sentences suggest that the meeting was over before the discussion
took place.

[cybercypher]

Post by Skitt

Post by cybercypher

Post by Mark Brader

Post by John
In editing articles, I repeatedly come across sentences usually
by the same author who writes this way: "Following the Divine
Liturgy, a banquet was held in the church hall" or "Following
vespers, a lecture was presented". Always "Following" - never
just "After".
I usually replace "Following" with "After" since "Following"
jumps out at me as unnecessarily verbose or even absurdly
pretentious.

Well, it is a bit that way, but it's also more precise. "After"
can mean immediately after, or any time after. "Following" is
always immediately after.

I don't know where you get that false idea. Oh, sure, in the OP's
example it more than likely means "immediately after" because the
two activities presented more than likely occured in one day, but
that's not always true, especially in basic science literature,
where, e.g., incubation overnight is followed (sometime
afterward) by immunohistochemical analysis or whatnot, often with
several washings and other treatments in between.
[quote W3NID]
Main Entry:3following
Function:preposition
Etymology:1following

Post by Mark Brader
subsequent to : after in time *following the lecture the meeting
was open to discussion*

[...]

Post by Skitt

Post by cybercypher
"The lecture after the meeting was open to discussion" is much
better, as is even "The lecture that followed the meeting was
open to discussion".

No, no, no -- the meeting included the lecture and a subsequent
discussion. Your two sentences suggest that the meeting was over
before the discussion took place.

Oh, you're right. I'm sorry for that piss-poor proofreading. I got
"meeting" and "lecture" in the wrong order. It might be that the
meeting included the lecture -- and is probably what is implied --
but there's no guarantee that that's what happened.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally
shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007;
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee

[Prai Jei]

John (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message

Post by John
In editing articles, I repeatedly come across sentences usually by the
same author who writes this way: "Following the Divine Liturgy, a
banquet was held in the church hall" or "Following vespers, a lecture
was presented". Always "Following" - never just "After".
I usually replace "Following" with "After" since "Following" jumps out
at me as unnecessarily verbose or even absurdly pretentious.
But sometimes I wonder if "Following" sounds more impressive to the
masses.

Divine Liturgy is not necessarily a mass, Vespers definitely isn't. But
there's no reason not to say "following" with these offices also. :)

Seriously folks (what on a.u.e.?!), "following" suggests immediately after,
nd is therefore a stronger intro than "after" which is not specific about
the time interval in between.

[Donna Richoux]

Post by John
In editing articles, I repeatedly come across sentences usually by the
same author who writes this way: "Following the Divine Liturgy, a
banquet was held in the church hall" or "Following vespers, a lecture
was presented". Always "Following" - never just "After".
I usually replace "Following" with "After" since "Following" jumps out
at me as unnecessarily verbose or even absurdly pretentious.
But sometimes I wonder if "Following" sounds more impressive to the
masses.
Thoughts?

If one is writing of Divine Liturgies and banquets, is one not allowed
to sound pretentious and impressive? It's hardly "After the goings-on,
they grabbed some grub."