After all apparently has 2 different uses 1:
the first with reference to past events, and the second with reference
to non-past events.
In the first:
It looked like rain would prevent play, but it didn't rain *after all.*
In an alternative universe where the match also went ahead but it did rain:
It looked like rain would prevent play, but the match went ahead *anyway.*
In the second:
I'm going to give up. *After all*, the grapes are probably sour.
I should continue to try to reach the grapes, but, despite that fact and against my best interests, I’m NOT going to continue, because … the grapes are probably sour.
He hurt me, but I still love him. *After all*, he's my dad.
I should break off with my dad because of the way he treated me, but, despite that fact and against my best interests, I’m NOT going to do that, because … he’s my dad.
Faced with a dilemma and forced to choose one of 2 undesirable alternatives, I choose the more undesirable one. Why would I do that? The reason is …
You can add anyway after both sentences in this second
case without changing the meaning.
How is the meaning in the 2 uses of after all the
same?
Something that is expected/predictable for a given reason does/did not happen.
In the first case it is a disjunct and in the second it is a conjunct.
An instance from a liberal law prof
Law students are treated to theory in law school, but they are destined to be dealing with practice after leaving law school.
The practical question, perhaps, is the extent to which law students, who aspire, *after all*, to being practicing lawyers and who therefore must take courts and judges with special seriousness, should be taught _only_ the "law" as enunciated by the courts.
Back to WobblyEnglish