English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

On Wiktionary we read that 'hereafter' has as plural 'hereafters', but OALD says that this plural form doesn't exist. Which is wrong: Wiktionary or OALD?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Jasper Loy, Kris, aedia λ, Mitch, simchona Apr 23 '12 at 6:24

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

@Jasper Loy - Hmm... 'simply' seems excessively simplicistic in this case, but I hope in eventual answers to clarify my question. – Elberich Schneider Apr 22 '12 at 23:21
With no context whatsoever but the question 'Which is wrong, Wiktionary or X?', the almost always correct answer would be 'not Wiktionary'. In this case however, sure, 'the hereafter', like 'the future' is not a mass noun (one only normally thinks of there only being one of them), so one might in some scifi novel refer to 'one of many hereafters'. Dictionaries aren't always consistently comprehensive spelling out every possible legally suffixed version. – Mitch Apr 23 '12 at 0:52
@JasperLoy: I agree with you. That said, I think I know where his doubt comes from. If you go to OALD and type in hats it will return the entry for hat. Same thing happens for driveways, highways, angels, demons, emus, roosters, and hens. But, when you search for hereafters, instead of sending you to the entry for hereafter, it goes to a page with reads: Sorry, no search result for hereafters. Curious indeed. – J.R. Apr 23 '12 at 1:04
@J.R. - yes, you have perfectly understood where my doubt comes from. – Elberich Schneider Apr 23 '12 at 7:21
@AngloSaxon: I think you might have more success asking questions here if you construct them more carefully. There's a chance – perhaps – had you presented your original question more like my comment, instead of leaving it to the rest of the community to figure out this vital information, others would not have been so quick to close it. I'll point to this as a good example where the O.P. did a great job of framing a question so that the rest of the community could think and answer, instead of performing all the preliminary research. – J.R. Apr 23 '12 at 8:49

From the Oxford English Dictionary, under the noun entry for hereafter:

1689 W. Sherlock Pract. Disc. Death (1731) iii. §6. 143 The Reason‥will serve for all hereafters, but will never serve for any Time present.

Evidently, it's a word. Not a widely used word, mind you, but a word nonetheless.

Also, from a Google Book search (under The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, Volume 4):

enter image description here

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.