在未 。。。之前

[imron]

31 minutes ago, realmayo said:

about whether it's wrong to ever split an infinitive in English

I guess we know what side of the argument you stand on

[Publius]

@realmayoCalligraphy is an interesting topic. Do you know the Chinese and the Japanese use different stroke orders when writing certain characters?

For example, in Japanese, the first two strokes of 左 and 右 are different. Can you believe it? http://jisho.org/search/%23kanji 左右

[Daniel Tsui44]

The earliest example I now find of  “未……之前” is “夫礼禁未然之前，法施已然之后” in 《史记》. But I don't think this is the same thing we're talking here.

People would take it for granted that "前","后" mean "before", "after" crime happening. But it isn't. Let me explain. 

1. There is not another example of "未……之前" or "未..前" that can be taken or mistaken as "before something happens" in 《史记》. When needed, it always uses "未……时".

2. "未……之前" is logically wrong. There is no period before something that doesn't happen or exist.

3. 《康熙字典》：“之，又于也。《朱传》犹于也”. "夫礼禁未然于前，法施已然于后" make perfect sense. 礼在法前，法在礼后。先礼而后兵也。

I believe the mistake is taken from here by wrong translation. If you can find an example before this. Please let me know.

[Tulee]

Hey guys, OP here.

I wouldn't have normally posted a random phrase i didn't understand, i only ask in this case since i found it in the introduction of the book 香港法概论 （第三版）

in which it was describing the common law background of HK. It is a little upsetting to me though that this has caused such debate, as the book is top class, and the author is clearly extremely well educated, who wouldn't use bad grammar on purpose (the editors for a law related book at i believe HKU would never let anything slip by them)

[skylee]

I am quite happy with 未...之前. I am less comfortable with 非... without 不可.

[Publius]

@Daniel Tsui44so you found an earlier text, which turned out to be likely a typo. Big story.

What relevance does it bear to our current discussion, I cannot see.

Sandwiching your opinion between two factual statements does not make it a fact.

You keep saying 未……之前 is logically wrong, because you are using the wrong logic system.

There is a period (前) defined by "something has not yet happened" (未然), and there is a period (後) defined by "something has already happened" (已然). This is how the ancients saw it -- in a imperfect/perfect aspect contrast, rather than a past/present/future tense sequence. Quite logical to me.

 

@Kenny同志I agree that there is often a better way to say things in Chinese.

If there is a better way to do it, then do it -- because it is better, not because some made-up rule says so.

And every writer has their right to decide which way is the better way.

Rejecting the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition, Winston Churchill allegedly quipped, "This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put."

 

@Tuleeno worries, it is good grammar. And quite common in legal documents. The 無罪推定原則(presumption of innocence) is often phrased that way.

And debate is fine. How can you practice law if debate upsets you.


 

 

[Kenny同志]

Quote

Rejecting the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition, Winston Churchill allegedly quipped, "This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put."

 

Quote

because it is better, not because some made-up rule says so.

You don't have to quote Winston Churchill against me. I didn't make up any rule. I simply stated and proved that in many cases, it was possible to improve the sentence by removing either 未 or 之前 without changing what it intends to say. 

 

I am still not convinced by all that you have said and I am sure I cannot convince you either, so let's keep it that way. 

 

The major reason for this disagreement might be that it is your view that once an expression becomes widely used, whether it is flawed or not, we should accept it while I think we should insist on using correct expressions.

 

Anyway, as an example, 落筆之前，打好腹稿 and 在未落筆之前，打好腹稿 do not mean the same thing to me. A lot of people might be fine with 在未落筆之前, just like they are with 討厭 (in the sense of hate or dislike) and 雙刃劍, but I am not.

 

Edit:

 

The difference between 之前 and 在未……之前 might be more noticeable below:

         1. 你死（之）前還有什麼話要說？

         2. 你在未死之前還有什麼話要說?

The first sentence is a common line that we could find in a wuxia drama.

        

 

 

[Daniel Tsui44]

14 hours ago, Publius said:

There is a period (前) defined by "something has not yet happened" (未然),

1. I think you're trying to mix up "未" and "尚未", "not" and "not yet". For "尚未", "not yet", it implies that you have faith that the thing will happen or is about to happen, it's just matter of time.

2. "未……之先", "未……之初" is different from "未……之前". "先","初" means "at the beginning time", not "before".

On 2017/2/15 at 9:55 PM, Publius said:

子春忍愧而往，得錢一千萬。未受之初，憤發，以為從此謀身治生，石季倫、猗頓小 豎耳。錢既入手，心又翻然，縱適之情，又卻如故。不一二年間，貧過舊日。——唐傳奇《杜子春》/宋・《太平廣記》(878)

 

 

 

 

"未受之初" is "At the beginning time when he didn't get the money."

On 2017/2/15 at 9:55 PM, Publius said:

蕭何能知之於未用之先，而卒不能保其非叛，方且借信以為自保矣。——南宋・陳亮《陈亮集》(1143-1194)

At the beginning time, Xiaohe can know his ability before his usage, but at the end, he cannot ...

3. This is a good explaintion. You mean that the "前" is used as a noun that means a period(时) rather than "before". but "前" as a noun only used in direction. That's why Classical Chinese use "初","先" instead.

14 hours ago, Publius said:

There is a period (前) defined by "something has not yet happened" (未然), and there is a period (後) defined by "something has already happened" (已然). This is how the ancients saw it -- in a imperfect/perfect aspect contrast, rather than a past/present/future tense sequence. Quite logical to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 hours ago, Publius said:

And debate is fine.

We have agreement on this. LOL.

[Publius]

5 hours ago, Kenny同志 said:

The difference between 之前 and 在未……之前 might be more noticeable below:

         1. 你死（之）前還有什麼話要說？

         2. 你在未死之前還有什麼話要說?

The first sentence is a common line that we could find in a wuxia drama.

That is precisely my point. That 未……之前 is different from ……之前. That It has its own use, for example, in the 無罪推定 case. Not all occurrences are because people aren't thinking clearly. And it's very subjective to judge what is better. For example, you say 燦爛 cannot be used as a verb. I say it's intentional and is fine.

 

Another point I want to expand. I think in earlier times, the 未……之先/既(已)……之後 pair was independent of the 之前/之後 pair. But unfortunately two things happened: 之先 was replaced by 之前, and 既/已 stopped being used. So the two got conflated into one. Yes, I admit 在未……之前 is flawed. But not broken. Plus, trying to fix language is always a Quixotic quest. Time is better spent elsewhere.

[Publius]

5 hours ago, Daniel Tsui44 said:

but "前" as a noun only used in direction. That's why Classical Chinese use "初","先" instead.

Direction on the time axis is also direction. And in Chinese the direction words can be used both as an arrow, and as a reference to an area. For example, 天安門前.

And I believe at least at some point in history, 先/初/前 were interchangeable in the sense of "at a prior time", or we wouldn't have phrases like 先前 (my high school teacher's favorite tool is 互訓, like 解放：解就是放，放就是解).

 

I said it's unfortunate that 之先 was replaced by 之前 (see my reply to Kenny above). Because 之前 was already being used in a way similar to the English preposition "before". But language is random and unpredictable.

You seem to suggest that 未用之先 is alright but 未用之前 is not, because the meaning is different in today's usage. But you have no problem with, say, 既用之後 vs 用了之後? They should be different words, right? according to your theory. But for some reason we only have one. 後 is also a word for direction, remember?

 

EDIT: I don't like the point-by-point rebuttal format. That's too debate-y. Can we use less quotes?

 

EDIT: I just noticed, in the phrase 用了之後, 用了 is perfect in term of aspect, not entirely in line with English grammar (which uses a mixed tense-aspect system).

The opposite, 沒用之前, is it okay with you? Yeah I know 之前/之後 is often redundant. But, say, you're writing a jingle for a product, the music requires a longer sentence. Is it so wrong to say 沒用之前……用了之後……?

[Kenny同志]

1 hour ago, Publius said:

7 hours ago, Kenny同志 said:

The difference between 之前 and 在未……之前 might be more noticeable below:

         1. 你死（之）前還有什麼話要說？

         2. 你在未死之前還有什麼話要說?

The first sentence is a common line that we could find in a wuxia drama.

That is precisely my point. That 未……之前 is different from ……之前. 

 

ThinkPanda said:

Quote

 

在判罪之前

在未判罪之前

 

both correct

 

they mean the same thing 

 

I am sorry I mistook you for someone else. 

 

Quote

That It has its own use, for example, in the 無罪推定 case.

Quote

That doesn't mean I must agree 未 should be removed from 在未判罪之前.

If I maintain that ‘在未判罪之前' is wrong and confusing, you would not agree.  Anyway, at least I for one do not see any significant difference between the meaning of 未經判罪，應視其無罪 and what 在未判罪之前，應視其無罪 intends to say.

 

Quote

 

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
    二、凡受刑事控告者，在未依法证实有罪之前，应有权被视为无罪。

When it comes to the use of 在未……之前 these two documents seem quite consistent. I chose them not only because they are important documents that have been translated into many languages, but also because I believe the wording of these documents must be precise, being worked out carefully by a bunch of legal experts and professional translators (rather than a bunch of armchair grammarians).

The ICCPR text is concise. Let’s see if we can “correct the mistake” by removing 未 or 之前. Firstly, removing 未 is out of the question. Same reason as laid out in Example a) above. Can we remove 之前 then? No. “……者，未依法證實有罪，應有權被視為無罪” is simply not good Chinese. Even if you throw in a 經, “未經依法證實有罪，應有權被視為無罪” is still wrong. Because in the original text, “until proved guilty according to law / 在未依法证实有罪之前” is a temporal clause, while 未經依法證實有罪 is a conditional clause. The difference may be trivial to some people, but I believe it’s unacceptable to experts.

 

I would not go so far as to say '未經依法證實有罪，應有權被視作無罪' is wrong for the translation of the English text. Basically they say the same thing. If I get really nitpicking, I could say ’在未依法證實有罪之前' is wrong, too, not because it includes '在未……之前' (let's assume it is correct) but because it does not follow the sentence pattern of the English. 

 

To be 'accurate', we probably must translate this clause as follows:

凡被控以刑事罪者，皆有權被假定無罪，直至被依法證實有罪為止。

This translation is fine. But to me, it is just a different way of saying 凡被控以刑事罪者，未經依法被證有罪，皆有權被假定無罪。

 

Quote

For example, you say 燦爛 cannot be used as a verb. I say it's intentional and is fine.

I didn't say that. What I said was that I assumed what 零落ed were flowers and if so it would be wrong to use 璀璨.

 

Quote

Plus, trying to fix language is always a Quixotic quest. Time is better spent elsewhere.

Yes, I agree. But as a professional translator, it is my job to stick to good and correct Chinese. The other reason why I am so pedantic about such things is that being Chinese, I feel obliged to protect our language from being further corrupted by communistic Chinese, Anglicised Chinese, and ugly Internet expressions.

[Daniel Tsui44]

《史记》宋微子世家第八：先，襄公夫人欲通于公子鲍，不可，……

《史记》周本记第四：初，管、蔡畔周，周公讨之，……

While, I don't see we can use "前" here. 

"先前" is a modern usage, it is like "开始", "法律". Two characters with close meaning to make a new word.

Compare "……已经发生……，之后……。"  with "……未……，之前……", you can find the difference.

 

[Publius]

29 minutes ago, Kenny同志 said:

I feel obliged to protect our language from being further corrupted by communistic Chinese, Anglicised Chinese, and ugly Internet expressions.

That is laudable.

We may have differences regarding a particular usage, but we are not bad people.

So, let's keep it that way. Cheers.

[Kenny同志]

Thanks Publius.

 

Although our views on the expression may still differ, we have contributed some interesting content to chinese-forums.com through this discussion, or debate if you wish. : )

[Publius]

1 hour ago, Daniel Tsui44 said:

《史记》宋微子世家第八：先，襄公夫人欲通于公子鲍，不可，……

《史记》周本记第四：初，管、蔡畔周，周公讨之，……

While, I don't see we can use "前" here. 

"先前" is a modern usage, it is like "开始", "法律". Two characters with close meaning to make a new word.

The language of 漢 is quite different from even 唐宋's. Otherwise there wouldn't be a 古文運動.

I said "at some point in history" because I couldn't say when. I based my opinion on the observation of how 之先 was replaced by 之前 in later texts.

 

Two-syllable "modern" words did not appear from nowhere. The change in language is gradual. It's only natural to assume that these words existed in the spoken language long before they were recorded on paper, which is quite rare, given the long history of diglossia 言文分離. The elements of a two-syllable word might or might not be interchangeable depending on context. I was just suggesting in our case they might -- at some point.