在未 。。。之前

[Publius]

This looks more worrying.

[Kenny同志]

In fact, '未' or '之前' can be removed in many cases, e.g.

 

人在未判罪之前，應視其無罪。

vs

人未經判罪，應視其無罪。

 

鋼筆在未被發明之前，中國人用毛筆寫字。

vs

鋼筆問世之前，中國人用毛筆寫字。

 

花在未開之前便已零落。

vs

花（還）未開，便已零落。

 

 

 

 

 

[lips]

开始离题了。。。。。。

[imron]

2 hours ago, Publius said:

This looks more worrying

Glad to see this exact thread at the number 1 position in the search results.

 

I have to say, I'm personally more concerned about the 。。。 instead of …

[lips]

You're right, in Chinese it should be …… (not 。。。。。。 or ...).

 

My bad.

 

[imron]

I was referring to the thread title, not your post!

[Publius]

@Kenny同志 Yeah I see your point. Though I'm still not convinced it can solve all the problems, I'm beginning to think maybe I was wrong.

 

Meanwhile, Laowai-men, be warned, USE AT YOUR OWN PERIL!

[imron]

What about the Laowai-women and children?

[Publius]

I don't know... There shouldn't be a hyphen? Never learned how to write pinyin properly...

[imron]

Don't worry, it was just a silly joke :-)

[Publius]

Alright, I have reached a conclusion after much deliberation: There is nothing wrong with 在未……之前. It is the correct usage and serves an irreplaceable function. It has its roots in the ancient language and has been used by great intellects. Any arbitrary rule against it is misguided.

 

I’ll try and explain in detail how I reached that conclusion.

 

Let’s first start with establishing two facts:
    1) 在未……之前 and 在……之前 are not semantically equivalent;
    2) 在未……之前 and 在未……時 are not semantically equivalent.
This should be obvious. Because otherwise there wouldn’t be an “or” in the proposed solution by the opponents of 在未……之前: namely, to remove 未 or 之前.

 

The guys who came up with this solution must be aware that you cannot always remove 未 from a sentence, because of 1); and you cannot always remove 之前 from a sentence either, because of 2). Hence the awkward two-pronged attack.

Easy to demonstrate through examples (all taken from Google search “在未*之前”):
a) 在未判罪之前，刑事訴訟必須保障疑犯免受監禁、逼供之苦、享有緘默及不自證其罪(或稱自我指控)的權利…… (Hong Kong Human Rights Commission's document)
Obviously, if you omit 未, this ill-formed sentence
*在判罪之前，刑事訴訟必須保障疑犯免受監禁、逼供之苦……
would end up implying that in criminal cases, conviction is but a matter of time.

(This should also answer @Tulee the OP’s question concerning “the reason for 未 in the sentence at all”)

b) 在未燦爛之前就已凋零 (title of online fiction)
The 未 in this sentence is a key word, therefore cannot be removed.
*在燦爛之前就已凋零 is wrong on so many levels I’ll leave it to those who have better math skills than me.
未燦爛就已凋零 This could have worked, if the rhythm were not off by, let me see, 1, 2, 3 syllables, thus turning poetry into rap.

c) 在未遇见你之前，我不愿将就 (random essay)
The essay is sloppy nonsense (你 means Mr. Right) but the sentence is interesting.
Try removing 之前:
*在未遇見你時，我不願將就——哦，一遇見我你就願意將就了。
Try removing 未:
*在遇見你之前，我不願將就——哦，遇見我之後你就願意將就了。
Either way, you’re willing to 將就 once you meet your Mr. Right, which doesn’t seem right to me.

d) 爱在未死之前 (fan fiction title)
This one, no matter how I wrack my brains, just can’t seem to work:
*爱在死之前
*愛在死前
*愛在未死時
*愛在未死
*愛死不死
BRAINS! BRAINS! BRAINS!

 

We’ve investigated a few cases where one of the two words (未 and 之前) may not be readily removable. Let me confine myself to saying that what seems to be a genius solution does not work well with titles. Next step. What about the possibility of both words being unremovable? What about legal documents? Good questions. Let’s examine two UN documents, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, Chinese version here), and The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, Chinese version here).

 

    UDHR, Article 11.
    (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
    ㈠ 凡受刑事控告者，在未经获得辩护上所需的一切保证的公开审判而依法证实有罪以前，有权被视为无罪。

 

    ICCPR, PART III, Article 14
    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.

The UDHR text is much wordier. Parsing it is difficult even for a native speaker. Whether 未or 之前 can be eliminated safely, you be the judge.

 

==========我是華麗的分隔線==========

When I was scouring the internet, lost in the labyrinth of semanticity, a thought hit me. Why does 在未……之前 even exist in the first place? Where did it come from? (Okay, that’s two thoughts.) After wracking some more brains, I seemed to have found an answer: 未……之前 is the direct descendant of the Classical Chinese phrase 未……之先 (variant 未……之初).

 

Examples abound.

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)

 

或曰：「蓋古之人於材有以教育成就之，而子獨言其求而用之者，何也？」曰：「天下法度未立之先，必先索天下之材而用之；如能用天下之材，則能復先王之法度。能復先王之法度，則天下之小事無不如先王時矣，況教育成就人材之大者乎？此吾所以獨言求而用之之道也。」 ——北宋・王安石《材論》(1021-1086)

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)

苟遇知己，不能扶危為未亂之先，而乃捐軀殞命於既敗之後；釣名沽譽，眩世駭俗，由君子觀之，皆所不取也。——明・方孝孺《豫讓論》(1357-1402)

明哲則中心無所惑，而灼有所見於善惡未分之初；定靜則外物不能動，而確有所守於是非初分之際。—— 明・邱濬《大學衍義補》(1421-1495)

 

物不幸而為人所畜，食人之食，死人之事。償之以死亦足矣，奈何未死之先，又加若是之慘刑乎？ ——清・李漁《閒情偶寄》 (1611-1679)

古人未立法之先，不知古人法何法；古人既立法 之後，便不容今人出古法。千百年來，遂使今人 不能一出頭地也。師古人之跡，而不師古人之 心，宜其不能一出頭地也，冤哉！——清・石濤(1642-1707)
【I love this one particularly. If anyone thinks this is a mistake, I challenge him to correct it!】

 

古人文章似不经意，而未落笔之先必经营惨澹。——清・吳德旋《初月樓古文緒論》(1767-1840)

『你去把野獸帶來，做成美味給我吃，我好在未死之先，在耶和華面前給你祝福。』——《聖經》創世記 27:7 現代標點和合本
『你去為我打些獵物回來，給我預備美味的食物，讓我吃了，在我未死以前可以在耶和華面前給你祝福。』——新譯本

【This is becoming interesting. I didn't expect to find a direct proof to support my claim that 之前 evolved from 之先.  Now we've entered the Baihuawen (Written Vernacular Chinese) era.】

 

未出殯之前，有人來說，他有一穴好地，葬下去可以包我做到總長。我說，我也看過一些堪輿書，但不曾見那部書上有「總長」二字，還是請他留下那塊好地自己用罷。——胡適《我對於喪禮的改革》(1918?)

 

第一，未講之先，提出一個標準來，——標準就是“為什么？”——“女子不為后嗣”。——胡適《女子問題》(1921)

 

你的病未好之前，《新青年》決不要你做文章，你就是做來，我決不登出，請你勿怪。 ——陳獨秀力勸胡適戒煙的信札(1920?)

「下等人」還未暴發之先，自然大抵有許多「他媽的」在嘴上，但一遇機會，偶竊一位，略識幾字，便即文雅起來：雅號也有了；身分也高了；家譜也修了，還要尋一個始祖，不是名儒便是名臣。——魯迅《論「他媽的！」》(1925)

 

當還未做鬼之前，有時先不欺心的人們，遙想著將來，就又不能不想在整塊的公理中，來尋一點情面的末屑，這時候，我們的活無常先生便見得可親愛了，利中取大，害中取小，我們的古哲墨瞿先生謂之「小取」云。——魯迅《無常》(1926)

然而文藝據說至少有一部分是超出於階級鬥爭之外的，為將來的，就是「第三種人」所抱住的真的，永久的文藝。——但可惜，被左翼理論家弄得不敢作了，因為作家在未作之前，就有了被罵的豫感。——魯迅《論第三種人》(1932)

 

林佩珊佯嗔地睃了她表哥一眼，就往小客厅那方向走。但在未到之前，小客厅的门开了，张素素轻手轻脚踅出来，后面是一个看护妇，将她手里的白瓷方盘对伺候客厅的当差一扬，说了一个字：“水！”接着，那看护妇又缩了进去，小客厅的门依然关上。——茅盾《子夜》(1933)

 

在我以先，母亲生过两个哥哥，都是一生下就夭折了，我的底下，还死去一个妹妹。我的大弟弟，比我小六岁。在大弟弟未生之前，我在家里是个独子。——冰心《我的童年》(1942)

在这里我可以奉劝诸位有志于写作的青年，切不要着急的将自己的作品在未成熟之前就发表，要多读书，而且要多读世界名著。——老舍《創作經驗談》(1944)

 

在我們未老之前，看過了過多由於那些先前若干世紀老年人為一個長長的民族歷史所困苦，融合了向墳墓鑽去的道教與佛教的隱遁避世感情而寫成的種種書籍，比回憶還更容易使你未老先衰。——沈從文《廢郵存底》(1975?)

And a poem by 殷夫《在死神未到之前》(1927)

 

I deliberately chose some famous names, especially the Baihuawen writers, whose works are what the grammar of Modern Standard Mandarin is based on. To say they are wrong is preposterous. (Incidentally, pre = before, post = after, preposterous = in reverse order 本末倒置)

 

Then one has to ask, why somehow it feels wrong and illogical. The answer is, because Chinese is not English.

 

==========我是華麗的分隔線==========

There is one small fact that we all learned at one point or another but is too often forgotten. In Chinese, words donating directions, i.e. 前, 後, 上, 下, 左, 右, are nouns. They are not prepositions (or postpositions for that matter). Some coverb phrases such as 在……之前 functions as a circumposition. But at the core is still a noun. And when it comes to Classical Chinese, you better abandon the concept of preposition altogether.

 

The correct way to analyze 未動之先 is as a noun phrase. 先 is the head word. 未動 is a verbal phrase that modifies 先 through the use of particle 之. If on the time axis, the event 動 is at (0), then 先 is (-∞ →0) and 後 is (0→∞). 未動 describe the state of 先. 既動 describe the state of 後. 先, what 先? 未動之先. 後, what 後? 既動之後. This is how Classical Chinese works.

The noun phrase 未動之先 can be used adverbially to mean 'during the time when the event hadn't happened' => 'before the event happened'. Or it can be used as a noun, for example, in the phrase 於未動之先 where 未動之先 is the object of the verb 於.

 

Unfortunately 之先 fell out of use during Lu Xun's time and was replaced by 之前, and with the widespread use of 在……之前 it looks increasingly like a adpositional phrase. But it still retains some classical characteristics. For example, you can't use 的 to replace 之, right? It's a fixed expression. When you want to say "before V" you use 在未V之前. There may be stylistic variations, but 在未……之前, contrary to some people's belief, is actually THE correct way to say it.

 

You feel it's wrong because you're using European grammar to analyze Classical Chinese, is what I'm saying.

 

 

Last but not least is the philosophical argument. Yes, many such sentences containing 在未……之前 can be rewritten.

But just because you can doesn't mean you should. (Man, I love this construction, so pithy yet not strictly speaking grammatical.)

To use two or more patterns to replace one perfectly fine and commonly used pattern, why? Because a few laowai learning Chinese couldn't wrap their head around it? With due respect, that's not a valid reason. It's confusing. Confusing to whom? Everybody knows what it means. It's illogical. Natural language IS messy and illogical. If it weren't so illogical, we would've long been ruled by machines and with half the forum members without a job.

 

So, I hereby revoke my previous admonition.

The new advice would be:

Laowaimen, 在未……之前

USE IT DON'T ABUSE IT!

 

==========

EDIT: Out of curiosity, I dug around the Four Great Classical Novels:

 

《水滸傳》(Water Margin)
No occurrences of 之先/之前.

 

《三國演義》(Romance of the Three Kingdoms)
Two occurrences of 之前 preceded by a verbal phrase, both in the negative. No 之先 found.
（第二十三回）嵩回見表，稱頌朝廷盛德，勸表遣子入侍。表大怒曰：「汝懷二心耶！」欲斬之。嵩大叫曰：「將軍負嵩，嵩不負將軍！」蒯良曰：「嵩未去之前，先有此言矣。」劉表遂赦之。
（第二十八回）正行間，忽見周倉引數十人帶傷而來。關公引他見了玄德。問其何故受傷，倉曰：「某未至臥牛山之前，先有一將單騎而來，與裴元紹交鋒，只一合，刺死裴元紹，盡數招降人伴，占住山寨。……」

 

《西遊記》(Journey to the West)
Tow occurrences of 之前 preceded by a verbal phrase, both in the negative. No 之先 found.
（第十一回）十王聞言，伏禮道：「自那龍未生之前，南斗星死簿上已註定該遭殺於人曹之手，我等早已知之。但只是他在此折辨，定要陛下來此，三曹對案。是我等將他送入輪藏，轉生去了。今又有勞陛下降臨，望乞恕我催促之罪。」
（第十二回）
靈通本諱號金蟬，只為無心聽佛講。
轉托塵凡苦受磨，降生世俗遭羅網。
投胎落地就逢兇，未出之前臨惡黨。
父是海州陳狀元，外公總管當朝長。
 

《紅樓夢》(Dream of the Red Chamber)
Five occurrences of 之先 preceded by a verbal phrase, four in the negative. The non-negative case is a stative verb.
（第18回）那寶玉未入學堂之先，三四歲時，已得賈妃手引口傳，教授了幾本書、數千字在腹內了。
（第38回）黛玉道：「據我看來，頭一句好的是『圃冷斜陽憶舊遊』，這句背面傅粉。「拋書人對一枝秋』已經妙絕，將供菊說完，沒處再說，故翻回來想到未折未供之先，意思深透。」(This is clearly a noun)
（第65回）興兒道：「……又還有一段因果：我們家的規矩，凡爺們大了，未娶親之先，都先放兩個人服侍的。二爺原有兩個，誰知她來了沒半年，都尋出不是來，都打發出去了。……」
（第98回）寶玉一到，想起未病之先，來到這裏，今日屋在人亡，不禁嚎啕大哭。
（第55回）每於夜間針線暇時，臨寢之先，坐了小轎，帶領園中上夜人等，各處巡察一次。
Two occurrences of 之前 used "correctly" in one paragraph not written by Cao.
（第120回）士隱道：「非也。這一段奇緣，我先知之。昔年我與先生在仁清巷舊宅門口敘話之前，我已會過他一面。」雨村驚訝道：「京城離貴鄉甚遠，何以能見？」士隱道：「神交久矣。」雨村道：「既然如此，現今寶玉的下落，仙長定能知之。」士隱道：「寶玉，即『寶玉』也。那年榮、寧查抄之前，釵、黛分離之日，此玉早已離世。……」

 

More complicated than I thought. But I am still of the opinion that traditionally 之先/之前 requires a stative verb (not doing something is a state), and the modern/western-style usage is a late comer. If anything is wrong, it is not the former.

 

Edited February 18, 2017 at 08:17 PM by Publius

[roddy]

That's impressive. There's a few problems with links in there - I can fix them, but let me know that you're not still editing it or I might overwrite your changes...

[Publius]

ok, roddy you go. thanks

[roddy]

Fixed - I'm not sure what was going on there, might have been something to do with how and where you were copying links. If you notice it happening again drop me a pm and we'll take a closer look. Actually hang on...

 

test

 

No, that's fine. Ok, let me know if you have any more problems. 

 

[Kenny同志]

Quote

在未判罪之前，刑事訴訟必須保障疑犯免受監禁、逼供之苦、

How about 判決之前，必須保障罪嫌免受監禁、逼供之苦? 
*I don’t think it is appropriate to use 判罪 even in the original sentence.

 

Quote

在未燦爛之前就已凋零

How about 未及綻放，就已凋零? 
*I assume what 凋零ed were flowers? If so, I don’t think 璀璨 can be used here.

 

Quote

在未遇见你之前，我不愿将就

How about 沒遇見妳，我不願將就?

 

Quote

爱在未死之前

I don’t think there is anything wrong with 愛在未死時.

 

Chinese is not so rigid as a language.
 

[Publius]

@Kenny同志 see my last argument

 

[realmayo]

This topic reminds me a bit of discussions about whether it's wrong to ever split an infinitive in English. Personally I think it's fine. But I know lots of smart people don't. And if I was writing for someone who might judge a split infinitive as evidence of carelessness or ignorance, I'd avoid it.

[Publius]

2 minutes ago, realmayo said:

This topic reminds me a bit of discussions about whether it's wrong to ever split an infinitive in English.

Yes, I was also thinking of Douglas Adam's humorous sentence "And all dared to brave unknown terrors, to do mighty deeds, to boldly split infinitives that no man had split before--and thus was the Empire forged."

[Kenny同志]

Your point is taken. What I am trying to say is that there is often a better way to say things in Chinese.

 

I understand that in any language if a flawed expression is used widely enough, it becomes correct and accepted. For example, correctly speaking we can only say 此人討厭 and it would be wrong to say 我討厭妳 because 討厭 is an intransitive verb which means 招人嫌惡. But today so many people (in fact everyone) use 討厭 to mean hate or dislike that the word is even defined this way in dictionaries.

 

Edit: Just to add that I have no problem even with 愛在我死之前. Also consider 愛在有生之年.

 

我們的語文已經一代不如一代.

[realmayo]

Although this seems to clash with an impression I've got when people have discussed calligraphy:

 

- Yes, everyone tends to write this way, but this way is WRONG

- It was written like that by certain famous calligraphers so that way must be RIGHT

 

 

As for the discussion in this topic, it's way above my pay grade and making my brain hurt but: perhaps those people who liked to say 在未死之先 might have had grounds for being annoyed with people who started replacing the 先 with a 前?