before and in front of

[blacknomi]

Apart from the technicality of whether "in front of" is or is not synonymous with "before", I would like to say that my explanation describes what people mean when they actually use them. I would not at all call such synonymous usage wrong. It's correct. Besides, a sequence is part of space. However, the sequence can exist independently within space, of course.

I'm teaching in a classroom. I am standing in front of a blackboard.

I wouldn't say "before" in the case but I think before is fine.

[Steven D]

I'm teaching in a classroom. I am standing in front of a blackboard.

I wouldn't say "before" in the case but I think before is fine.

Very good point. Now that's a clear distinction between "before" and "in front of". And considering what Casio said, we can see that "before" and "in front of" are not actually synonymous. Still, there are those times when they are used to mean the same thing, and there's nothing wrong with that.

In that case "before" is not "in front of", yes. However, it's still possible to think that the blackboard is located before the students. Most likely no one would say that, but it's possible to think of it that way.

However, if you turn around and see something rather surprising written on the blackboard, you could say, "I couldn't believe what I saw on the blackboard right before my very eyes." And the blackboard would, of course, still be in front of you. You would still be in front of the blackboard as well.

It's this secondary use of "before", as in "speaking before a live audience", that would seem to cause confusion.

[Steven D]

I'm teaching in a classroom. I am standing in front of a blackboard.

I wouldn't say "before" in the case but I think before is fine.

Where are you standing in relation to the class?

[blacknomi]

Very good point. Now that's a clear distinction between "before" and "in front of". And considering what Casio said, we can see that "before" and "in front of" are not actually synonymous. Still, there are those times when they are used to mean the same thing.

In that case "before" is not "in front of", yes. However, it's still possible to think that the blackboard is located before the students. Most likely no one would say that, but it's possible to think of it that way.

However, if you turn around and see something rather surprising written on the blackboard, you could say, "I couldn't believe what I saw on the blackboard right before my very eyes." And the blackboard would, of course, still be in front of you. You would still be in front of the blackboard as well.

It's this secondary use of "before", as in "speaking before a live audience", that would seem to cause confusion.

I would sound like a drama queen if I say, "I couldn't believe what I saw on the blackboard right in front of my very eyes."

[Steven D]

I would sound like a drama queen if I say, "I couldn't believe what I saw on the blackboard right in front of my very eyes."

Yes, if the context didn't permit it. But if the context permitted it, then maybe you wouldn't sound like a drama queen.

Imagine seeing something that isn't just surprising, but shocking.

By the way, "if I said". I wouldn't go for the "mixed condtional" in this case. I think you remember that thread.

[blacknomi]

So, you are saying that the context won't permit?

I said "if I say" because I think likely to happen.

[Steven D]

So, you are saying that the context won't permit?

I said "if I say" because I think likely to happen.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying the context could permit it. It's possible. A second condtional doesn't always mean "not possible". It also means imaginary, of course.


In that case, I would use "will".

"I'll sound like a drama queen if I say that."

If you're likely to say that, then you're likely to sound like a drama queen. Would you say so?

[blacknomi]

In that case, I would use "will".

"I'll sound like a drama queen if I say that."

If you're likely to say that, then you're likely to sound like a drama queen. Would you say so?

Yes, I'd say so. I was thinking about that I wasn't a drama queen so I said I would sound like her.

(Fact) I'm not a drama queen.
(Fact) It's possible to say something's right in front of my very eyes.
-->I would sound like a drama queen if I say so.

Doesn't that make sense?

[Steven D]

Yes, I'd say so. I was thinking about that I wasn't a drama queen so I said I would sound like her.

(Fact) I'm not a drama queen.
(Fact) It's possible to say something's right in front of my very eyes.
-->I would sound like a drama queen if I say so.

Doesn't that make sense?

Here's how I see it.

If you're imagining the idea of saying it, then I think it's best to imagine the idea of sounding like a drama queen as a result of saying it. Therefore, "past and would" and "present and will" in this case.

That's how I see it. I'm not insisting you see it that way as well. Still, I don't think anyone should get too caught up in the idea of mixing conditionals in this way. Of course, I'm referring back to the other discussion/thread on this topic.

I mean, it's not an easy grammar form for some people to learn in the first place. I don't think it's that important to focus on mixing it up in this way. It doesn't happen often. And from a grammatical point of view, I think it's really rather subjective as to whether or not a speaker is justified in doing so in the first place.

- know what I mean?

[blacknomi]

Yes, I do.

One more yes, "will and say".

Thanks, my friend.