0

From How to appropriately pair tenses in subordinate and main clauses?, one of the answers provides:

歯を磨く前に食べた。

Problem: Is this sentence technically ambigious, in that it could mean: "I ate before I brushed my teeth" OR "I ate before I brush my teeth"? Note that in second interpretation: (i) the brushing of teeth is in the non-past tense, and (ii) it's ambigious whether or not the brushing has happened yet or not.

The general pattern (if my understanding is correct) is

(Non-Past Tense Action A)前に(Past Tense Action B)

could either mean

  1. I did action B before I did action A. The usual/contextual interpretation.

  2. I did action B before I do action A. Also technically acceptable?

Question: While I understand that, in context, interpretation (1) is usually the more reasonable one, technically speaking is interpretation (2) also valid?

NOTE: IMABI's article on 前 provides examples in which interpretation (1) is exclusively chosen. For example:

私は旅行に行く前に、トラベラーズ･チェックを買いました。

I bought traveler's checks before I went on my trip. (Couldn't this also be "before I go on my trip")?

George
  • 2,137
  • 1
  • 13
  • 1
    It seems more irrelevant than ambiguous because the sentence is not meant to say whether A has happened by the time of utterance. – aguijonazo Nov 04 '22 at 23:02
  • Is *I did action B before I do action A* a valid English sentence? Anyway *before* specifies the order A < B, and if B is past, then A is past as well. – sundowner Nov 05 '22 at 01:32
  • 1
    @sundowner Here isn't the situation B < A, and all we know is that B is past (so we can't conclude A is past, necessarily)? – George Nov 05 '22 at 02:06
  • @sundowner The sentence "I did action B before I do action A" definitely isn't an idiomatic English sentence (and possibly invalid). With that said I think it could be converted to one that is valid? Perhaps: *"Having done action B, I now do action A"*. – George Nov 05 '22 at 02:09
  • You are right about the order, but I suppose 前に is not used that way just as *before* isn't. You can't say *I bought a ticket before I go on my trip* to mean *Having bought a ticket, I'm going on my trip*. – sundowner Nov 05 '22 at 02:17
  • @sundowner What would be the equivalent of "Having bought a ticket, I'm going on my trip" in Japanese? Is it: "私は旅行に行っている前に、トラベラーズ･チェックを買いました"? – George Nov 05 '22 at 03:22
  • I think *because* will be used normally. 旅行へ行くのでトラベラーズチェックを買いました。 As aguijonazo's comment says, 旅行へ行く in 旅行へ行く前に is neutral to when that happens, in the past or in future. I suppose this makes you feel it is ambiguous, but my impression is that it defaults to 旅行 happened already (irrelevant in the sense that it should be clear from context). – sundowner Nov 05 '22 at 03:44
  • @aguijonazo If the sentence doesn't say whether A has happened by the time of utterance, then doesn't that mean interpretation (2) is the only correct one? Would you then agree that (e.g.) "私は旅行に行く前に、トラベラーズ･チェックを買いました" being translated as "I bought traveler's checks before I went on my trip" is, strictly speaking, wrong? – George Nov 05 '22 at 16:59
  • 1
    I wouldn't say it's wrong but one might argue it's a case of "added in translation". When you say a sentence like that in Japanese, you are putting yourself at such a point in time where B has completed and A is yet to happen. Hence the past tense for B and the non-past tense for A. It's so natural in the perspective of relative tense. When you translate it to English, however, you need to switch perspectives and speak from the point of the absolute "now". This requires you to determine whether A has already happened by that time or not. If English speakers see it as ambiguity, I guess it is. – aguijonazo Nov 06 '22 at 00:21

1 Answers1

2

I would argue that neither of those interpretations is actually technically the most accurate/direct translation into English, and instead that (non-past action) + 前に actually has basically the same meaning as using the gerund form ("before (verb)ing") in English:

歯を磨く前に食べた -- "I ate before brushing my teeth"

In this sense, I think it is really exactly as precise or ambiguous as this English sentence is. It says that the time you were eating was chosen so that it would be before you brushed your teeth, but does not say anything about when the brushing of the teeth might have happened or happen. The strong implication is that brushing teeth would occur shortly after eating, though, and therefore if you ate some time ago it is assumed that you have already brushed your teeth by now.

Foogod
  • 2,034
  • 5
  • 14