# you only have one hit until you get recertified



## VicNicSor

At a gun range, Terry made seven shots in a row and they all hit center. Holt tells him if he makes eight of ten shots, he'll get recertified, so he tells Terry:
-- *You only have one hit until you get recertified*. So deep breath, huh? Take the final shot.
Brooklyn Nine-Nine, TV series

I'm confused by using "until" here. The sentence as it stands implies that Terry will in any case get recertified, and before this happens he has one hit to make. But the intended meaning is "to get recertified, you have only to make one hit". So, can the latter be really expressed by the OP? Thank you.

edit: expressed by the "OP", not "the former"


----------



## Juhasz

The intended meaning is: to get recertified, you have only to make one *more* hit.  He also probably should have said, "You only have one hit *to go* until you get recertified."  I also agree that _until _is not the ideal preposition.  I would be more comfortable with something like, "You only need one more hit *to* get recertified."  Is _until_ wrong?  I'm not sure.


----------



## Glenfarclas

VicNicSor said:


> expressed by the OP?



Did Holt post that comment on an internet forum? 



VicNicSor said:


> The sentence as it stands implies that Terry will in any case get recertified, and before this happens he has one hit to make. But the intended meaning is "to get recertified, you have only to make one hit".



Nothing's wrong with the sentence.  You probably need to adjust your view about what the "intended meaning" might have been.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glenfarclas said:


> Nothing's wrong with the sentence. You probably need to adjust your view about what the "intended meaning" might have been.


I gave an argument why I considered it strange. Juhasz seems to agree. You just say "nothing wrong", but why?


Juhasz said:


> Is _until_ wrong? I'm not sure.


"You will be unhappy until you get recertified." 
"Keep shooting until you get recertified"
-- these would be grammatical, but the OP is really odd!...


----------



## Glenfarclas

VicNicSor said:


> I gave an argument why I considered it strange. Juhasz seems to agree. You just say "nothing wrong", but why?



If he expects Terry to hit the target, then the sentence is completely normal.  It's as though you (and Juhasz) objected to "There's only a hundred miles to go until we get to Chicago" by saying that it is illogical and ought to be "There's only a hundred miles to go *to* get to Chicago."


----------



## VicNicSor

Glenfarclas said:


> It's as though you (and Juhasz) objected to "There's only a hundred miles to go until we get to Chicago" by saying that it is illogical and ought to be "There's only a hundred miles to go *to* get to Chicago."


"A hundred miles to go until we get to Chicago" is different, is more like my example "Keep shooting until you get recertified". "Going a hundred miles" is a continuous process lasting directly up to reaching Chicago. While "having one hit" is _what_? The state of not shooting? Or the action of shooting? What is "you have"? It's very ambiguous.


----------



## Oddmania

I see your point, Vic. As Juhasz pointed out, _"You *need *one more hit *in order* *to *get recertified"_ would probably be clearer (although it doesn't need to be made clearer, since both characters are native English speakers), but people just don't always speak like that.

To me, the line you quoted is short for _"You have one hit (left) (to complete) before you get recertified"_. Perhaps it'll be clearer to you with _before _instead of _until_.


----------



## VicNicSor

Oddmania said:


> I see your point, Vic. As Juhasz pointed out, _"You *need *one more hit *in order* *to *get recertified"_ would probably be clearer (although it doesn't need to be made clearer, since both characters are native English speakers), but people just don't always speak like that.
> 
> To me, the line you quoted is short for _"You have one hit (left) (to complete) before you get recertified"_. Perhaps it'll be clearer to you with _before _instead of _until_.


It is not short for anything, since you replaced one conjunction with another. I agree, it doesn't need to be made clearer, but it's still poor English, you agree?...


----------



## Oddmania

I was alluding to what I added in brackets. I don't think it's poor English. It just goes to show how flexible English is. He might have said _"You are one hit away from getting recertified"_ just as well. The condition that the hit must be successful is implied.


----------



## JulianStuart

English (and I suspect other languages, too) use logic, common sense and context (i.e., what we know before the sentence is constructed) as well as rules.  Its flexibility can sometimes irritate learners

You only have one hit until you get recertified.
You only have ten miles till you get to your destination.
Flexible


----------



## srk

JulianStuart said:


> You only have one hit until you get recertified.
> You only have ten miles till you get to your destination.
> Flexible


I don't think it's that flexible.  "Until" works for processes with some continuity and for states of being:  "I will stay until I am finished."  "I will drive until we get there."

"You have to read two more chapters until you are done."  I don't think so. " ... before you are done."  I think so.


----------



## JulianStuart

srk said:


> I don't think it's that flexible.  "Until" works for processes with some continuity and for states of being:  "I will stay until I am finished."  "I will drive until we get there."
> 
> "You have to read two more chapters until you are done."  I don't think so. " ... before you are done."  I think so.


Well, I guess not everyone follows that particular rule so, well,  rigidly.  And it gets murky

If "I will _drive_ _until we get there_."  is OK, why not
"We only have to _drive_ ten more miles _until we get there_."
"I will keep shooting until I run out of ammo."
"I will keep shooting until I get recertified."
"I only have one more bullseye until I get recertified."


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> "We only have to _drive_ ten more miles _until we get there_."
> "I will keep shooting until I run out of ammo."
> "I will keep shooting until I get recertified."
> "I only have one more bullseye until I get recertified."



You'll stop driving when you have gotten there.
You'll stop shooting when you have run out of ammo.
You'll stop shooting when you have gotten recertified.

You'll stop having one more bullseye when you have gotten recertified Didn't you even shoot?


----------



## Oddmania

VicNicSor said:


> You'll stop having one more bullseye when you have gotten recertified


This is exactly what it means, yes. What doesn't sound right about it? _When you have your recertification, you'll have no more hit (to do)._


----------



## VicNicSor

Oddmania said:


> What doesn't sound right about it?


Because having one more shot (left) and shooting are two different states/actions. You can't mix them. As I said (Didn't you even shoot?), it would mean that you have gotten recertified without even trying to shoot. (if it meant anything at all)


----------



## JulianStuart

Vic, Can you not tell the difference between:

"I *will *only have one more bullseye until I get recertified."
"I only have one more bullseye (to hit) until I get recertified."

I'm sure you noticed the need for insertion of a "will" in the sentence to justify it being marked as incorrect...


----------



## VicNicSor

Why


JulianStuart said:


> "I *will *only have one more bullseye until I get recertified."


It doesn't work with "bullseye", but it would work in the usual context:
"I will only have one more *girlfriend *until I get *married*."

But why does it prove this:


JulianStuart said:


> "I only have one more bullseye (to hit) until I get recertified."


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> Vic, Can you not tell the difference between:


That's, by the way, why I said in #15 "(if it meant anything at all)"


----------



## Glasguensis

This is not "poor" English. Whilst it is true that "until" fits best with a process, there is nothing illogical or strange with regarding the sequence of hits as a process. It is exactly the same as "miles until Chicago". This is correct English because it's something which English-speaking people say, and English is defined as "what English-speaking people say". There are certainly other possible choices, as there almost always are in English, but choosing between them is a fairly subjective and aesthetic art, and not dictated by a rules-based grammar.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> there is nothing illogical or strange with regarding the sequence of hits as a process. It is exactly the same as "miles until Chicago".


That's the problem, it is not about the sequence of hits, but about one single hit, and it's absolutely different from "miles until Chicago", as I pointed
I agree with srk that English is not that flexible.


----------



## Glasguensis

If you and srk were right then there wouldn't be several other native speakers on this thread, plus the makers of TV series, who thought it was perfectly OK. If all of us thought it strange, it would be reasonable to conclude that the scriptwriter had stretched English too far. But that's not the case, proving that English is indeed flexible enough to accommodate this usage.
So it's the fact that it's "one hit" which makes it different? "Ten more hits" would be okay?


----------



## VicNicSor

Not only me and srk, but also you won't find in any grammar source an example of using "until" like that.
Confusing "until" and "before". You consider it a flexibility, me -- a mistake
Here is exactly the same case as in the OP:
before:
4. used to say that something must happen in order for something else to be possible: 
You have to pass a test *before *you can get a licence.
(Longman)


Glasguensis said:


> So it's the fact that it's "one hit" which makes it different? "Ten more hits" would be okay?


this one:
_You only have ten more hits until you get recertified._
... as well as this one:
_We only have to drive ten more miles until we get there._
... are ambiguous.
"Until" would work perfectly here, to me, only if the meaning changes:
_You only have (ten more hits until you get recertified) 
You only have (ten more hits) until you get recertified_


----------



## Glasguensis

Grammar guides are like dictionaries - they are descriptive, not prescriptive. Even when they try to be prescriptive, they only represent the *opinion *of the authors/editors. You can consider it a mistake if you like, but bear in mind that like dictionaries, grammar guides cannot cover all possible contexts and usages.

_You only have (ten more hits until you get recertified) 
You only have (ten more hits) until you get recertified_

You've lost me here. What difference in meaning am I supposed to understand?


----------



## VicNicSor

By "grammar sources" I also meant dictionaries.
To me, it's all like when you see another native speaker making a mistake in speech in a TV-show, you say, ok, since it's a native speaker, it's ok to speak like that.


Glasguensis said:


> _You only have (ten more hits until you get recertified)
> You only have (ten more hits) until you get recertified_
> 
> You've lost me here. What difference in meaning am I supposed to understand?


The "correct" version doesn't mean "_ten more hits *in order to* get recertified_", it's just a sequence of events. Like:
"You have to *walk ten more miles until you reach a mill*, then turn to the left and walk one more mile, and there you meet me." --


----------



## Glasguensis

When you see a character making a mistake in a TV show it generally means one of the following, in descending order of probability :
The writers want us to understand that the character is not well-educated
It is in fact correct English
There is an editing mistake which has changed the speech (we are getting down to the 1% of cases here)
The writers themselves made a mistake

As Glenfarclas pointed out, what you are overlooking is that it is perfectly acceptable (and indeed very common, especially in AE) to talk of conditional events as if they were certain. "You're going to win" / "You've got this" / "One more effort and you've done it". Your "correct" version is in reality the same as your "incorrect" version. It is understood by everyone that a condition is being discussed, even if it is phrased as a certainty.


----------



## VicNicSor

"Before vs until" is indeed one of the *typical *mistakes, and not suprising it occured in the TV show. So, sorry, to me, it's still a mistake.


----------



## Glasguensis

I take it you realise you are telling several native speakers that we don't know how to speak our own language.


----------



## VicNicSor

I don't know why you take "So, sorry, to me, it's still a mistake" as "you don't know how to speak your own language".


----------



## Glenfarclas

VicNicSor said:


> I don't know why you take "So, sorry, to me, it's still a mistake" as "you don't know how to speak your own language".



We've had this conversation fifty times.  Some text is written by the screenwriters of a major motion picture or network television show, and then spoken by native English speakers.  You come onto the forum and ask "Ah, I've caught them in yet another clear mistake, haven't I?"  Several other native English speakers tell you that it's not a mistake, that it sounds quite normal, and they offer you numerous other examples of a similar usage.  You then say, "No. To me, it's a mistake.  Your examples are all irrelevant.  I am so sad  that you could all be so dunderheaded about your own language."

I can't remember a single thread -- out of the scores of yours that I have seen -- in which you were actually right.  It's the same thing every time.  You are almost certainly _not_ going to find outright errors in major movies, network TV shows, or books by renowned authors.  Why not approach these things by asking us to explain to you why they are _right_ and why the author might have used them, as well as whether and how you might use similar structures in your own speech, instead of asking us to agree with you immediately that they are mistakes?

In this case, like Glasguensis I'm really at a loss as to what your objection is supposed to be at this point.  If the speaker sees the recertification as certain (or virtually certain) and views the process of getting there by shooting targets as a continuous process, then the sentence is indeed fine.


----------



## JulianStuart

Glenfarclas said:


> We've had this conversation fifty times.  Some text is written be the screenwriters of a major motion picture or network television show, and then spoken by native English speakers.  You come onto the forum and ask "Ah, I've caught them in yet another clear mistake, haven't I?"  Several other native English speakers tell you that it's not a mistake, that it sounds quite normal, and they offer you numerous other examples of a similar usage.  You then say, "No. To me, it's a mistake.  Your examples are all irrelevant.  I am so sad  that you could all be so dunderheaded about your own language."
> 
> I can't remember a single thread -- out of the scores of yours that I have seen -- in which you were actually right.  It's the same thing every time.  You are almost certainly _not_ going to find outright errors in major movies, network TV shows, or books by renowned authors.  Why not approach these things by asking us to explain to you why they are _right_ and why the author might have used them, as well as whether and how you might use similar structures in your own speech, instead of asking us to agree with you immediately that they are mistakes?
> 
> In this case, like Glasguensis I'm really at a loss as to what your objection is supposed to be at this point.  If the speaker sees the recertification as certain (or virtually certain) and views the process of getting there by shooting targets as a continuous process, then the sentence is indeed fine.


Well, either we need to _adjust_ the way we speak English so we do it right or Vic needs to _adjust_ his rules each time he finds something new that doesn't fit his existing set, so they reflect the way we actually speak?  How on earth are we going to decide which is the "correct" course of action?  We need help here - am I right?


----------



## VicNicSor

I don't understand what it has to do with the speaker's certainty. This last shot is separate from the other seven shots. To me, it's not "one more" in a succession, but rather "one hit". And I don't think the speaker is all that certain about the recertification. Terry has a mental problem which is preventing him from the last shot.  Eventually, Holt leaves the range failing to see Terry shooting.


Glenfarclas said:


> Several other native English speakers tell you that it's not a mistake, that it sounds quite normal, and they offer you numerous other examples of a similar usage. You then say, "No. To me, it's a mistake. Your examples are all irrelevant.


But several other native English speakers here agreed that it doesn't sound that normal. If I'm on the side of ones against the others -- is that inadmissible? As well as here, at least one native speaker agreed with me (I took it that way)


Glenfarclas said:


> I am so sad  that you could all be so dunderheaded about your own language."


Again, why do you have to take a simple polite disagreeing like that? I have a right to disagree, don't I?


JulianStuart said:


> Well, either we need to _adjust_ the way we speak English so we do it right or Vic needs to _adjust_ his rules each time he finds something new that doesn't fit his existing set, so they reflect the way we actually speak? How on earth are we going to decide which is the "correct" course of action? We need help here - am I right?


You never need to adjust anything and I sometimes don't either

Thank you everyone!


----------



## Glasguensis

Actually only one person agreed with you, and one person wasn't sure. Since we're on the subject, srk gave an example which I agree doesn't work, but it would if it were rephrased : Only two more chapters [to read] until you are done.

So just to summarise: according to you, the dialogue doesn't make any sense and the scriptwriters and the actors involved failed to notice this. Holt is merely commenting in poor English that Terry has one shot left to take.
And according to us, the dialogue is perfectly acceptable and conveys an expression of certainty because Holt is trying to encourage Terry by making him think that it's easy / a sure thing so that he will relax and take the shot.


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> I don't know why you take "So, sorry,* to me*, it's still a mistake" as "you don't know how to speak your own language".


Don't "You are making a mistake if you say it like that" and "You don't know how to say it correctly in your own language" actually mean the same thing?  Or are you saying that "According to *Vic's* rules, it's a mistake" but "in your own language (the one spoken by native speakers), it's not a mistake"?

(Reminds me of the comment made by the mother of an uncoordinated son: "Everyone else in the platoon is out of step except our Charlie" )


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> but it would if it were rephrased : Only two more chapters [to read] until you are done.


And if you rephrase the OP like that it still won't work (according to Vic): "You have only one more hit to make until you are get recertified." Because "two chapters to read" is a continuous process unlike making one shot.


Glasguensis said:


> So just to summarise: according to you, the dialogue doesn't make any sense and the scriptwriters and the actors involved failed to notice this. Holt is merely commenting in poor English that Terry has one shot left to take.
> And according to us, the dialogue is perfectly acceptable and conveys an expression of certainty because Holt is trying to encourage Terry by making him think that it's easy / a sure thing so that he will relax and take the shot.


It's just that sometimes, I, personally, prefer less flexible English to more flexible one.


JulianStuart said:


> "You are making a mistake if you say it like that"


Is it supposed to have been said by me?


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> Is it supposed to have been said by me?


Post #22 "You consider it a flexibility, me -- a mistake"


----------



## VicNicSor

It just means "there is something that I consider a mistake and you consider a flexibility", not "You are making a mistake if you say it like that". Two different statements.


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> It just means "there is something that I consider a mistake and you consider a flexibility", not "You are making a mistake if you say it like that". Two different statements.


Now you've lost me - if I do something and you say "I consider that a mistake", how is that different from your saying "I consider that (you just made) a mistake"?


----------



## VicNicSor

You did? It's a character in a TV-show who did.
Compare: Julian said something in a post on the forum and Vic wrote a post: "Hello Julian, you have made a mistake here."
Again, two different things. But I see why you said that:
"Your meaning is not what you think it is, it is what your listener thinks it is"


----------



## Glasguensis

Whether we uttered the original sentence is irrelevant - we said it was correct and you are saying the opposite. By logical extension you are saying that we are incorrect in thinking it to be correct. We're not making some giant deductive leap here.


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> *Again, two different things. *


*No.* You were referring directly to what *I* called flexibility, not what the character said.
I said:


> You only have one hit until you get recertified.
> You only have ten miles till you get to your destination.
> Flexible


Then you replied:


> "You consider it a flexibility, me -- a mistake"


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> By logical extension you are saying that we are incorrect in thinking it to be correct. We're not making some giant deductive leap here.



No. There is something I consider incorrect which you consider correct. At the same time I find it possible that I may be mistaken, or you may. I don't insist on my point of view. That's all.


JulianStuart said:


> *No.* You were referring directly to what *I* called flexibility, not what the character said.
> I said:
> 
> Then you replied:


No. I said:


VicNicSor said:


> Confusing "until" and "before". You consider it a flexibility, me -- a mistake


First, I was replying to Glasguensis's post. Second, the word with suffix "flex" by this time were uttered several times, Oddmania, was first to say it here and Glasguensis said it too. By "you" I meant you three. By "flexibility", I referred to *Confusing "until" and "before"*, by which, in turn, referring to the character's original sentence.


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> First, I was replying to Glasguensis's post. Second, the word with suffix "flex" by this time were uttered several times, Oddmania, was first to say it here and Glasguensis said it too. By "you" I meant you three. By "flexibility", I referred to *Confusing "until" and "before"*, by which, in turn, referring to the character's original sentence.


I see where you went wrong: in thinking that the meaning of flexible in my original post #10 was that before and until can be used interchangeably. I was referring to the two_ specific examples immediately above the word flexible in that post_. Of course, there will be cases where before is correct and until is a mistake.  And vice versa.  But this whole discussion has been about whether the "until" in the OP is a mistake.  You seem to be saying you think it is.  You therefore think anyone who uses it, while thinking it is OK, is making a mistake because they are confusing until and before.


----------



## VicNicSor

Sorry but I really don't know what's going on here. I said exactly what I said. But since a certain post, the current discussion has been like: "you consider it a mistake, so you think we don't know our own language". "No, I just consider it a mistake". "No, you think we don't know our language". 
Of course, the reason of the disagreement can only be that *I *don't know English well, not *you*.


----------



## JulianStuart

So, to clear it up, you think the bold text in the OP is a mistake but several of us think it's not a mistake.  Am I right?


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> So, to clear it up, you think the bold text in the OP is a mistake but several of us think it's not a mistake.  Am I right?


Either that or: many of you think it's not a mistake but few of us think it is a mistake.


----------



## Glenfarclas

VicNicSor said:


> Either that or: many of you think it's not a mistake but few of us think it is a mistake.



I guess there's little point in your asking questions (or our answering them) if you're not willing to accept any answer that isn't "Yes."


----------



## RedwoodGrove

In support of Vic, the typical usage of until/till involves a measurement of time. "You have five minutes until midnight." In this manner, naming a gunshot as a measurement might strike one as odd. However, the measuring device can be almost anything, including miles, bites of food (you have three bites to go until you are finished), rows of knitting, or anything imaginable. However, if you have a third hand, the older style guides suggest that this usage is better replaced with "before". "You have three miles/bites/rows to go _before_ you are finished.

AHD 1970: "In the following typical constructions, _till_ or _until_ sometimes appear, but are preferably replaced by_ before_ or _when_ in formal usage: _It was not long before he noticed the change. She had scarcely arrived when it began to storm._"

This does not entirely address your situation but it shows that there is some controversy surrounding it.


----------



## JulianStuart

So it's a sort of flexible preference not an either/or - incorrect/corect situation, right?    No-one has said that _before_ is incorrect, only that _until_ is not a mistake.


----------



## Glasguensis

RedwoodGrove said:


> However, if you have a third hand, the older style guides suggest that this usage is better replaced with "before". "You have three miles/bites/rows to go _before_ you are finished.


That's very interesting - but this usage note has been removed in later editions. So this was a style preference rather than something which applies to spoken English, and the language has in any case evolved.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glenfarclas said:


> I guess there's little point in your asking questions (or our answering them) if you're not willing to accept any answer that isn't "Yes."


You mean, every time when I ask a question like "......................, am I right?" and am told "No, because .................", I don't "accept" it? Ok, I don't know what to say...


Glasguensis said:


> That's very interesting - but this usage note has been removed in later editions. So this was a style preference rather than something which applies to spoken English, and the language has in any case evolved.


I took it as what was deleted is this:


RedwoodGrove said:


> AHD 1970: "In the following typical constructions, _till_ or _until_ sometimes appear, but are preferably replaced by_ before_ or _when_ in formal usage: _It was not long before he noticed the change. She had scarcely arrived when it began to storm._"


And since we don't find in later editions under "untill" anything like: _It was not long *untill *he noticed the change. She had scarcely arrived *untill *it began to storm._", but in all dictionaries these patterns are only given with "before", it doesn't seem *to me* the language evolved this way (according to AHD)


----------



## Glasguensis

Let's be very clear about this. NOBODY is disputing that it is possible to use "before" in sentences like this. In the 1970 AHD there was a usage note that IN FORMAL USES "before" was better than "until". So even in 1970 the AHD wasn't saying that it was a "mistake" to use "until". This usage note has now been removed, which I take to mean that either 1. Nobody would now think of using "until" even in informal use, or 2. Using "until" is now acceptable even in formal use. Since there are a number of us who believe "until" is acceptable here, then I think that proves that we're not in scenario 1. 

Since the OP is in any case not formal writing, I don't think even in 1970 it would have been considered a "mistake". If you prefer to use "before" in structures such as these, and never use "until", then that's perfectly fine - nobody uses *all *of the diversity of English. But you need to stop thinking that there is only one way to do things, and that any usage which you can't find in a dictionary is a "mistake" : new words and expressions are born every day. Those which catch on will eventually be captured in dictionaries.


----------



## VicNicSor

I've all "famous" dictionaries in my compilation, they reflect many informal usages, incluing those that are considered "incorrect" in "standard English". And none says about this usage of until.
Since "until" is indeed used like that, I believe the reason for this is that the typical error of confusing "before" and "until" has evolved in that informal usage. Because before and until, as one English teacher on YT said, "are very similar but very different at the same time", so they are often confused.
So, whether it's a mistake or not -- well, it's not a mistake -- but I'm going to avoid using it like that.


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> I've all "famous" dictionaries in my compilation, they reflect many informal usages, incluing those that are considered "incorrect" in "standard English". And none says about this usage of until.


We are getting rather  frustrated that you think that English has been _completely_ captured by dictionaries (much as you adore them) and try to use that to argue that "you are right" because something is missing from them. They frequently lack things that are used by natives - rather in the converse of situations where we have to tell learners that some grammar "rule" they were taught is not always used by native speakers - a common one is "will {verb} vs going to {verb}."


VicNicSor said:


> well, it's not a mistake -- but I'm going to avoid using it like that.


Good conclusion and good practice.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> argue that "you are right"


No, again, "I have a right to consider something a mistake".


JulianStuart said:


> because something is missing from them


This is not the main reason which is that until is about a continuing process/period lasting right up to another one, while before is about something that finished some time before another event. And the OP's case falls under the second category, since it's an instantaneous action which is a condition for another action (getting recertified).


JulianStuart said:


> Good conclusion and good practice.


Thank you


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> .
> This is not the main reason which is that until is about a continuing process/period lasting right up to another one, while before is about something that finished some time before another event. And the OP's case falls under the second category, since it's an instantaneous action which is a condition for another action (getting recertified).


Strict adherence to "rules" that are just guidances*.  This is why we occasinally (  ) suggest you adjust/soften/make less black and white your "rules" (they are clearly not our rules).  The process involved in the OP is "recertification".  You keep trying to get 8 centre shots until you succeed. Then your have qualified for recertification.

(*In mathematical terms, this is like Vic saying "My rule is  'It must be exactly 100.000%'" and native speakers saying "It is somewhere between 98 and 102%")


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> You keep trying to get 8 centre shots until you succeed. Then your have qualified for recertification.


We come back to the same thing again and again. The blue sentence is a perfect example of "until". The red one, grammatically, has nothing to do with the blue one. And they together don't prove that the OP is not a mistake.
But Ok, I've already agreed that the OP is not a mistake


----------



## JulianStuart

(I can't conceive of these things in everyday language without using context, logic and common sense - so the "only grammatically" concept is "foreign" to me as a native  Those two sentences are intricately linked and describe the same instant - the 8th shot is the qualification.  The "only grammatically" concept = the Vic rule of 100.000% while the incorporation of contet. logic and common sense = our rule 98-102%   And I wasn't trying to "prove" anything, just illustrate).


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> The process involved in the OP is "recertification". You keep trying to get 8 centre shots until you succeed. Then your have qualified for recertification.





JulianStuart said:


> Those two sentences are intricately linked and describe the same instant - the 8th shot is the qualification.


I don't think we even must do such an analysis. Let's forget about the previous seven shots. There is just one single shot. That's how the sentence looks. The same like the Longman example I quoted in #22.
But even "eight shots" would not work here without "keep trying". "Recertification" was not mentioned. Even if he makes that eight hit, he doesn't get recertified immediately -- they must at least get to the precinct.


----------



## JulianStuart

OK - since you are obviously remaining in a picky mood - I said the 8th shot was the qualification not the recertification


----------



## VicNicSor

Seems like we are making things more complicated than they actually are


----------

