# Tense coming after 'before'



## G.Determinism

Greetings,

I'm citing the following sentence from the Cambridge Dictionary, can someone please help me understand why 'would' has been used there?

'She had to give the doorman a tip, before he would help her with her suitcases.'

What would be different if it were 'he helped' instead?

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/before


Thanks


----------



## Parla

He _would not have helped her_ if she had not given him the tip ahead of the help. 

If the sentence were: "She had to give the doorman a tip before he helped her . . . " the meaning would be different. It would simply be talking about the order in which events had to occur. That would mean that the tip was to be given before he helped her rather than afterward.


----------



## bennymix

If you leave out 'would' you have, as Parla suggests, just two events, a tip and a helping.

The inclusion of 'would' refers to his disposition, so to say;  what he was willing to do.  Once he
got the tip, he was *inclined* to help her.   The sentence suggests that he did carry through,
but strictly speaking, the act is not specified.   So this continuation is possible: "She had to give him a tip before he would help her, _but by then, her friend had arrived and she didn't need any help_."


----------



## shop-englishx

Parla said:


> "She *had to give* the doorman a tip before he helped her . . . "



Can I replace this "had to give" with *"had given"* in this sentence? because it's the first of the two events.



G.Determinism said:


> She had to give the doorman a tip, before he *would* help her with her suitcases.'



Is this "would" a part of conditional sentence? If yes, please give me the full conditional sentence. @Parla


----------



## bennymix

You can substitute 'had given' but that further reduces the meaning to a bare giving and a helping.

She *had to give* refers to a necessity she was under.   The original sentence is NOT just two acts,
but 1) She NEEDS to do something (and presumably does it);  [because of that doing] 2) He's DISPOSED to help (and presumably does).



shop-englishx said:


> Can I replace this "had to give" with *"had given"* in this sentence? because it's the first of the two events.


----------



## shop-englishx

'She had to give the doorman a tip, before he *would* help her with her suitcases.'

It looks like a conditional sentence to me, i.e, conditional (2) ... that use "would".

There is one condition and one result in this sentence.. but I am confused as to how to write this in a standard conditional sentence pattern, i.e, 

If X+past tense-----------, Y+would


----------



## velisarius

It could be phrased as: 
_He would not (he refused to) help with her suitcases until she gave him (or felt compelled to give him) a tip._

As a conditional sentence:
_If she had not given him a tip, he would not have helped her with her suitcases._ 

If you use "would"  as the modal would of a results clause in a conditional sentence, I think you lose the meaning of "refused to" that is present in the original sentence.


----------



## G.Determinism

I'm really thankful, Dale Texas, Parla, Benny and velisarius.

I think I got the gist of what you are saying, So according to what you said, the present form of that sentence should be as follows, right?
'She have to give the doorman a tip, before he will help her with her suitcases.'

How do you interpret this one?

'She have to give the doorman a tip, before he helps her with her suitcases.'

Does it really make sense? I sort of think I need the present subjunctive after 'before' or something of that kind. I'm quite sure, though, you'll tell me I'm mistaken about it. But the succession of two sentences in present simple does not sound good in this situation. does it?

Thanks


----------



## velisarius

If you are using the present tense for both verbs, "before" doesn't really fit the sense. 

_She has to give the doorman a tip when he helps her with her suitcases. _


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks a lot, velisarius.

If I'm not mistaken the sentence you made describes a conditional-like situation in a general way, we're not talking about a specific case. That said, how do you interpret the following sentence:
"Do it before you forget."
As far as I know, the simple present is used to talk about habits and things of that kind, but in the sentence above, "you forget" refers to something specific, right? Don't you think we need something other than the present tense there?


Thanks a lot


----------



## bennymix

In my opinion, there is no grammatical or 'sense' problem I can see in this sentence.


_She has to give the doorman a tip before he helps her with her suitcases. _

One context is this.  I'm with my son of 10, outside a hotel.    I woman is standing near some luggage.    A doorman a little distance away
is ignoring her.   She's rummaging in her purse for some money.   

To explain to my kid, I say the sentence above.  I agree that perhaps 'will help' is better, but I don't see an error as it is.

Seeing a cat crouching near a bird, I say to my son.  "The cat has to catch the bird before he eats it!"
I agree it might be desirable to add 'can'  after 'he', but I think the sentence is acceptable as is.






velisarius said:


> If you are using the present tense for both verbs, "before" doesn't really fit the sense.
> 
> _She has to give the doorman a tip when he helps her with her suitcases. _


----------



## G.Determinism

Thank you very much, Benny.
Isn't there any sense of subjunctive in those examples? "... before he eat(s)."
The regular meaning of the simple present doesn't seem to work very well in those examples.


----------



## bennymix

I don't see that subjunctive is involved in this case.


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks a lot, Benny.
According to grammar textbooks, we use the simple present for actions that happen regularly or habits or things of these kinds. How do you justify using the simple present after 'before'?

Thanks


----------



## Dale Texas

It is the *regular habit *of all cats in general, and this one in particular, to eat birds, and of course they have to catch them first 

It can also *habitually be true* that if one action has to sequentially proceed another for a result to occur, mentioning the word does not then somehow throw the verbs into another tense. "before" just indicates sequence of events and doesn't need to be "justified." 

I'm not sure why you would have thought so.

The cat has to catch the bird before he eats it.


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks a lot, Dale Texas.

I don't know why but I make more sense of the following sentences than the one in the present simple.

The cat has to catch the bird before he wants to eat it.

The cat has to catch the bird before he can  eat it.

The cat has to catch the bird before he will eat it.


----------



## Florentia52

_The cat has to catch the bird before he wants to eat it._ Grammatically correct, but not logically. Long before he ever catches the bird, the cat might feel the desire to eat it.

_The cat has to catch the bird before he can eat i_t.  This is very close to what we mean when we say "The cat has to catch the bird before he eats it."

_The cat has to catch the bird before he will eat it._ Grammatically correct, but it changes the  meaning slightly. It means "The cat can not be made to eat the bird until after he has caught it."


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks, Florentia.

What about this one?

The cat has to catch the bird before eating it.


----------



## G.Determinism

Florentia52 said:


> The cat has to catch the bird before he will eat it.Grammatically correct, but it changes the meaning slightly. It means "The cat can not be made to eat the bird until after he has caught it."



Doesn't it refer to the sequence of events in the exact same way as the one in the present simple does?

Thanks


----------



## Florentia52

G.Determinism said:


> Doesn't it refer to the sequence of events in the exact same way as the one in the present simple does?



I think so, if I understand the question correctly. I suspect the problem is that you're trying to use "will" as part of the future tense, which doesn't work. Instead, it indicates willingness. Take this example:

If my daughter tells me "I'm not going to eat my toast until you butter it," I might say "I have to butter the toast before  my daughter will eat it."


----------



## G.Determinism

No, I exactly tried to use "will" to indicate "willingness". If you take a look at the first few posts of this thread, you'll see that we were discussing a sentence which was in the past. I actually shifted it one tense forward to see how things will change, that "will" comes from there.


----------



## G.Determinism

Can you draw a distinction between the sentence below and the one in your post?

"I have to butter the toast before my daughter eats it."

And please tell me if this one also works.

"The cat has to catch the bird before eating it."

Thank you very much


----------



## Florentia52

The difference between "I have to butter the toast before my daughter *eats* it" and "I have to butter the toast before my daughter *will eat *it" is exactly the same as the difference between "The cat has to catch the bird before he *eats* it" and "The cat has to catch the bird before he *will eat* it," which I covered in an earlier post. 

"The cat has to catch the bird before *eating* it"  means the same thing as "…before he *eats* it."


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks, 
I think I understand the difference between these two: (when they're in the past tense)

'She had to give the doorman a tip, before he would help her with her suitcases.'

'She had to give the doorman a tip, before he helped her with her suitcases.'


But I can't discern any difference when they're shifted to the present.

'She has to give the doorman a tip, before he will help her with her suitcases.'

'She has to give the doorman a tip, before he helps her with her suitcases.'


----------



## G.Determinism

OK, here's another example to illustrate what I mean.

"We must wash our hands before we eat."

The sentence above is like a piece of advice, a general one which tries to promote a benign habit and at the same time is not restricted to a specific case, this is exactly in accordance with the typical use of the present simple. I completely understand it, no problem thus far. But what I've had a hard time figuring out is when we try to talk about something specific. For example, a mom could possibly say something like this to his son before lunch:
"Hey, my son, you first need to wash your hands before you (can) eat."
So my question is how this sentence could basically work without 'can'? The complement clause, "before you (can) eat", is not expressing a habitual activity. The boy is asked to wash his hands in order to be able to have his lunch. It seems like something is missing here.

Thank you very much for your time. I really appreciate it.


----------



## Florentia52

You have two different questions going on here.

The first has to do with using or omitting "can" in a sentence such as "You must wash your  hands before you (can) eat." Presuming that "can" means "are allowed to" and not "are physically capable of," the sentence means pretty much the same thing either way. I covered this in #17:


> _The cat has to catch the bird before he can eat i_t. This is very close to what we mean when we say "The cat has to catch the bird before he eats it.



Your second has to do with this structure:

She has to give the doorman a tip before he *helps / will  help* her with her suitcases.

As we've discussed…


> The difference between "I have to butter the toast before my daughter *eats* it" and "I have to butter the toast before my daughter *will eat *it" is exactly the same as the difference between "The cat has to catch the bird before he *eats* it" and "The cat has to catch the bird before he *will eat* it.


The same is true with your sentences about the doorman.

In "I have to butter the toast before my daughter *eats* it," two actions are described: I butter the toast, and my daughter eats it. The sentence merely sets out the order in which these two thins will happen. 1. I butter the toast, 2. My daughter eats it. Logically, we may draw the conclusion that the second will not happen without the first, but that is not necessarily the case. It might simply be that I know my daughter likes butter on her toast, and it's important to me to get the butter onto the toast before she eats the toast. (Also, as in "Put that down before you break it" or your own example of "Do it before you forget," we sometimes use "before" to mean "lest." This sentence thus could also mean that if I butter the toast, I will prevent my daughter from eating it.)

In "I have to butter the toast before my daughter *will eat it*," we are still discussing two actions, but sentence specifically establishes that the second (my daughter eating the toast) is contingent upon the first (my buttering the toast). My daughter will not eat the toast unless I butter it first.


----------



## bennymix

Nice explanation, Florentia!


----------



## G.Determinism

Thank you very much, Florentia for your in-depth explanation.

I suppose my last post contained a few things which were neglected, I asked why a present simple sentence is basically used in this situation, despite the fact that we're not talking about a habitual activity. Earlier, I also asked if the subjunctive is involved here but the idea  was completely rejected on the spot by Benny.
You referred to 'lest' and now I want to ask about "in order that" which I think could somehow substitute for "before" in some of the sentences we discussed in this thread. If I'm not mistaken these two both call for the subjunctive mood, please take a look at these:
"She has to give a tip to the doorman in order that he help her with her suitcases."
"Put that down lest you break it."
I know that the use of the subjunctive in those examples may sound archaic in modern English, or at least formal or literary. It's also interesting that unlike English in some languages like Spanish the subjunctive mood is still widely deployed after conjunctions like before, after, unless and ....
It's likewise in Persian. This actually made me think that English speakers sometimes use indicative forms with subjunctive meanings. As an example, I think increasing use of "If I was .." in conditional situations these days could be indicative of this preference among English speakers.

I hope I'm not talking non-sense altogether.


----------



## PaulQ

'She ha*s* to give the doorman a tip, before he w*ill* help her with her suitcases.' <- present tense
'She ha*d *to give the doorman a tip, before he w*ould* help her with her suitcases.' <- past tense


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks Paul for helping me,

Does it have anything to do with my latest post?

Thanks


----------



## PaulQ

Well, 
1. it shows that "would" is not a subjunctive.
2. It explains why  would is not expressing an habitual activity.
3. It should indicate that this is a reported action and set one tense back.
4, As the above is the case, questions about the subjunctive would probably be better addressed in another post.

So in answer to 





G.Determinism said:


> Does it have anything to do with my latest post?


 The answer is "Yes."


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks, Paul.
But my question is more concerned with the following ones, when there's no "would" or "will" involved:
"The cat has to catch the bird before he *eats* it."
"She has to give the doorman a tip, before he *helps* her with her suitcases."

All I'm saying is I can understand those sentences when we use "will" or "would", but when we use the present tense, that's where I think the subjunctive or at least the subjunctive sense needs to be communicated.

Thanks


----------



## PaulQ

You should forget all ideas that there is a subjunctive involved. Your reference to Spanish and Persian are irrelevant - English is a Germanic language. 


G.Determinism said:


> "The cat has to catch the bird before he *eats* it."


You are, I think, under the impression that this is the same as ""The cat has to catch the bird before he *may eat* it." - this is a different meaning which is not incorporated in the quoted example: here, "may" is a weakened form of "can" and is indicative. 

I take your point that "before" implies a condition, but a condition does not necessarily imply a subjunctive. 

Such use of the subjunctive as "Let him be given a weapon before he go." died out about 300 years ago, and the subjunctive was caused by the command.

In your examples, there are no commands. They are simple statements of real fact.

I repeat, "... questions about the subjunctive would probably be better addressed in another post." This post concerns tense: you are asking about mood.


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks a lot, Paul. I really appreciate your taking the time to help me.
I'm sorry that I still need to dig more into it, I just hope that I'm not bothering you.

"The cat has to catch the bird before he *eats* it."
In the sentence above, the dependent clause, "he eats it." is in the present simple tense, right? My problem with that is, it DOES talk about a very specific situation, it's not like a general fact as, "Cats eat birds". The question is why we use the simple present to talk about something specific?


Thanks


----------



## Florentia52

Does the use of the present tense in these sentences confuse you, G.Determinism?

Before you _leave_, I want to show you my new painting.
Before we _take_ a walk, I need to put on a jacket.


----------



## G.Determinism

Exactly, according to grammar books, the present sentence is used to express general facts, permanent states and things like these. But after "before" in those example, I believe we're not talking about things of those kinds.

Thanks


----------



## Florentia52

The present tense is also used to express the future in some situations ("I leave for New York tomorrow morning") and after some conjunctions such as "before," "after," and "until."


----------



## PaulQ

To expand upon Florentina's post, "The cat has to catch the bird before he *eats* it." = "The cat has to catch the bird before he *will be able to eat* it." <- the present used to express the future.


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks a million, Florentia and Paul.
I don't know if my way of approaching English as a second language is appropriate, I always try to get to the roots of rules and usages so that I can learn them inside-out and make use of them in a properer way.

A few questions with regard to the topic:
In the following sentence, the main clause refers to present time, can't we still use "would" in place of "will"?
"The cat has to catch the bird before he would eat it."

Thanks


----------



## PaulQ

You have to have the "be able to" in the sentence but this new sentence created by "would" requires a new context.


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks, Paul.

So it cannot be correct without the addition of "be able to"?


----------



## PaulQ

What do you intend the sentence "The cat has to catch the bird before he would eat it." to mean?

Who or what is "he"?


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks, Paul.
I'm quite sick of these modals, dude. I've been constantly striving for the past few months to comprehend them but to no avail so far. :-( Believe me or not, I gave it my utmost, but I still have a very very vague and ambiguous understanding of them. I don't if there's a different way to learn them, but thru grammar textbooks, I'm not so sure.

Thanks


----------



## PaulQ

You have my sympathy. However, you will find that what you are learning and reading is, in fact, sticking in your mind. Another problem is that learning anything without context is difficult and unlikely to be efficient. The one line examples from dictionaries are of little use to establish general patterns.


----------



## G.Determinism

Thank you very much for your kind and reassuring words, Paul. It's very nice to hear such words every so often from you.




PaulQ said:


> What do you intend the sentence "The cat has to catch the bird before he would eat it." to mean?
> 
> Who or what is "he"?



I suppose it refers to cat, doesn't it?


----------



## PaulQ

In that case, and because of the mix of tenses, it will not work.

If "he" referred to, say, a kitten, then you would still have to have "The cat *had *to catch the bird before the kitten *would *eat it." The kitten only eats things caught by the cat.

or

- The kitten is looking at that bird."
- He's probably thinking that he could catch it, but he is too small and weak - "The adult cat *has *to catch (use of present to indicate immediate future) the bird before the kitten *would be able to* eat it."


----------

