Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 December 26

= December 26 =

to and before
We say "from... to..." to define time spans (from 1800 to 1900), but we say "before..." to define time limits (before 1900). Is it grammatical to say "to" in the place of "before" (to 1900)?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No, because you could go "to 1900" from either direction, as in "Airplanes go back to 1903". You could say "until", although "before 1900" excludes the year 1900, while "until 1900" includes it. StuRat (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You might sometimes use up to in this sense (and from ... on for an unlimited timespan in the other direction). I don't love it from a stylistic point of view, but you will be understood. --Trovatore (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You'd also want to qualify it s "up to, but not including" to truly capture the "before"ness. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "Till" is twice as long as "to", but still a third less unwieldy than "before". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody! Happy holidays! --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Supplemental: I've definitely seen terms like 'to 1900' used, but usually in contexts where there's also a 'from 1950' or something. It's not unknown, but I wouldn't say it was common or especially idiomatic. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "from 1950 to 1900"?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No - sorry, I wasn't very clear. I mean that you might get three volumes 'to 1900', '1901-1949' and 'from 1950'. In that context the usage would be clear - it's known but rare. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)