Time and To: Previous to, subsequent to, etc.

orion_mk3 · Jun 1, 2008

This has been bothering me lately. I've run across a lot of Wikipedia articles (admittedly not the best place to go for good writing) and found constructs like this:

"Previous to that, Baldermann served as a trustee of the Village of New Lenox..."
"Previous to this assignment, Bash was a White House correspondent for the network..."
"...served as High Commissioner of India to Fiji, and subsequent to his retirement was prominent in Jat causes..."
"Subsequent to the withdrawal of the majority of British forces in Canada..."

The "previous to" and "subsequent to" constructs have always annoyed me, as they seem awkward and vaguely ungrammatical. In most cases, a simple "before" or "after" seems like it would read and flow better.

So are these actually wrong, or is it simply a stylistic choice? The matter is of the utmost import, if I plan to launch a wikicrusade against them

Mumut · Jun 2, 2008

I think these are dated. They were popular years ago and so they are useful to me to show the age of the period I'm writing about - in the characters' conversation, mainly. One thing, though. Could 'subsequent to' be 'immediately before' rather than just 'before'?

Sandi LeFaucheur · Jun 2, 2008

Could 'subsequent to' be 'immediately before' rather than just 'before'?

No. Subsequent is after, not before.

blacbird · Jun 2, 2008

They're not just "dated". They are bureaucratic legalese, more than anything else. "Before" and "after" almost always work just fine.

caw

Keyan · Jun 3, 2008

"Subsequent to" is used a lot in India, along with "Prior to." I'd consider them clunky but not ungrammatical. Some expressions that have become archaic in the US/ UK remain in other countries.

Don't know about "previous to" though. That sounds ungrammatical to me.

girlyswot · Jun 3, 2008

Both are incorrect.

'Previous to' should be 'prior to' or 'previously'.
'Subsequent to' should be 'subsequently' or 'after'.

Deleted member 42 · Jun 3, 2008

orion_mk3 said:
The "previous to" and "subsequent to" constructs have always annoyed me, as they seem awkward and vaguely ungrammatical. In most cases, a simple "before" or "after" seems like it would read and flow better.

It's usually a stylistic choice; it's a form that is common in legal briefs, and I suspect journalists picked it up there.

And yes, it's usually less than appropriate because it's wordy.

Keyan · Jun 9, 2008

This is true.

But other countries don't always consider wordiness a sin!

I had a discussion on this, once, when I worked at a company that produced reports for multinationals. Some of our group perceived the direct US writing style as easy-to-read, overly simple and direct, and occasionally, rude. OTOH, the alternative - which including more non-threatening passive constructions - was perceived as more thoughtful, more elliptical, less clear, and more difficult to read.

I like clarity, myself; but I think we lose something by having too many conventions.

Time and To: Previous to, subsequent to, etc.

orion_mk3

Ne Cede Malis

Mumut

Well begun is half done...

Sandi LeFaucheur

blacbird

Keyan

ubiquitous

girlyswot

Deleted member 42

Keyan

ubiquitous