# Nitpicking the BBC **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 4, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889 "2010-12-04T01:33:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/61 "2010-12-07T03:20:11Z")
I see no reason to adhere to that stricture. Anyway, in my view, the companion to “prior to” is “subsequent to,” not “posterior to.” ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/62 "2010-12-07T03:41:01Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > I see no reason to adhere to that stricture. David Foster Wallace on _prior to_: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/E_sQrxAorDo/hqdefault.jpg "David Foster Wallace on "Prior To"") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_sQrxAorDo) The take away? Don’t be an agent of the evil that is all around us by using _prior to_. > [@acsenray](#): > > Anyway, in my view, the companion to “prior to” is “subsequent to,” not “posterior to.” DFW discusses this, too. The takeaway? If you look at the latin roots, _posterior to_ is the companion to _prior to_. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/63 "2010-12-07T04:36:41Z")
What I takeaway is the Wallace is a snob/reverse-snob-poseur-jackass of the highest order. What supreme irony that on the one had he condemns puffery on the one hand and then appeals to Latin roots to evaluate the appropriateness of “subsequent.” And then his argument is 100 percent fallacious and he refers to it as a grammatical issue, which it’s not. An agent of light and goodness, my posterior. ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/64 "2010-12-07T05:01:55Z")
Um, it’s pretty obvious DFW is not being completely serious in that video. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/65 "2010-12-07T05:13:13Z")
It’s not obvious to me. And it’s not the first time someone would have said something like that with complete sincerity. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/66 "2010-12-07T05:32:49Z")
And if he is joshing, then all the more reason to ignore this rule. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/67 "2010-12-07T05:38:59Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > Similarly, I am oft outraged upon hearing in a description of a duo that one partner played “Laurel to his Hardy” or “Cheech to his Chong.” Neither Laurel nor Cheech were subordinate to Hardy or Chong. They were equal in position and neither acted at the direction of the other or was under any compulsion to do so. I have written many, many letters to the editor on this topic. Shouldn’t that be “Chong to his Cheech?” ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/68 "2010-12-07T06:54:22Z")
> [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](#): > > The takeaway? If you look at the latin roots, _posterior to_ is the companion to _prior to_. There’s a flawed argument if ever I saw one. Funnily enough, not all words come equally unscathed through a 2000 year old adoption process. Prior still has pretty much the same meaning as it had in latin, whereas (rather fittingly for this thread) posterior is now more commonly used to refer to arse. Words change when they’re inherited. Would you talk about “the alchemist” even though “al” means “the”? Course you would, because that’s how it’s transformed over time. See also “the hoi polloi”, strictly translating to “the the many”. Shit changes. Deal with it. As for the link, so one particular writer thinks that “prior to” is “puffed up”. Tough shit. Excluding all words and phrases with the same meaning other than the very shortest or simplest available would be one fucker of a way to strip some of the best flair and flavour from a language. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/69 "2010-12-07T10:55:26Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > There’s a flawed argument if ever I saw one. Funnily enough, not all words come equally unscathed through a 2000 year old adoption process. Prior still has pretty much the same meaning as it had in latin, whereas (rather fittingly for this thread) posterior is now more commonly used to refer to arse. Words change when they’re inherited. Would you talk about “the alchemist” even though “al” means “the”? Course you would, because that’s how it’s transformed over time. See also “the hoi polloi”, strictly translating to “the the many”. Shit changes. Deal with it. Yip, just like we can say ATM machine and PIN number. d&r ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/70 "2010-12-07T16:36:02Z")
> [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](#): > > The takeaway? If you look at the latin roots, _posterior to_ is the companion to _prior to_. Funny, I thought we were speaking English. Caput tuum in ano est. > [@BigT](#): > > Yip, just like we can say ATM machine and PIN number. Around here, we tend to call them [TYME machines](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyme). It confuses the hell out of anybody not local. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/71 "2010-12-07T16:44:00Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Around here, we tend to call them [TYME machines](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyme). It confuses the hell out of anybody not local. Awesome. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/72 "2010-12-07T17:12:31Z")
My aunt ran into problems when she moved out to California about 20 years ago. “Excuse me, where’s the TYME machine?” “… Well what time do you want to go to, honey?” ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/73 "2010-12-08T04:25:03Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > As for the link, so one particular writer thinks that “prior to” is “puffed up”. Tough shit. Excluding all words and phrases with the same meaning other than the very shortest or simplest available would be one fucker of a way to strip some of the best flair and flavour from a language. Except there is no flair or flavor to _prior to_. It is a stilted, ugly phrase. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/74 "2010-12-08T06:28:32Z")
> [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](#): > > Except there is no flair or flavor to _prior to_. It is a stilted, ugly phrase. In short then, you don’t like a phrase that is perfectly valid within standard rules of grammar. As complaints go, this one is somewhat lacking in the trouser department. ---
**Author:** ![Galanthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Galanthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galanthus)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/75 "2010-12-08T12:08:36Z")
Romanes eunt domus ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/76 "2010-12-08T13:06:19Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > That’s true, bur posterior isn’t the opposite of prior, and “subsequent to” is common enough. That’s off too. “Prior” and “subsequent” are good adjectives. But they’re not working as adjectives in those constructions. What exactly _are_ they doing? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/77 "2010-12-08T13:06:31Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I love the Dope. A thread about to hit the two page mark, all about the correct usage of a preposition: “to”. > > [Piper does quick googling to confirm that “to” is, in fact, a preposition, to pre-empt application of Gaudere’s law. Whew, [yes it is](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/to). Hits “post”.] Thou unmuzzled fool-born maumet, woefully confused between definite and indefinite articles! ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/78 "2010-12-08T13:11:10Z")
Back to the OP topic, > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > That construction is fine for me. In the UK at least it doesn’t mean exclusively “under”. It merely establishes the connection. > > When actors say “he played x to my y” there is no hierarchy implied. Yes, works for me that way. Compare it with “for.” ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/79 "2010-12-08T13:26:23Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > That’s off too. “Prior” and “subsequent” are good adjectives. But they’re not working as adjectives in those constructions. What exactly _are_ they doing? I’m afraid I’m not following your point here. Are you suggesting that “prior to” and “subsequent to” are not common phrases, or that prior and subsequent aren’t opposites? And whilst it’s been a long time since I did English at school, I believe both would be classified as a prepositional phrase functioning as an adjective. Someone better informed can correct/confirm that though. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889/80 "2010-12-08T19:09:41Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > Are you suggesting that “prior to” and “subsequent to” are not common phrases, or that prior and subsequent aren’t opposites? Neither. I’m suggesting that they don’t exactly make sense, in terms of what those words mean when “to” isn’t appended to them. Can you think of a comparable construction, involving some other adjective plus “to,” that functions with elegance? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking-the-bbc/562889.md?page=5)