‘When did you last visit the US? ‘‘Before last year’ / the year before last’. Mr. Hande wants to know which of the two is the correct answer.

Before is used to indicate a time span prior to some given point or period of time:  before the birth of Christ / before the crusades / before the 19th century. The expression before the 19th century does not indicate any specific point or period of time. It could be the 17th century, the18th century or indeed any other century prior to the 19th  though, in practice, the phrase is not interpreted in such an open way. You don’t say, for example, the crusades took place before the 19th century. So in actual usage ‘before the 19th century’   is interpreted as ‘some short period of time before A.D.1800’. With a negative, the meaning will be quite different. ‘The word was not in use before the 19th century ‘means ‘the word came into use in the 19th century.’

As noted above ‘before---’ does not indicate any specific time before the given time.  So if you went to the US in 2006 and say (in 2008) ‘I went before last year’ the hearer cannot, logically, know whether you went in 2005 or 2006 or even 2000.  But in IE the expression will be understood as 2006. In Standard English this would be expressed by saying  ‘the year before last’.

2. Either can mean ‘one of two’ or ‘both’. You can have either of these pens’ (=one pen of your choice’); There are shops on either side of the road (=on both sides).  Given these facts how do we say, There has to be a door on one of the sides (not both) using either?  This is the problem bugging Chaitanyesh D.R.
The problem arises because we tend to assume that all the meanings given under a word are available in all contexts. A good dictionary takes the trouble to indicate the contexts of use for each meaning listed. A pocket dictionary may not do so — there is just no room to do all that.

In ‘existential’ contexts (i.e. where the word is used to indicate that something exists either means ‘both’.  There are houses on either side of the street. There are moderates on either side of the communal divide.
Where a choice is implied (or suggested) the normal interpretation is: ‘one or the other; not both’. ‘You can have either a Parker pen or a Titan watch’ (A father to his son).

This interpretation (one or the other but not both) may seem to be contradicted by a sentence like You can go either trekking or boating or spend the time bird watching. There is no ‘only this and not the other’ suggestion here. You can, if you want, do all the three. The set of available options are given. You may choose one, two or all the three. But here either is not a determiner but an adverb. In this use, unless specifically restricted, all options are available. The meaning is: ‘either this or that or all’  But in On this ticket you can go either trekking or boating but not both, only one option is available.

With this analysis let us see how we can frame a sentence with either where it has the restrictive sense of ‘one or the other but not both’.Obviously it can’t be an existential sentence. It has to be a restrictive one, indicating a possibility. You can have a door on either side of the corridor. This can only be interpreted as stating a possibility: ‘one side or the other but not both’.

Although in OL (ordinary language) either can have this interpretation, in Logic the standard interpretation is ‘one or the other or both’

Compare once again the two sentences. 1. There is a door on either side of the corridor. 2. You can have a door on either side of the corridor. The first sentence is existential. The second one is not.  Cf. also: you can have your name on either side of the door. Both locations are good.

3. ‘he conquered many lands and made of these a great empire and became an emperor of such majesty as none before him.’ Citing this sentence Prof Sajjan asks:  ‘Should it be as none did before him or will this truncated construction do?

Sajjan suggests that we understand the ‘missing ‘structure as ‘none did before him’. The sentence would then read:  ‘became an emperor of such majesty as none did before him. Sajjan suggests that did here be interpreted as ‘became’; as none became before him’.

I am afraid the reconstructed clause is ungrammatical. The ‘missing’ word after none cannot be did. A better choice would be had; ‘as none had before him’. In the light of the rest of the structure this would be understood as: (He) made of these a great empire and became an emperor of such majesty as none had become before him.
We should be able to restore an understood (or ‘deleted’) phrase directly from the structure given. If we put had this will be understood as had become since became appears in the immediate context.

Since had become is easily reconstructable from the context, the omission can’t be faulted. The sentence quoted is correct as it stands.

Contact the writer at ksyadurajan@yahoo.com