1
  1. You cannot harm me before you have strong evidence.
  2. You cannot harm me until you have strong evidence.

I think 1. is more natural than 2. Am I right?

Maybe 2. isn't correct at all. Is it so?

1

Both are grammatically correct.

However, the first is slightly more suited, since 'until' has the connotation that you are anticipating to be harmed but that they can only do when they have strong evidence.

| improve this answer | |
0

At the level of the matrix clause, these two sentences carry much the same semantics.  My native reader's eye doesn't see a reason to prefer one over the other. 

The word "before" indicates at some prior point.  The word "until" indicates at every prior point.  Because the finite verb of the matrix clause is negated, either of these phrases in this context indicates at not any prior point

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.