[color=blue]Dear All,
Having to choose between ‘before’ and ‘prior to’, what do we use in the following sentence: “Proportion of the disease has constantly decreased from 40% _____ (before/prior to) 1990 to about 20% in 2000.”
This sentence is part of an analytical report developed for an American audience comprising doctors, pharmacists, and/or pharmaceutical brand managers. Please advise. Thanks.
I would use ‘prior to’ there, but there’s nothing wrong with using ‘before’.
[color=blue]May I know the reason for your decision? Why have you chosen one over the other when either seems fine?
[color=blue]Why did you choose one over the other when either seems fine? Please reply.
Pure instinct. It’s the one that seemed to my ear to fit in best ith the language and structure of the rest of the sentence.
Sorry for not replying sooner… I was asleep! 
Thanks a bunch!
However, I hope the use of ‘before’ does not deem the sentence grammatically incorrect. Am I right?
I told you there was nothing wrong in using ‘before’ in post #2.
I just think that you should use ‘before’ in your sentence. Because I think that your sentence should be brief and concise in order to impart on readers. Beside, if you write this sentence in business style, then using ‘before’ is ok. But if you write this sentence in technical writing, then you should use ‘prior to’ in your sentence.
“Prior to” irks some Americans, but I’m quite fond of it. Some say it’s stilted. I disagree. I definitely don’t think it’s enough to make a sentence verbose.
[color=blue]Please don’t get me wrong Beeesneees. I’m going through an argument pertaining to the above; this would explain my insistency. I’ve been researching this for quite some time and I’ve found mixed references, which led me to raise this doubt here.
References in support of the use of ‘before’: for brevity; to speak like a native speaker (Anglo-Saxon vs. Latin)
Evan Jenkins in ‘Columbia Journalism Review’ says: <That’s the way to use “prior” — as an adjective. As a preposition, “prior to” is very close to non-English, however ubiquitous. “Prior to 1965, virtually no one was speaking of abortion as a prospective right.” What in heaven’s name is wrong with “before”?> Read More: cjr.org/resources/lc/priorto.php
David Foster Wallace in ‘Wordpress’ says: <if we say “prior to” to mean “before” then we should say “posterior to” to mean “after”, instead of “subsequent to”. This is the etymological fallacy, the belief that in order to find out how to use English, we need to look at a different language.> Read More: mightyredpen.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/2427/
“Before is preferable, it sounds more natural” - quizlet.com/1182541/grammar-and- … ash-cards/
Marianne Mallia, Manager and Senior Medical Writer of Scientific Publications, Texas Heart Institute, in “Common Mistakes in Grammar, Punctuation, and Sentence Structure” suggests: “Use shorter words, when possible … Before (not prior to) writing my review, I read everything I could find on the topic.” - texasheartinstitute.org/Abou … -Rules.pdf
“A very specific feature of the English language is the existence of two words to express the same thing: one of Germanic origin, one of Latin origin. In most cases, the Germanic word is more natural (e.g. before vs. prior to), and the Latin word more sophisticated. I asked my British and American colleagues what was the difference between “drinking water” and “potable water”. They said they didn’t see any. For us foreigners with a Latin-based language, the Latin word is very easy to understand, but I doubt very much that the English speaker uses it to make our life easy. On the other hand, the same Latin word (I mean the “complicated word”) will be difficult to understand for speakers with a different culture, such as Asians. Many English speakers don’t realise this. Personally, I prefer “drinking” to “potable” water. It just sounds simpler.” - dardel.info/Sprache2.html
“Use the simple, direct word rather than the longer word or expressions: Prior to vs. before” - In “Strategies for Effective Writing” developed by “Hinari Research in Health” and “Word Health Organization” - docstoc.com/docs/36874531/St … ve-Writing
“prior to - Make it before or until” - In: “Good usage versus common usage” of “The Chicago Manual of Style Online” - chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ … ec220.html
Response of ‘Cereberus’ on the same topic ‘before vs. prior to’ in english-test.net/forum/ftopic45580.html
Response of ‘Frank78’ on the topic “The accent of non-native English speakers when speaking English” in forum.wordreference.com/showthre … 796&page=2
References in support of the use of ‘prior to’: to be formal
“Sometimes termed pompous or affected, ‘prior to’ is a synonym of before that most often appears in rather formal contexts, such as the annual reports of corporations. It may occasionally emphasize the notion of anticipation <page makeup decisions are verified and approved prior to typesetting — Publishers Weekly>”. Read More: merriam-webster.com/dictiona … 1286686728 - My comment: Here, ‘prior to’ emphasizes the relationship between the 2 events and, therefore, might be appropriate. However, this is not the case in my sentence.
Response of ‘Alan’ on the same topic ‘before vs. prior to’ in english-test.net/forum/ftopic45580.html
Hello Vindorain,
I haven’t read through all your links. I merely picked up the two from this site. I am surprised that you see Cereberus’s response to be in favour of the word ‘before’. It seems non-commital on that score to me, and despite the fact that Fowler described the word as ‘incongruous’ it also indicates that ‘prior to’ is formal language. Alan’s response seems to sum it up quite nicely, ‘prior to’ is more business like, and as it is an analytical report, a business like tone is appropriate. (You should also read the prior posts in that same thread - especially Alan’s comments here)
‘Pompous’ is not a synonym for ‘formal’. ‘Formal’ writing has a continuing place in the English language and there is nothing wrong with its use. I am a native British speaker and see nothing ‘pompous’ about it. Mordant, a native American speaker, seems to agree with me.
I am afraid that I have to disagree with Palabattle regarding the difference between what he terms ‘business style’ and ‘technical writing’. I don’t think that ‘prior to’ is to any practical extent less brief or concise than ‘before’. I also believe he means ‘impact on readers’ rather than ‘impart on readers’.
[color=blue]Beeesneees, I didn’t begin this discussion to prove the use of a word wrong, but to identify the better usage, especially to a specific section of the audience.
Just because a couple of my friends at this site agree with the use of ‘prior to’ over ‘before’ for one being more formal than the other, I can’t dissent to the view of others, primarily to the opinion of references (which you seems to have conveniently shunned in your reply) mentioned below:
The view of above sources carries significance to me as they are able to validate it with sound reasoning.
What I could gather from the manner in which this discussion progresses is, it is more to do with an individual’s perception than anything else.
Beeesneees, even your view, which initially seemed to me to lean toward noncommittal, now seems bumptious.
Further, ‘pompous’ is a word used by Webster in its definition about ‘Prior to’ and not my coinage :). (I agree that I’m not a native speaker and am here to understand the subtle differences of 2 English words having the same meaning.)
Like many others, Palabattle talks about brevity as a reason. Yes, brevity has always played an important role in publications of any kind. I will quote a read here in support of this view from a renowned training manual for editors by Ian Montagnes, which is very much in line with what Fowler has to say:
"Use the simple, direct word rather than the longer word or expression. Here are some examples: … begin [over] commence … use [over] employ … before [over] prior to…
Shorter, more direct words save paper, money, and time. They have fewer letters to typeset and print; they also have fewer to read, which saves readers’ time. Just think: to change “utilization” (11 letters) to “use” (3 letters) is an increase in efficiency of 267%. Any researcher would be delighted to obtain such high results in an experiment!"
To sum it up, I’ve decided to go ahead and use ‘before’ in my sentence. However, thanks to all those who have spent time on this thread. Although I didn’t receive enough grip from readers, this discussion directed me to choose the right word. I owe quite a bit to Beeesneees for having promptly responded me. Although we have had our arguments, I still believe that I can come back to you with another problem in the future.
It’s entirely up to you, as I said from the beginning.
Though why you bothered to ask for advice about it when you had already researched and made your decision is beyond me.
I would still use ‘prior to’ but I’m willing to bet that no-one would look twice, whichever you use.
Oh… and your [s:070df4eca2]argument[/s:070df4eca2] dispute [s:070df4eca2]about[/s:070df4eca2] over [s:070df4eca2]shorter[/s:070df4eca2] little, [s:070df4eca2]more direct[/s:070df4eca2] frank words saving paper, [s:070df4eca2]money[/s:070df4eca2] cash and time is [s:070df4eca2]a nonsense[/s:070df4eca2] rubbish.
Aside from the fact that in this instance we are speaking of one letter, where would the richness of the language be with such a viewpoint?
It’s interesting that your posts on this subject are far longer and less direct than mine, don’t you think?
[color=blue]Thought that I reached the end of my thread with my previous message, Beeesneees! 
To clarify, I decided only after realizing you don’t have anything substantial to support your argument.
It isn’t one letter but a letter and a space, which will make it 2 words when 1 will suffice. I should have known that you’ll rubbish most of what I said when you failed to consider the sources that I had quoted and just went on to reiterate your argument over and over - My mistake!
At least this might liquify your stance a bit: "In a letter to a 12-year-old boy, Mark Twain wrote, “I notice you use plain, simple language, short words, and brief sentences. That is the way to write English—it is the modern way and the best way. Stick to it; don’t let fluff and flowers and verbosity creep in.” Hope you don’t start hating Twain for what he said.
If brevity is leading to impoverishment of English language, what do you think is anglicizing Latin words doing?
My posts are longer because, as I said, I’m not the native speaker that you are! 
To simply put it, I am elaborating on the problem, but you choose to post your arguments and nothing to substantiate it!
This isn’t going anywhere Beeesneees! Let’s end this on a happy note!
I don’t need to quantify my arguments or consider your sources. I am happy with both phrases.