He ducked behind a tree before being spotted

Question

In the sentence

He ducked behind a tree before being spotted.

has he been spotted?

P.S. Context: The search party was close behind.

P.P.S. Can we know from the sentence, as written, whether he has been spotted?

P.P.P.S. Same question, this sentence:

He ducked behind a tree before he could be spotted.

As a tease: context please. Previous sentences. Next sentences. Please click on the edit icon to improve your question. 0:-) — Cardinal, Jul 23 '17 at 19:54
Yes and no. Has he been spotted when? Only context can provide the answer to either question. Please use the [edit] key to provide context. If you don't, your question may be voted closed, and we would rather help. P.P.S. Nope. . . — P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica, Jul 23 '17 at 19:55
No, we can't know from the sentence as written whether he's been spotted. The "before being spotted" phrase can go either way. — Robusto, Jul 23 '17 at 20:06
@Robusto : Sir, I do believe you are correct. If you would venture to supply an answer, we could see if the ELL denizens agree. — TimR, Jul 23 '17 at 20:11
P.P.P.S. He is unspotted. Spotting has not eventuated. There has been no spotting. Et non visibilis fuerit. — P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica, Jul 23 '17 at 20:14
You only know that there was a possibility of his being spotted (so could adds nothing here). The search party had to be nearby, or there would not be a possibility. It also has to be assumed that the tree blocks the view of the search party. — user3169, Jul 23 '17 at 20:57
@user3169: You see no temporal difference between "he could be spotted" and "being spotted" so that they would combine differently with before? — TimR, Jul 24 '17 at 11:13

Robusto · Answer 1 · 2017-07-24T00:59:21.817

In a comment above I stated:

No, we can't know from the sentence as written whether he's been spotted. The "before being spotted" phrase can go either way.

Let's unpack this. The sense of the OP's example depends on how you interpret the word before. There are two senses that can be applied here:

Earlier or sooner than an event

Rather than or instead of an event

Obviously if you mean earlier or sooner it means that "being spotted" is an eventuality.

If you mean rather than or instead of "being spotted" it means the spotting never happened.

Absent more context, we must conclude that there is no certain way to resolve this ambiguity.

English words often have contradictory meanings (or senses) that can be interpreted different ways. Look up the word fast sometime and you'll see that it can mean speedy or completely stuck.

score 2 · Answer 2 · answered Jul 24 '17 at 04:23

I'll start here:

He ducked behind a tree before he could be spotted.

To me, this version clearly indicates that he was not spotted.

I disagree with user1369's comment that "could" adds nothing, and I do not find this version of the sentence ambiguous at all.

No native speaker is going to hear a sentence like that and think it means "He ducked behind a tree before the mere possibility that he could be spotted even arose." If that was the intended meaning, we could be talking about some random time he ducked behind a tree ten years ago, which would be entirely irrelevant and make no sense to introduce into the story at this point.

We have to assume there is some relevance to "before he could be spotted," and as such, we have to assume that the phrase means he wasn't spotted.

As for the original sentence:

He ducked behind a tree before being spotted.

My initial instinct was that he was spotted, but the more times I read it, the more I am unsure. So I will simply concur with Robusto that it's ambiguous.

He ducked behind a tree before being spotted

2 Answers2