+0
It wouldn't be long before they started shooting.
It wouldn't be long until they started shooting.
It wouldn't be long till they started shooting.

I guess I use these interchangeably, but there's always a question in the back of my mind whether there isn't some reason to prefer one or the other, at least in a given context.

Anyone care to comment?
1 2
Comments  
Only the first sounds absolutely right to me.
Do you have any concrete basis or this is this a personal preference?
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
They are one and the same. An advantage of being a native speaker and English teacher. I don't have to rummage through grammar books all the time.
Personally I would have thought 'until' was fine, and by virtue of that 'till'; 'before' would have been my last choice - if at all. The usage of 'before' (in terms of time) seems to be as such: A before B, where A is an action or nonaction (either continuous or instant) during the period of time prior to B occuring. "It wouldn't be long" does actually state an action or nonaction - which is why I doubt it is correct. I would have thought that "it wouldn't be long" refers specifically to the length of time between the present and 'up to' (until/till) "they started shooting".

Mind you, I would be interested to see what others have to say.
We say "five minutes before nine" and "five minutes till nine".

At 8:55, the time is five minutes before nine, so five minutes will have to pass until it is nine.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Mister MicawberAn advantage of being a native speaker and English teacher. I don't have to rummage through grammar books all the time.
This is not informative. It is merely boastful and dogmatic.
Yep! That's me. And I don't have to ask questions here, either.
I would never write, "Yep! That's me." It makes you sound like a yahoo.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Show more