<p>From Merriam Webster on the definition for the conjunction of “before”:</p>
<p>
</would></p>
<p>It says “rather or sooner than,” as in: “He would rather starve than steal” or “He would starve before he would steal.” For this to work, there must be the future tense somewhere in the sentence; the OP’s sentence didn’t have this. </p>
<p>The definition the OP is trying to use is this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That definition is for the prepositional use of “before.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The “or” in “rather or sooner than” doesn’t imply that either can be applied individually, otherwise they would be separate entries. There already is an entry for “sooner than,” or more accurately, “earlier than.” This means that the “rather than” takes precedence, otherwise it would just be a repeat. They put the “sooner than” in there to indicate an association, that we do things of more importance earlier</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do you mean by “this”? I explained tense in a previous post. The example “would starve before he’d steal” isn’t in the future tense either. It is only hypothetical because it is not his routine. It is his preference. If it were his routine, as in “I floss before I brush,” it would be in the present tense and the definition would apply. The OP’s sentence indicates a preference, or a routine, if you will, in that the verb is “am” (to be)</p>
<p>“I starve before I steal” is grammatical because it indicates a routine</p>
<p>I’m not convinced that the “rather than” definition works for anything but the future tense (which encompasses the conditional tense).</p>
<p>Why not?
If you can for one part of a definition, then you can for another because the word is part of the same entry as a conjunction. If anything, the present tense can’t be used for “sooner than,” not “rather than,” because something can’t come before something else in the present tense. This is not the case (“see my son before I die”) because of the discussion we had earlier, so it shouldn’t be the case for the more straightforward “rather than.” We can agree to disagree at this point</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sounds good. :)</p>