In English (and, apparently, most Indo-European languages, if not in all), a common trait can be noticed concerning the prepositions/adverbs of temporal reference: 'before' and (to a lesser extent in English) 'after' are also (or closely related to) spatial references to 'in front of' and 'at back of' respectively. In fact, the derivation of 'before' puts it in the same pattern as 'behind' (still recognised temporally) and 'beside'. The same, though the etymologies are not connected, happens in Latin ante/post, A. Greek πρό(ς)/μετά, OCS predъ (the second pair is unconnected) etc.
1) How could such a (seemingly, 'reverse') metaphor, when the event 'in front of' us is treated as the 'previous' one, like we are watching along the axis of time backwards? I was informed one possibility is a metaphor of a 'marching column of soldiers', when those who passed a fised spot 'before' are those who march 'in front'; is there any article or study on this topic which could confirm or refute this explanation and how else such a connection between spatial and temporal directions could arise?
2) While it is common for languages to have these pairs totally unconnected (Uralic tongues, as far as I know, with all their specific system of essives ad latives, never mix them), but is it even possible for a language to have the (maybe, more intuitive to modern people) opposite connection? One where 'before' of time is related to 'at back of' of space, while 'after' is the same as 'in front of'? If you know such examples, please share those; anyway, if you speak some (especially non-IE) language that either supports or contradicts the pattern mentioned in the first paragraph for English, share them with me as well, for from the (very limited) data I now possess, the connections 'before'='before' and 'after'='behind' seem almost language universals to me. Apparently, WALS never compiled a chart for this matter, while it bothers me a lot for quite some time.
TIME IS STATIONARY AND WE MOVE THROUGH IT
, andTIME IS A MOVING OBJECT
. These are called coherent, though not consistent, with one another, since -- as pointed out -- they coexist beautifully and it's always a surprise when someone realizes they could conflict if you wanted them to.