Ending sentence with an adverb

... to Chicago before is absolutely fine and very natural sounding.
The second one is less usual, but also correct.

CJ

Some would argue that the final position might bring more emphasis on before.

That's an interesting thought, Anon.

I must admit, to me, the final position seems like the normal version, while the central position suggests mild emphasis:

1. He has never before been to Chicago.

MrP

Also note that it is the never that allows the before in that position, confirming that the more neutral position is sentence final.

*He has before been to Chicago.
He has been to Chicago before.

CJ

"He has never been to Chicago before." it's the correct sentence

Hi,
Note that, in uncommon situations where you want a lot of emphasis, it's also possible to say the rather formal
"Never before has he been to Chicago."

Best wishes, Clive

I know I'm three years late, but either works in English. The more proper of the sentences in today's vernacular is the first.

"He has never been to Chicago."

Why bother with "before" if you already said he's "never been" there?

Anonymous"He has never been to Chicago."

Why bother with "before" if you already said he's "never been" there?

If you use the "before" it implies it's changing now.

As I am standing in New York City, I can say "I've never been to New York City before." I can't say it without the "before."

If I am still home in Cleveland wi

Anonymous"He has never been to Chicago."

Why bother with "before" if you already said he's "never been" there?

Agreed, since "has never" means the fact still holds true (that he's never been to Chicago.) Just omit "before", and it's still a proper sentence. "Before" anticipates an "after", where none was provided.

If, however, t