I was doing Lesson 6 of Ana Pana, and I came across this line:

Mi nun estas en la lasta jaro antaŭ ol mi povos studi ĉe universitato.

I understood the meaning of the sentence ("Now I am in the last year before I will be able to study at university" ). But I don't understand exactly why "ol" is coupled with "antaŭ" in this situation, instead of just "antaŭ". Is it because there are two different clauses, and it should be "clauseX antaŭ ol clauseY" (clauseX before clauseY)? Or am I reading too much into this?

EDIT: In case you are wondering, yes, I should have asked my tutor. I let it go at the time, but for some reason it continues to bother me when that sentence comes up in my flash cards.

hercxjo:I was doing Lesson 6 of Ana Pana, and I came across this line:

Mi nun estas en la lasta jaro antaŭ ol mi povos studi ĉe universitato.

I understood the meaning of the sentence ("Now I am in the last year before I will be able to study at university" ). But I don't understand exactly why "ol" is coupled with "antaŭ" in this situation, instead of just "antaŭ". Is it because there are two different clauses, and it should be "clauseX antaŭ ol clauseY" (clauseX before clauseY)? Or am I reading too much into this?

EDIT: In case you are wondering, yes, I should have asked my tutor. I let it go at the time, but for some reason it continues to bother me when that sentence comes up in my flash cards.

I think that this "ol" has the flavor of some kind of necessity to happen before the other action could be carried out.

hercxjo:But I don't understand exactly why "ol" is coupled with "antaŭ" in this situation, instead of just "antaŭ". Is it because there are two different clauses, and it should be "clauseX antaŭ ol clauseY" (clauseX before clauseY)?

Yes, your explanation is good. Here's the PMEG page: Antaŭ ol

You put in "ol" when you have antaux followed by a verb or a clause with a verb. If antaux is followed by a noun, no "ol".

We do the same with "post", in the same circumstances, except we normally say "post kiam" rather than "post ol".

(Why? Because that's the way it's done! But it isn't wrong to use "post ol" or "antaux kiam", so feel free to use the "kiam" form with both if that makes more sense to you)

erinja:You put in "ol" when you have antaux followed by a verb or a clause with a verb. If antaux is followed by a noun, no "ol".

We do the same with "post", in the same circumstances, except we normally say "post kiam" rather than "post ol".

(Why? Because that's the way it's done! But it isn't wrong to use "post ol" or "antaux kiam", so feel free to use the "kiam" form with both if that makes more sense to you)

I think there is a difference. "antaŭ ol" can be followed by an infinitive or by a clause, whereas "post kiam" can only be followed by a clause but not by an infinitive.

Antaŭ ol manĝi purigu viajn manojn.
Post kiam vi manĝis purigu la teleron.

One could say "Post ol manĝi ..." but not "Post kiam manĝi ..."

erinja:If antaux is followed by a noun, no "ol".

Unless a verb or phrase is implied. PMEG has the example "Mi finos antaŭ ol vi. = Mi finos antaŭ ol vi finos."

Excellent. Thank you all for the advice!