What's the difference between the following?
- I met him in the UK.
- I've met him in the UK.
Does the second sentence mean that the event was happened recently?
This question is too basic; it can be definitively and permanently answered by a single link to a standard internet reference source designed specifically to find that type of information.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Interpretation depends on at least two of the possible meanings of meet in these phrases:
The first sentence could employ either of these meanings. The second sentence would only allow the first interpretation.
No, it doesn't necessarily mean that the event happened recently.
The difference between the two is a difference in how the speaker is regarding the event: in some cases they could both be used about the same events.
The second "I've met him in the UK" indicates that the speaker is somehow relating this event to the present, but without more context we can't tell specifically how. The "have met" form might indicate a more recent meeting, it certainly implies that he is still alive ("I met him" does not suggest that he is or isn't alive), it might suggest that he is still travelling, and there are many other possibilities.
No, it doesn't. There's really no difference in meaning, not when the two statements are listed by themselves, side-by-side. They both infer that you met "him" in the UK at some time(s) in the past.
So, what's the difference? Let's assume that you say these sentences, not by themselves, but as possible answers to a question. Then, one might be strongly preferable to the other, depending on the question that was asked.
In this case, I think either answer could work fine:
But, Question 2:
In this case, the better answer is:
(because the implied meaning of the sentence is "I first met him in the UK," and you wouldn't say, "I've first met him in the UK.")