Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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?

share|improve this question
    
See here english.stackexchange.com/questions/70497/… an explanation on similar question. –  user19148 Jun 9 '12 at 22:31
2  
Questions about tenses keep appearing. The answers can be found in any widely used grammar book for foreign learners of English. Any answers given here, including any of my own, will, at best, be incomplete and, at worst, plain wrong. I am voting to close as general reference. –  Barrie England Jun 10 '12 at 10:43
add comment

closed as general reference by Barrie England, Peter Shor , Mehper C. Palavuzlar, kiamlaluno, RegDwigнt Jun 12 '12 at 10:05

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.

3 Answers

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Interpretation depends on at least two of the possible meanings of meet in these phrases:

  • to come into the company or presence of
  • to be introduced to

The first sentence could employ either of these meanings. The second sentence would only allow the first interpretation.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.

share|improve this answer
    
He never likes to meet in the same place twice- I've met him in the UK, Germany and France, where have you met him? –  Jim Jun 9 '12 at 23:00
add comment

Does the second sentence mean that the event was happened recently?

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.

Question 1:

Have you ever met him before?

In this case, I think either answer could work fine:

Yes, I met him in the UK.
Yes, I've met him in the UK.

But, Question 2:

Where did you first meet him?

In this case, the better answer is:

I met him in the UK.

(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.")

share|improve this answer
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.