# I met him just two years earlier



## marget

Can one say "J'ai fait sa connaissance juste deux ans plus tôt"?
I really want to know if "juste" is correct, or would I have to say 'seulement" or something like that and is it possible to say "plus tôt" in this context, or shoud "avant" be used?

Merci d'avance


----------



## bikuni

Je l'ai rencontré à peine deux ans auparavant
J'ai fait sa connaissance deux ans plus tôt


----------



## pieanne

Je dirais "je l'avais rencontré juste 2 ans auparavant/plus tôt".

What's the whole sentence?


----------



## shumb6

is this sentence correct even in english ?

to me it seems that it should read "i _had _met him just two years earlier"

this would explain why pieanne has used 'je l'avais rencontré' and not 'je l'ai rencontré.'

but, as pieanne has said, it may indeed depend on the context


----------



## bikuni

true, "earlier" instead of "before" seems to imply that the narration is in the past tense


----------



## pieanne

Thank you!
Indeed "I *met* him two years *earlier"* doesn't sound right...

It should be either
"I met him two years before ..."
Or
"I had met him two years earlier. (than a preceding event)"


----------



## shumb6

i completely agree, pieanne


----------



## frenchtranslater

I think it should be "I have met him two years earlier"


----------



## pieanne

You can't use the present perfect here, I think


----------



## Kelly B

pieanne said:
			
		

> Indeed "I *met* him two years *earlier"* doesn't sound right...
> 
> It should be either
> "I met him two years before ..."
> Or
> "I had met him two years earlier. (than a preceding event)"


Justement, selon moi.


----------



## frenchtranslater

you can use the present perfect because it is an experience,
it is impossible to use the past perfect becasue past perfect implies that you are comparing a past action to an action that happened even before, which in this case doesn't happen.


----------



## Gil

Would the context explain "earlier than what"?


----------



## marget

Gil said:
			
		

> Would the context explain "earlier than what"?


Basically, I'm trying to confirm that one can use deux ans plus tot to say *two years* *earlier.*

Merci


----------



## geve

marget said:
			
		

> Basically, I'm trying to confirm that one can use deux ans plus tot to say *two years* *earlier.*
> 
> Merci


Hi marget,
I would say no, I'm afraid... It doesn't sound quite right to me, just like the sentence in English apparently. Instead I would say _"J'ai fait sa connaissance *il y a deux ans*"_

I agree with what has been said for "auparavant" and "plus tôt", that they should be used with past perfect, when you're comparing a past action to another action of the past as the others have said before:
_Je l'ai vu à Paris le mois dernier, mais j'avais fait sa connaissance deux ans plus tôt _(= plus tôt que la date à laquelle je l'ai vu à Paris)
(for example, I saw him in Paris in 2002, but I had first met him in 2000 = 2 years before than 2002, and not 2 years before _today_)

If you use "deux ans plus tôt", it implies that there's something in the text that can answer the question "plus tôt que quoi ?"/"earlier than what?" (hence Gil's question, if I understood it right)


----------



## Gil

marget said:
			
		

> Basically, I'm trying to confirm that one can use deux ans plus tot to say *two years* *earlier.*
> 
> Merci


I think you might in some specific contexts.  But I would be picky about the contexts.
Edit:
Exemple:
Il est décédé en 1999 et j'avais fait sa connaissance deux ans plut tôt.


----------



## anangelaway

I agree with Geve and Gil, the original sentence does not sound right to my ears.

C'est vrai que la phrase en français pourrait tout aussi bien être:
_''J'ai fait sa connaissance *il y a deux ans de celà*.''_ 

How about:

I've only met him about two years ago. ?


Ou:

Deux ans plus tôt, je faisais sa connaissance. 
Two years earlier/two years ago, I had met him. ?


----------



## timpeac

I think the confusion comes from the fact English is a bit looser on the use of tenses in this context. We can say "I met him 2 years before the shop opened", indeed I think that would be more common than "I had met him...". Apparently French is stricter in its use of tenses (after all the meeting happened before the shop opening which itself happened in the past, so using the pluperfect, like French does, does make logical sense).

Are there any other areas where this is the case? Can anyone detect a rule that can be extended to other situations?


----------



## bikuni

"I met him two years before the shop opened"
Actually, if that occurs at the beginning of a story, you would write "I had met him two years before...", but then through the rest of the story, as the tense/time had been set, you would actually go back to use a simple past form. 

"I have only met hime two years ago"
Is that actually correct? I thought "ago was definitely calling for a "preterit" as "I met him only two years ago"


----------



## geve

timpeac said:
			
		

> I think the confusion comes from the fact English is a bit looser on the use of tenses in this context. We can say "I met him 2 years before the shop opened", indeed I think that would be more common than "I had met him...". Apparently French is stricter in its use of tenses (after all the meeting happened before the shop opening which itself happened in the past, so using the pluperfect, like French does, does make logical sense).
> 
> Are there any other areas where this is the case? Can anyone detect a rule that can be extended to other situations?


I'm not sure I follow you, Tim... do you mean, a rule about how strict is the use of tenses in French? 



			
				marget said:
			
		

> Basically, I'm trying to confirm that one can use deux ans plus tot to say *two years* *earlier.*


I don't think my post #14 answered correctly this question... "2 years earlier" _can_ translate into "deux ans plus tôt": both means "2 years before a certain event". What we have troubles with is the verb tenses... I think


----------



## timpeac

geve said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I follow you, Tim... do you mean, a rule about how strict is the use of tenses in French?


 
Or occasions when English uses the simple past where anything but a pluperfect would sound wrong in French. Judging from the above discussion "plus tôt" is an example of this but "avant" is not.


----------



## geve

timpeac said:
			
		

> Or occasions when English uses the simple past where anything but a pluperfect would sound wrong in French. Judging from the above discussion "plus tôt" is an example of this but "avant" is not.


I had understood from the above discussion, that in English it should be pluperfect too ; only the English might be looser than the French about this rule. Is that correct?

In French (as in English?), the _plus-que-parfait_ is used
- to indicate an action in the past that occurred before another action in the past
- in "si" clauses, to express a hypothetical situation in the past contrary to what actually happened (= _Si tu m'avais demandé, j'aurais répondu_)

_(ne me croyez pas sur parole, allez voir sur __ce site en anglais__ ou __celui-là en français_ _!)_

I have the feeling that indeed, it would sound strange if pluperfect wasn't used there (until someone posts a counter-example I haven't thought of... auquel cas je retournerais ma veste aussitôt !  )


----------



## timpeac

geve said:
			
		

> I had understood from the above discussion, that in English it should be pluperfect too ; only the English might be looser than the French about this rule. Is that correct?


Well, not really - I would put it the other way round - this rule, although logical, is imperfect in describing what English actually does (languages don't conform to rules, they just "are" and we invent the rules to try to describe them). "I met him two years earlier" is perfectly good English, whereas we have seen that "je l'ai rencontré 2 ans plus tôt" isn't good French. We can explain why French prefers the pluperfect (the fact that the meeting had happened before the next event which is itself in the past) but that argument clearly doesn't work for English, or at least not necessarily. "I had met him..." is ok - but I don't think people would use it as much, certainly not in speech.

I understand the theory that the pluperfect should describe actions before another which is itself in the past - but following that rule here wouldn't lead to the most natural English, to my mind. Moreover I have the feeling that I would have made the same error in French as Marget here, before learning that French is strict on needing the pluperfect when "plus tôt" is used - so I am wondering if there are some other similar situations where English doesn't use the pluperfect where French does (or even vice versa) that I should learn.


----------



## Kelly B

I disagree. This example 





			
				Timpeac said:
			
		

> I met him 2 years before the shop opened


 uses before instead of earlier, and that difference is significant. With earlier, I think "had met" is preferred, and the simple "met" doesn't sound right to me.


----------



## timpeac

Kelly B said:
			
		

> I disagree. This example uses before instead of earlier, and that difference is significant. With earlier, I think "had met" is preferred, and the simple "met" doesn't sound right to me.


 
Yes, you're right, please ignore that example it's not what I meant. For me "He died in 1999 but I met him for the first time 2 years earlier" sounds fine. Although, having said that, I'd probably say "beforehand" not earlier. Perhaps that's why...


----------



## timpeac

geve said:
			
		

> I agree with what has been said for "auparavant" and "plus tôt", that they should be used with past perfect, when you're comparing a past action to another action of the past as the others have said before:
> _Je l'ai vu à Paris le mois dernier, mais j'avais fait sa connaissance deux ans plus tôt _(= plus tôt que la date à laquelle je l'ai vu à Paris)
> (for example, I saw him in Paris in 2002, but I had first met him in 2000 = 2 years before than 2002, and not 2 years before _today_)
> 
> If you use "deux ans plus tôt", it implies that there's something in the text that can answer the question "plus tôt que quoi ?"/"earlier than what?" (hence Gil's question, if I understood it right)


And how about "avant" - is it the same argument there? How would you translate "I met him 2 years before the shop opened"?


----------



## Kelly B

That brings us back to geve's 





> I had understood from the above discussion, that in English it should be pluperfect too ; only the English might be looser than the French about this rule. Is that correct?


 and I'll agree with that. I'd say "he died in 1999 but I had met him 2 years earlier" but I would not notice any issue upon hearing it the other way (unless I had just read a long discussion of the issue.) 

Hm. Looking at it again, I'd probably say "he died in 1999 but I met him 2 years before that." Anyone else getting dizzy?


----------



## timpeac

Kelly B said:
			
		

> That brings us back to geve's and I'll agree with that. I'd say "he died in 1999 but I had met him 2 years earlier" but I would not notice any issue upon hearing it the other way (unless I had just read a long discussion of the issue.)
> 
> Hm. Looking at it again, I'd probably say "he died in 1999 but I met him 2 years before that." Anyone else getting dizzy?


 
Yes!! Ok, I can see that some people are stricter in English than me on that, fair enough. But, I can't see why "before that" would make any difference - the sequence of events is the same and "before that" and "earlier" are pretty synonymous. I am surprised that you would prefer "had met" for one and not for the other. I suppose what I would like to know most of all, though, are those instances in French where it is vital to use the pluperfect, because it seems that I don't use it instinctively in English as much as it is used in French. "plus tôt" and "auparavant" are 2 - any more? "Avant" itself? "Je l'ai rencontré 2 ans avant l'ouverture du magasin" ou je l'avais rencontré 2 ans avant l'ouverture du magasin" ?


----------



## geve

Kelly B said:
			
		

> Anyone else getting dizzy?


Count me in! I am not very good with rules... Here's a picture of me that I hope you will accept as an excuse.


			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> And how about "avant" - is it the same argument there? How would you translate "I met him 2 years before the shop opened"? (using verbs, not tricks like l'ouverture )


I _think_ you could _hear_ people use with the passé composé in colloquial speech... However, I also think I have been thinking too much about the topic, so you'd better get a fresher brain to answer your question!


----------



## geve

timpeac said:
			
		

> "Je l'ai rencontré 2 ans avant l'ouverture du magasin" ou je l'avais rencontré 2 ans avant l'ouverture du magasin" ?


I think you can say both _Je l'ai rencontré 2 ans avant l'ouverture du magasin. _and _Je l'avais rencontré 2 ans avant l'ouverture du magasin. _(though I would prefer n°1 in that case) 

You can say _Le magasin a ouvert en 1999. Je l'avais rencontré 2 ans avant. _But I think you can't say _Le magasin a ouvert en 1999. Je l'ai rencontré 2 ans avant. _


(et je crois que tu vas devoir nous payer l'apéro là...)


----------



## Gil

"I met him 2 years before the shop opened"
Je ne pense pas que ça va simplifier les choses, mais:
"Je l'ai rencontré deux ans avant que la boutique (l'atelier) n'ouvre.  (subjonctif présentet ne explétif)


----------



## timpeac

I'm heading off down the pub now? Want to come? 

Ok, knowing the usage now for "avant" "auparavant" and "plus tôt" should cover most situations

Edit - thanks Gil, would you like to come too? Ne explétif, hmmm - I think I need a few expletives right now!


----------



## pieanne

Have one on me!

I think it depends on the speaker/teller's standpoint. If the story is set in the past, then use the pluperfect. If it's in the present, then the "passé composé".

But there was no complement after "before" in the original question.


----------

