# I saw him in London three years ago,



## Lamb67

I saw him in London three years ago and I never saw him after

Eum Londinii tres annos abhinc vidi et nunquam eum videram postea.

perhaps two points need to be discussed :Londinii and  videram.

Thanks.


----------



## Fred_C

Hi.
Londinii is correct.
You must definitely use the perfect tense, because what you mean is "I did not see him a single time", and you are definitely stating an event that happened a countable number of times (zero times), besides, your point is about this number of times.
Therefore : "Eum Londinii tres annos abhinc vidi et nunquam eum *vidi* postea."


----------



## Lamb67

Eum...vidi...vidi postea: Are there possibilities to shorten two 'vidi's  to one ?


Quote : But if the exact time is stated the Pluperfect is used as in English.
Tertio post die quam Romam pervenerat, consul creatus est, On the third after he arrived at Rome he was elected consul. unquote. 

That's why I chose videram in OP provided three years ago could be sort of exact time.

Any opinions ?


----------



## Fred_C

But the pluperfect tense can be used only to state the event that happens before, not the one that happens after !
So you could have said : I had seen him in London three years ago, and never saw him after, but not the converse.
(and likewise in Latin : Eum Londinii tres annos abhinc videram, et nunquam eum postea vidi.)
But the opposition between the pluperfect and the perfect is only required in subclause/main clause, not in two independent clauses.

By the way, please pardon me : I read too quickly your first post : I thought you had written "Videbam" (imperfect) instead of "videram" (pluperfect), which was not right, but for different reasons, that I explained above.


----------



## Lamb67

Eum Londinii tres annos abhinc videram, et nunquam eum postea vidi.

That's what the quote requires. Then how can we make it more concise because there are two' eums' there ?


----------



## Fred_C

Just skip the second one : Eum tres annos abhinc videram, et nunquam postea vidi.


----------



## Lamb67

' I had seen him...3 years ago.' is not good English, I think.
I guess its Latin equivalent : Eum ...abhinc tres annos videram, is not good either.

We probaly can say : Tertio post die quam eum videram, consul creatus est.But ' 3 years ago.' is not as clear and exact as ' On the third day (after).' So:

Eum Londinii tres annos abhinc et nunquam postea vidi.

My quote is only about postquam.


----------



## Lamb67

_Eum Londinii tres annos abhinc neque unquam postea vidi._

_'ET NUNQUAM' is above is changed._


----------

