# I've just met Mario



## Intoarut

Hello everyone: Here's a little  "circle-the-sentence-that-best-follows-the-first-sentence" exercise that I don't get....

_I've just met Mario
     a. He's nice.
     b. He's an old friend.

_According to the key, the correct answer is a. And my question is: If you take "I've just met Mario" as "I've just seen him," so then b. could also be correct..... or not?


----------



## tiluli

Intoarut said:


> Hello everyone: Here's a little "circle-the-sentence-that-best-follows-the-first-sentence" exercise that I don't get....
> 
> _I've just met Mario
> a. He's nice.
> b. He's an old friend.
> 
> _According to the key, the correct answer is a. And my question is: If you take "I've just met Mario" as "I've just seen him," so then b. could also be correct..... or not?



The thing is that in Spanish, the sentence "I've just met Mario" means that you didn't know him before that, it was the very first time you met him. So, the correct answer is indeed A.


----------



## Trinadora

tiluli said:


> The thing is that in Spanish, the sentence "I've just met Mario" means that you didn't know him before that, it was the very first time you met him. So, the correct answer is indeed A.



I think Tiluli meant to say that in *English*, the sentence "I've just met Mario" means....  

If that's the case, I agree.


----------



## tiluli

Trinadora said:


> I think Tituli meant to say that in *English*, the sentence "I've just met Mario" means....
> 
> I agree.


No, I meant to say just that...think about it, it's correct, it's just a matter of the order of the words. For example I'd say that "hello" means in Spanish "hola"...it would be the same to say: in Spanish, "hello" means "hola". 
I'd like to read some thoughts about this, do reply


----------



## bzu

tiluli said:


> No, I meant to say just that...think about it,  it's correct, it's just a matter of the order of the words. For example  I'd say that "hello" means in Spanish "hola"...it would be the same to  say: in Spanish, "hello" means "hola".
> I'd like to read some thoughts about this, do reply


^^   You've lost me there. Intoarut is a Spanish speaker who is doing an  English exercise, so I can't see how it's relevant what the answer would be if the  sentence were in Spanish. 


Intoarut said:


> According to the key, the correct answer is a. And my question is: If you take "I've just met Mario" as "I've just seen him," so then b. could also be correct..... or not?


The "best" answer is definitely A, because "I've just met Mario" by itself gives the idea that you've just "conocido" him, rather than just "visto" him. However, "I've just met my old friend Mario in town, and he told me blah blah", would be perfectly okay. So yes, B could also be correct depending on the context, but as they are looking for the best, most logical answer, that is definitely A.


----------



## inib

I agree with bzu that the *best and most logical* answer without further context is A. But I would like to reassure Intoarut that it's true that the sentence could also mean "I've just bumped into Mario", as bzu's example demonstrates, so B is not wrong, just a less probable situation.


----------



## Intoarut

Thanks everyone!  

*bzu*... you're right. Spanish is irrelevant here. The problem, in fact, is that there are three main definitions for _*meet*_:

1. seeing somebody at an arranged place
2. seeing somebody by chance
3. seeing somebody for the first time

So without context, option b in the exercise goes perfect with definition 2 in the dictionary! 

*inib*... thanks for reassuring me!  The guys who wrote this textbook are driving me crazy...........


----------



## grahamcracker

If you just met him, you didn't know him before. If you knew him before you would say it differently, "I just ran into Mario". That would imply you knew him before.


----------



## pubman

grahamcracker said:


> If you just met him, you didn't know him before. If you knew him before you would say it differently, "I just ran into Mario". That would imply you knew him before.



Are you sure Graham? If you 'just met him' does not imply categorically that you didn't know him before. Also the terminology "just ran into" is not very common in the UK.

Bzu and inib have already given good answers


----------



## Jim2996

Seems to me that this is another ofthose *which-sentence-does-the-teacher-think-is-best exercises*.  It's more about the teacher than English grammar, and it certainly doesn't seem to be about the meaning*s* of the word "just."  I immediately recognized the two different meanings, as I think most native speakers would.  Yet, on thinking about it for a bit, I agree it's probably the first that is wanted.  It's a game of figuring out, guessing, what the teacher (or book) is thinking.  

If someone calls me on my cell phone and asks what am I doing, I may well answer, "I just met Marcia [my wife of forty years] and we are going out to dinner."  Indeed, my daughter did call me last week and, as I remember, this is what I said, although the exact words were "mom" and "pizza."

I can't see any logical reason to choose A.  I suppose an argument could be made that A is more frequent than B.  If anyone wants to make this argument, I would ask for some data.


----------



## autremoi

I agree with Jim2996, meet also mean "to come together". I hear people say "meet with" to emphasize this meaning as opposed to "to become acquainted".


----------



## Wandering JJ

grahamcracker said:


> If you just met him, you didn't know him before. If you knew him before you would say it differently, "I just ran into Mario". That would imply you knew him before.


I cannot agree as far as British English is concerned. 'I've just met X' equally means 'I've just run/bumped into X - an old friend of mine.'


----------



## gringuitoloco

To be "B," the original sentence must have been "I've just met WITH Mario."
It has to be "A" because "B" is impossible.


----------



## Intoarut

Apparently this is a US vs Br Eng discussion. Those of you who feel sentence a is the best choice come from the States. Those of you who agree with me (possibility b is okay too) come from Britain. 

Perhaps it's important to point out that this is a US Eng textbook........


----------



## ribran

I agree with Jim. You can certainly *meet* someone whose acquaintance you have made before.


----------



## pubman

Intoarut said:


> Apparently this is a US vs Br Eng discussion. Those of you who feel sentence a is the best choice come from the States. Those of you who agree with me (possibility b is okay too) come from Britain.
> 
> Perhaps it's important to point out that this is a US Eng textbook........



It's not, both British and American posters are saying that both answers are possible (except Graham and Gringuitoloco) but that 'A' is the answer most likely.


----------



## Jim2996

gringuitoloco said:


> To be "B," the original sentence must have been "I've just met WITH Mario."
> It has to be "A" because "B" is impossible.



I take "to meet with" as a phrasal verb.  It has a different meaning than "to meet."  To meet someone is to run into them; it is a point in time.  To meet with someone is to have a meeting with which involves a duration in time.  For example, "I've just [recently] met with Mario, and [during that time we spent together] we decided [at some point toward the end of the conversation] to paint the room red."  Of course, others may have a different take on this.

I also think that "I signed up for an online dating service and just met with my first date" is a proper English sentence.  "To meet" with can refer to new people or to already-known friends, just like "to meet" can.


----------



## grahamcracker

pubman said:


> Are you sure Graham? If you 'just met him' does not imply categorically that you didn't know him before.


If nothing else is added, like "my old friend", then I would think it was their first acquaintance.




> Also the terminology "just ran into" is not very common in the UK.


Okay.



> Bzu and inib have already given good answers


Well, bzu said, "I just met my old friend." As far as what inib said, "A" may not be exclusive but it the most likely answer.

If I wanted to say that "I just met him", I would say "I just met with him." That way, there would be no doubt. I wouldn't use "I just met Mario" if I had already known him. The listener might think it was my first acquaintance.


----------



## alex_vkcr

Option b is wrong since you have just met him and that means that you had not ever met him before so he can't be an old friend, he could be a friend who is old thought ^^.


----------



## roanheads

Looks like the between difference between " acabo de conocer a Mario, es simpático"   ( meeting for the first time )    ( a)
,
and  " acabo de topar con Mario, es un viejo amigo" ( meeting up with old friend by chance)   (b)


----------



## grahamcracker

Jim2996 said:


> I take "to meet with" as a phrasal verb.  It has a different meaning than "to meet."  To meet someone is to run into them; it is a point in time.  To meet with someone is to have a meeting with which involves a duration in time.  For example, "I've just [recently] met with Mario, and [during that time we spent together] we decided [at some point toward the end of the conversation] to paint the room red."  Of course, others may have a different take on this.
> 
> I also think that "I signed up for an online dating service and just met with my first date" is a proper English sentence.  "To meet" with can refer to new people or to already-known friends, just like "to meet" can.



I agree.


----------



## pubman

alex_vkcr said:


> Option b is wrong since you have just met him and that means that you had not ever met him before so he can't be an old friend, he could be a friend who is old thought ^^.



To have just" can be interptreted in a couple of ways.


----------



## pubman

So if I said "I have just had some tea" would you automatically assume that I have never drank tea before? or would you assume that I have just finished drinking the tea?


----------



## grahamcracker

pubman said:


> So if I said "I have just had some tea" would you automatically assume that I have never drank tea before? or would you assume that I have just finished drinking the tea?


No. But "met" (past tense) generally refers to a first meeting unless you provide some context suggesting otherwise. Yes, I did change my answer to say that it could be a meeting with someone previously known. But I would tend toward "A" as the most likely answer--for American speakers. Now, it could be that there are some regional variations of nuance which speakers would interpret differently.

It seems to me that British English speakers do not interpret "met" in the same sense that American speakers do. See post #14, of Intoarut.


----------



## Jim2996

Does anyone else have a problem with "best" and "most likely?"  They seem quite subjective to me.  

Most of the people that I meet in the course of my day are people that I already know.  This is a good usage of "to meet," and I can't think of a better verb to use, nor do I feel a need to add extra words like "my friend."  For me, this is also the most likely use.

I'm back to the idea that this is one of those silly exercises where the author didn't realize that both are correct and, depending on some unspecified context, either could be best, more likely, or merely more appropriate.


----------



## grahamcracker

Jim2996 said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with "best" and "most likely?  They seem quite subjective to me.
> 
> Most of the people that I meet in the course of my day are people that I already know.  This is a good usage of "to meet," and I can't think of a better verb to use, nor do I feel a need to add extra words like "my friend."  For me, this is also the most likely use.
> 
> I'm back to the idea that this is one of those silly exercises where the author didn't realize that both are correct and, depending on some unspecified context, either could be best or more likely.


Many things in language have a degree of subjectivity. If that were not true, there would not be such thing as semantic arguments. However, subjectivity does not mean there is equal weight on either side of a view. However, I accept that in this case, there is a regional nuance so that some English speakers feel that either option is equal. That is the pattern of language and the use of "met" where they live now or where they learned their English (from babyhood or whatever).


----------



## pubman

grahamcracker said:


> No. But "met" (past tense) generally refers to a first meeting unless you provide some context suggesting otherwise. Yes, I did change my answer to say that it could be a meeting with someone previously known. But I would tend toward "A" as the most likely answer--for American speakers. Now, it could be that there are some regional variations of nuance which speakers would interpret differently.
> 
> It seems to me that British English speakers do not interpret "met" in the same sense that American speakers do. See post #14, of Intoarut.



That's all we've been saying, that A is the more likely answer but that B is also possible.


----------



## inib

Jim2996 said:


> Seems to me that this is another ofthose *which-sentence-does-the-teacher-think-is-best exercises*. It's more about the teacher than English grammar, and it certainly doesn't seem to be about the meaning*s* of the word "just." I immediately recognized the two different meanings, as I think most native speakers would. Yet, on thinking about it for a bit, I agree it's probably the first that is wanted. It's a game of figuring out, guessing, what the teacher (or book) is thinking.
> 
> If someone calls me on my cell phone and asks what am I doing, I may well answer, "I just met Marcia [my wife of forty years] and we are going out to dinner." Indeed, my daughter did call me last week and, as I remember, this is what I said, although the exact words were "mom" and "pizza."
> 
> I can't see any logical reason to choose A. I suppose an argument could be made that A is more frequent than B. If anyone wants to make this argument, I would ask for some data.


Jim, you have expressed much better than I would have what I really believe and didn't have time to write. Sometimes, knowing the type of exercises that crop up in a typical text book, you can tell which answer is going to be marked as "right", because the student is at a certain level, because he is required to use a certain construction/style/type of English etc. But when a poster already knows which is the officially "right" answer, but isn't altogether convinced about it as an absolute truth, I think it must be very satisfying for him to receive such a variety/¿disparity? of answers.
Just a word of warning: (Unless the trend has changed in recent years) Brits use "meet" without the preposition "with" in all of its meanings, so Jim, I don't disagree with, but I don't share the difference of usage that you mention in your post 17. 
Saludos a todos.


----------



## grahamcracker

inib said:


> Just a word of warning: (Unless the trend has changed in recent years) Brits use "meet" without the preposition "with" in all of its meanings, so Jim, I don't disagree with, but I don't share the difference of usage that you mention in your post 17.
> Saludos a todos.


That's interesting.


----------



## Jim2996

inib said:


> so Jim, I don't disagree with, but I don't share the difference of usage that you mention in your post 17.



I would go further, making an already overly-long thread even longer.  Your response was not an unexpected surprise.

This difference I mentioned comes mostly from being in the business/corporate world.  "Meeting with people" is commonly used in the sense of sitting down around a conference table.  "Meeting someone" is used for a more casual or accidental encounter.  I have my doubts that most Americans would would make or need this distinction.  Some will, some won't.  It's a distinction that can be made, but most people don't, most people don't need to.  If you want to make it, I would suggest adding some extra words.  Putting the burden on "with" is just expecting too much in most situations.  I have no idea about the usage in the British business/corporate world.

This distinction between a point in time and a duration in time is actually quite common in grammar. "I started it."  "I was doing it." "I did it."  It is also a distinction that often doesn't make a difference.  If I met someone [at a point in time] I will be meeting with them [for some duration afterwards]; it has to be only a question of how long.  And if I met with someone for some period of time, I have to have met them [say when they entered the room].  Most people would think one implies the other, and that mentioning both is silly and weird.  

I could even hypercorrect myself and change things to the progressive tense. Instead of 
"I have just met with Mario, and we decided ..." (as I wrote above) it could be
"I have just been meeting with Mario, and we decided ..."
But, it's hard for me to see what difference this difference makes.  It's a minor emphasis at most.  Why not just say,
"I met Mario; we decided ..."  

There is also a issue of understanding versus production.  I don't think that anyone has a problem with understanding "I just met someone who is an old friend" or "I just met someone who will be a new friend."  The meanings are clear.  However, people will, when expressing these meaning, use different—and possibly fewer—words.  Some will say, "I met someone," and let you guess who that someone was.  Speaking has to involve choices.


It's late at night and I'm on a roll, so let me mention that things can be made (artificially) objective.  I ask you which is best

A) I met a friend in the bank.
B) I met a friend on the bank.

I could have asked you which (one) is correct.  This is a different question.  Does anyone doubt that both are correct (in some context)?  I think yes, because for many people it's a puzzle to find the appropriate context for B.

Or, let me ask a different question.  100 people in New York and 100 people in London were surveyed and asked this question.  What is the most-often-given answer.  There was a TV show called _Family Feud _that did this sort of thing.  This is asking for an objective fact; it's like asking what the teacher expects.  I don't think that anyone will get this wrong, even though it is a guessing game.

Yet, if I tell you about my recent canoe trip, the many adventures that I had, and I end with pulling the canoe out of the water where I met a friend on the bank—no one is going to be thinking of a financial institution.  I hope that everyone will agree that "on" is the best, correct (most correct?), most given-in-this-context, expected, etc. preposition.

It's been interesting.


----------



## Intoarut

Finally, we corrected this exercise yesterday. Some students chose answer a. but (just as I had imagined) some others asked why option b. was wrong. I told them that, in fact, if we look at them in context, both options are possible. I provided a very short context for each one and gave *roanheads*' explanation. 



roanheads said:


> Looks like the between difference between " acabo de conocer a Mario, es simpático" ( meeting for the first time ) ( a)
> 
> and " acabo de topar con Mario, es un viejo amigo" ( meeting up with old friend by chance) (b)


----------



## grahamcracker

Intoarut said:


> Finally, we corrected this exercise yesterday. Some students chose answer a. but (just as I had imagined) some others asked why option b. was wrong. I told them that, in fact, if we look at them in context, both options are possible. I provided a very short context for each one and gave *roanheads*' explanation.


Does roanhead's explanation in Spanish correspond to the two most popular English interpretations?


----------



## Intoarut

grahamcracker said:


> Does roanhead's explanation in Spanish correspond to the two most popular English interpretations?



Exactly. 

Present perfect is one of the most difficult tenses to use correctly, so my explanation had to be short and sweet (just like roanheads'!)

Thanks everyone again. It's been an interesting discussion.


----------



## inib

Intoarut said:


> Thanks everyone again. It's been an interesting discussion.


Yes, indeed. Another "thumbs up".


----------



## roanheads

inib said:


> Yes, indeed. Another "thumbs up".



¡Me sumo a la aprobación ! Así se pasa bien el rato en el foro, aprendiendo y ayudando. 

Saludos.


----------

