"Rights afterwards I do not see him anymore."

[Soglio]

One would not say it like that in English. O

[peter0112358]

It is a really odd sentence, I do not understand why they should choose it.

[Soglio]

It also doesn't track. "Rights afterwards" makes no sense--rights are liberties; I don't think any other sense of "right" is ever plural. If they mean "right afterwards"--that is, "immediately afterwards," a short defined period, it doesn't go with "anymore"--an infinite period, forever.

[Menschenkind]

At first, this example really lacks some past tense. But I'm actually puzzled by your last remark. I imagined the speaker to be interviewed by the police about someone: Right afterwards (the alleged crime, for ex.) I didn't see him anymore (like: no more, not again until now). How would you actually say that in English?

[Soglio]

I would probably say "Afterward [OR after that], I didn't see him anymore."

The problem is in the phrase "RIGHT afterward[s]"; the "right" contains the action [the not-seeing-him] to the time immediately following the crime. For example, in the same situation, I might say "Right after that, he disappeared."

A similar usage would be in reference to place. "He was right there" emphasizes that he was on top of the scene or practically so--not somewhere nearby, not at a distance looking through binoculars (except perhaps relative to being in a remote country).

Also, In formal writing, "afterward" would usually be preferred to "afterwards," but "afterwards" is not uncommon in spoken or informal contexts.

[Menschenkind]

Thanks for the explanation. The german 'unmittelbar' has the same weight as 'right', it's very immediate. Now that you named it, in this example, danach or anschließend (= afterward) alone might actually fit better, since 'unmittelbar' follows the same logic as your explanation.

[Soglio]

Thank you! That clarifies my sense of "unmittelbar."