1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Dutch
  4. >
  5. "Bel me onmiddellijk nadat je…

"Bel me onmiddellijk nadat je hem hebt ontmoet."

Translation:Call me immediately after you have met him.

September 26, 2014



Difference between na and nadat?


"Na" is a preposition, it is followed by a noun. "Nadat" is a conjunction, which is followed by a subclause.


Heel goed! I had the same doubt.


How come an imperative (in the future) is used with a present perfect tense ? is this a right English ?


Native English speaker here. This sentence makes sense. The person is telling the other person to call them a certain time. When? After something has happened, thus the need for a tense in the past.

See here: http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/presentperfect.html. The present perfect tense is used for a time period in the past, not the present, thus it is applicable here.


I think this sentence makes sense though i think the p.p. here denotes a future thing - the meeting has yet to take place. Not a native speaker here.


Personally I'd say "call me immediately you meet him" - although technically it would be after you've met him!


"Do X immediately you [circumstance]" is not an english usage I've ever heard, and not a grammatical construction I've ever seen in American English. Is it a British thing?


Interesting and you may well be right. This IS more common / natural: “ Call me as soon as you see / meet / find etc him call me”. Perhaps “immediately” is clumsy but I don’t think it’s wrong. Do you?


I thought 'onmiddellijk' was difficult to spell then i realised i couldn't spell immediatly either!


I do wish we had a smiley button!


I wrote, "Call me immediately after you meet with him". Why is this wrong?


It's correct English, but is a wrong translation of the Dutch sentence.


I may have missed catching this in a previous lesson, but I'm confused as to why hebt does not immediately follow je in this part of the sentence - why not "je hebt hem ontmoet"?


I have the reverse question. why isn't it "nadat je hem ontmoet hebt"?!? I would have thought either the verb would stay in second position (as slmoi suggests) or move to the end.


That one is correct too! :)


So the rule henkaipantomime suggests (I would only add "finite" or "conjugated" to "verb") is not so strict as it is for instance in German?


I'm not sure about the rules for German, but I guess that it is not as strict. (At least in subclauses it is..) :)


yes, that's my real question, ha. but I just want to point out that I'm not suggesting it as a rule, but just wondering about it!! ( :


In a subclause, the verb goes to the end of that clause. As Simius said, 'nadat' is a conjuction, which is followed by a subclause.


I'd say 'nadat is a subordinating conjunction...', in order to avoid confusions... Otherwise people may use the wrong word order when using maar, en, enz.



But why miss "with" here? I believe "meet someone" is an accident while "meet with someone" is an appointment, which should be the case here.


It doesn't have to be an accident, in that it could also be a planned introduction, but it's indeed not the same as "meeting with him for a purpose."

Learn Dutch in just 5 minutes a day. For free.