I too had venido in the prior sentence and DL accepted "arrived" as the translation. Likewise, in this sentence, I also translated llegado as "arrived" and it was accepted. In English, there is a nuance of difference between "arrived" and "came" yet they are often interchangable. Is that also the case in Spanish, or what is the real differnce?
After can be a subordinating conjunction, as in "You had arrived after I did" or "You had arrived after I arrived".
However, after can also be a preposition as in "You had arrived after me". Me is the object of the preposition in this sentence.
Therefore, "You had arrived after I" is incorrect.
My teacher from many years ago would disagree with you, but after checking several dictionaries, grammar text books, and on-line forums about English grammar, I agree that my earlier comment was wrong. After some thought, I suspect that my teacher, and for many years I, had confused the rules for the subordinate conjunction than with the rules for after, before, etc. Clearly, "he is shorter than I" is grammatically preferred to the colloquial "he is shorter than me", but the same rule (assumed verb making the pronoun the subject of the clause) does not apply to words like after.
It is my understanding that the word "than" may be used is a conjunction or as a preposition. In the sentence, "He is shorter than X", the word "than" is being used as a preposition much "after", "through", so the object of the proposition is the pronoun "me". If the sentence is, "He is shorter than X am", then the word "than" is functioning as a conjunction which links two independent clauses, so the word to use is the subject pronoun "I". Does that make sense?
Summary He is shorter than me. He is shorter than I am.
Unless you want to make the argument that * He is shorter than I. has an implied and omitted "am" at the end of the sentence so the subject form of the pronoun is used
There has been a trend for many educated people to use "I" as an object in prepositional phrases. We see it so often that it can feel right. I think it starts when we are children who say "Johnny and me went to the store" and we constantly get corrected "No, Johnny and I". so we learn it's better to say "I" and tend to over use "I"
In Spanish, the subject form of the pronoun is "yo" and the object form is "mí". In the Duolingo sentence, it said, "depués de mí" so it follows the example of a prepositional phrase in Spanish.
That is wrong. After me is the only correct answer. You are probably thinking of unequal comparisons with than. He is taller than I (am) Than is a conjunction which joins two phrases but usage often allows the second verb to be assumed for comparisons. But after is a preposition. All prepositions are always followed by their object. I, he, she, who, etc. can never be objects of a preposition. Of course who is the one on the list that is most common error here, as whom is unfortunately dying out.
What? I think its not a right sentence, it should be "you had arrived before i did". Past perfect expresses an action that happened before another action in the past. Anyway, im not a native speaker, im Vietnamese and i studied english grammar a lot when i was at high school. Hope im right this time
Thanh Nguyen, you are right that "Past perfect expresses an action that happened before another action in the past." However, it doesn't matter which event is mentioned first in the sentence. So it doesn't matter that the event that happened later is mentioned first. So actually this sentence is grammatically correct as a past perfect tense sentence. So when you change the word "after" to the word "before," you change the facts of this sentence rather than correct it grammatically. See: www.edufind.com/english-grammar/past-perfect-tense/
In the conjugated section of the lesson , 3rd person singular, present tense is ha , hay. =he/she/you. In the past tense of the same word is, hubo=he/she/it. There is no word for the sentence translation for the word habias. The closest to this spelling is the habéis and that form is not used because of this being a formal translation of this word. Where am I misunderstanding ?? HELP !!
Shinpe and Thanh Nhuyen, the past perfect is correct, and your description is also correct. The thing that happened in the past, before something else, was "You had arrived," and the NEXT thing was that the second person arrived - "... after me (substitute ...after I did in your mind, meaning "after I arrived." That is the other action. I think that's what you two were missing.
Actually we don't know what happened after this past perfect phrase. Duo never gives us the context which is the reason for the past perfect, but the tense itself tells us that something else happened after this which was also in the past. Taking some liberties it might go like this. Habías llegado después de mi. Pero terminaste tu cena rápidamente y lograste escapar aquella función aburrida. Necesitaba quedarme allá por horas. You had arrived after me. But you finished your dinner quickly and managed to escape that boring function. I had to stay there for hours.
Sometimes providing context yourself helps you understand.
After and later mean similar things when looking at a time continuum. But if the issue is ordinal (As in I was here first and should be served next) después or after is the better choice. In Duo's contextless exercises you cannot assume that it is all the same if there is a more precise translation for what you changed. Más tarde de is later than. Después de is after. The only way to teach Spanish vocabulary is to match it with the most precise word or words in English. If there is the same difference between two words in Spanish as the two words in English, even if the meanings are similar, you translate with the more precise match. Of course literary translations are different. But with literature the translation is also an art form where the translators try to convey all the emotions and impressions conveyed by the original author. That is why translators get famous for great translation. But we are still working on basic or intermediate fluency.
The had absolutely does work in English and the sentence wouldn't mean the same thing without it. The problem most users have with the past perfect and future perfect sentences on Duo, is that, due to their lack of context, the sentence don't assume their usual function of placing events in their proper order in either the past or the future. I do agree that this sentence is a little funky in the past perfect, but Duo's convention for tense for tense translation should be used as much as possible And you have arrived, you arrived, you had arrived, you would have arrived and you will have arrived all require different translations. This sentence implies that, although you HAD arrived after me, that still happened BEFORE the central action in the past you are discussing
Personally I applaud that concept. But when I studied Linguistics in college I was somewhat disappointed to find out that linguists eschew prescriptive grammar, focusing instead on describing the grammar of the language as it is actually spoken. By that criterion, that rule has almost completely been assigned to the dinasaurs. I doubt you will hear it spoken correctly once in 1000 similar sentences, although you would probably have somewhat better luck in written English. In most cases, knowing the old rule in English will help a learner with their Spanish, but here Spanish uses the object form because it is the object of the preposition de.
No habías is the Tú imperfect indicative form of the verb Haber, which is the auxiliary verb for the perfect tenses. So Habías llegado can only be tú habías llegado. Había llegado could be Él, ella or usted. Theoretically it could be yo as well, but this sentence has enough context to know that it isn't. One cannot arrive after one's self. Context generally makes the pronoun clear, just not as often in the one sentence that Duo gives.
Your comment appears to be misplaced as there is no de comer here. Taking a guess that you are questioning what forms come after the preposition, I will address that. In Spanish prepositions always have objects. That's mostly true in English, but English also has many phrasal verbs with prepositions that don't have objects. The object of the preposition must be a noun or pronoun. The infinitive of any verb is the form used as a noun (like the English gerund), so that explains de comer. The prepositional objects that are pronouns are again slightly different. For most prepositions they are mi, ti, and then the same forms as the subject pronouns for the others. And with con mi and ti have the unique forms conmigo and contigo.
No, they aren't the same. When you use the simple past, you are talking about any completed event in the past. The past perfect, however, places that event in the past as happening before some other event in the past. So you had arrived after me is only said to place that event in the past in relation to another event, either expressed or implied. So you would say You had arrived after me and didn't see the accident (or some other event). Actually that is a somewhat unusual past perfect due to the word after in it, since normally the past perfect event happens before the other event in the past as in I had just started work when the accident happened.
Hi Lynette, thanks for the reply. I understand the example 'I had just started work when the accident happened', but in the case of 'you had arrived after me' I can't think of a single example in which you couldn't substitute with 'you arrived after me' whilst meaning the same. For example 'did you see the accident I saw?' 'No, you arrived after me'. It sounds the same as 'No, you had arrived after me' which can also be said. Am I not seeing something?
In a question and answer scenario, you have the implied sequence of events. With an implied sequence you are correct that either the past or past perfect can be used. But without the implied or a specified sequence of events, the past perfect would not be grammatically correct, although not that uncommonly used. But you are correct, there are some circumstances where either would be acceptable in English.
But the real issue is the translation. There is a clear relationship between how Spanish uses their various tenses and English tenses. And one of the major things that Duo is teaching is verb conjugations in various tenses. So they expect you to recognize habías llegado as past perfect and reflect that knowledge in your translation. Demonstrating your knowledge of the subject matter according to the framework presented is the function of all assignments and tests in a course. So when translating, the goal is to be as literal as possible within the confines of correct and fluid English. The obvious exceptions are things like greetings and idioms which are translated more socially than linguistically. But just meaning the same thing is not necessarily sufficient to demonstrate mastery, especially since the exercises are graded by a computer and not a person who can better judge what your answer shows about your knowledge.
Después and antes are opposites so I am not sure why you would say that antes was correct when después was called for. Also antes also takes de, not que, although there is also the expression antes de que which is before when used with a subject and verb. Esa chica necesita un poco de dirección antes de que sea demasiado tarde. That girl needs a little direction before it is too late.
No. Remember that Duo never has context, so it can be confusing. But whenever you have these perfect tenses like past and future which establish a time-line in the past or future, you have to provide your own context of the central point in that time. For example. Habías llegado después de mi, pero te sirvieron primero. You had arrived after me, but you were served first. The past perfect puts the arriving prior to being served which is in the simple past. That is the function of the past perfect.