He will visit you <after/in/within> a week

B

bosun

Banned
korean
which one sounds ok?
I will take your advice or I will accept your advice or I will follow your advice.

also, which one sounds correct between the following three sentence and why?

1. He will visit you in a week.

2. He will visit you after a week.

3. he will visit you withing a week.
 
    • Same as badgrammar for the 1st question.

    the other three are all correct with slight differences.

    I will visit you in a week.

    I will visit you after a week. (understanding it will be within a week from the time of speaking)

    I will visit you within a week. Same as above.

    All three are correct don't get into trouble, I'd personally would use No. 1.
     
    1. means in seven days time (one week from now).
    2. means after seven days have passed.
    3. means before seven days have passed.
     
    Could you please let me know if both sentences are ok?

    1. If he doesn't get angry within 5 minutes everything will be ok.
    2. If he doesn't get angry after 5 minutes everything will be ok.

    My grammar book states that only the first sentence is correct. After having read this thread, I'm wondering if also the second sentence is correct.

    It would be really great if you could help me.

    Thank you very much!
     
    I think there have been some errors in the early part of this thread; as for the points you raise:
    1. If he doesn't get angry within 5 minutes everything will be ok.
    2. If he doesn't get angry after 5 minutes everything will be ok.
    Click to expand...
    number 1 is ok, but I would prefer to say it as “If he doesn’t get angry in the first five minutes everything will be ok.”
    Number 2 won’t do at all. The word “after” can be used as an adverb, a conjunction or a preposition, but in this sentence it seems to be trying to be all three parts of speech at once. When “after” is used with a period of time, as here, the verb has to be in one of the past tenses; to use “after” in this sentence it must relate to a present- or past-time event (not time period), and then a subsequent clause may be in the future, e.g:
    If he doesn’t get angry after you tell him, then in five minutes everything will be ok.

    This has been a very brief reply, but I hope you find it helpful.
     
    Now that we are on the "after" subject, it is my turn to ask a silly question. :)
    Johndot's brief summary stipulates the very grammar rules I studied at school once.
    In recent years, however, I've been hearing more and more often phrases like "Call me in five minutes.", "I'll see you after one hour.", etc. Most of the time I've heard those used by people whose English would hardly pass as a model of perfection. However, I think I've also heard them from people who would not normally make a silly grammar mistake.
    My question is: Could it be that in recent years English is becoming more liberal in terms of how "after" should be used? Or is it just bad English after all?

    Thanks.
    PS. What I meant to quote was "Call me after five minutes", of course.
     
    Last edited:
    Sad to say, boozer, that this is just another aspect of English which is suffering from ‘relaxed’ standards. Any more laxative and the language will become... er, well, you know.
     
    boozer said:
    ... In recent years, however, I've been hearing more and more often phrases like "Call me in five minutes.", "I'll see you after one hour.", etc. Most of the time I've heard those used by people whose English would hardly pass as a model of perfection. However, I think I've also heard them from people who would not normally make a silly grammar mistake. ...
    Click to expand...

    I have never known the use of "after" to mean "within" in such cases - and I grew up "literate" in the US. This may be characteristic of my particular region or speech group. Or maybe it is because I mostly converse with "literate" people and simply don't realize when someone means "within". That could create some misunderstandings.

    I recognize the use of "in" to indicate "about or exactly" the amount of time to be perfectly standard usage. Ironically, I started out phrasing the above as "in about or exactly", so established and practically irreplaceable the usage is.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top