Later

Question

Is this usage of 'later' correct?Some books are easier to understand when you read them again years later.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

TakaIs this usage of 'later' correct?

Yes. "years later" is as common as mud.

CJ

Taka · Answer

Yes, I thought it was right. But when I checked my dictionaries, I found some of them said 'x years/days later' could be used only in the sentence of the past tense (and 'after x years/days' only in the past/future tense). So I wondered if that sentense was OK or not.

CalifJim · Answer

I'm sure that years later you will look back on this and be glad you asked!

CJ

Taka · Answer

CalifJimI'm sure that years later you will look back on this and be glad you asked!CJ

AH! So when it's conditional, or the entire sentence is some sort of principle that applies the past, the present, and the future, 'x years/days later/after x years/days' can be used without any problem.

Is that what you mean CJ?

Taka · Answer

Wait a mitunte. Forget about my previous comment. Does this sound OK, CJ?

I think this book will be easier to understand when you read them again two years later.

CalifJim · Answer

TakaForget about my previous comment.

Done.

TakaDoes this sound OK, CJ?

I think this book will be easier to understand when you read ~~them~~ it again two years later.

As corrected, yes. Perfectly OK.

CJ

Taka · Answer

OH, of course it's 'it'. Sorry.

CalifJimAs corrected, yes. Perfectly OK.CJ

Then what about these? My dictionaries say these are not correct. If not, could you tell me why not whereas the examples I gave above are fine?

·Tom will come a few days later.
·Can I call you back two hours later?

CalifJim · Answer

TakaMy dictionaries say these are not correct.

The authors are lacking imagination. They are assuming a particular context. Read the surrounding text to see if the authors are restricting their remarks to a particular context, namely, with the present moment as the reference point.

From now: Tom will come in a few days. Can I call you back in two hours?

From another time reference:

-- Mary will come on Wednesday. Without Tom.

-- Really? Without Tom?
-- Yes. Tom will come a few days later. [than Wednesday]

-- Call me back at one o'clock this afternoon.
-- Sorry, I can't. Can I call you back two hours later? [than one o'clock]

CJ

Taka · Answer

OK. So then, this is fine:

·If my girlfriend read my diary three years from now, she would be surprised.

and this is also fine, but the meaning is different:

·If my girlfriend read my diary three years later, she would be surprised.

right, CJ?

CalifJim · Answer

Takathis is fine:

·If my girlfriend read my diary three years from now, she would be surprised.

Right. The present moment is the reference time.

Takathis is also fine, but the meaning is different:

·If my girlfriend read my diary three years later, she would be surprised.

I think this could work in the right context, but there's no context here to answer the question, "Later compared to when?" The "right context" might have to be somewhat unrealistic.

-- Your girlfriend should read your diary next year.

-- [But] if she read it three years later [than that], she would [really] be surprised.

The whole set-up presumes you are going write something surprising in your diary in the next few years. This is the part that I think is unrealistic, though possible. Just because you can write a sentence that is theoretically correct doesn't mean anyone is likely to use it!
___________________

The same situation in the past is not a problem. Here the suggested time of the reading has come and gone, and the speaker already knows what was written in the diary during those three years.

-- Your girlfriend should have read your diary back in 2002.
-- [But] if she had read it three years later [than 2002], she would [really] have been surprised.

CJ

Later

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions