had met with

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "had met with" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to indicate a past meeting or encounter with someone or something, often in a formal context. Example: "Before making the final decision, the committee had met with several experts in the field to gather their insights."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Encyclopedias

Wiki

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

54 human-written examples

The Mets had met with Posada and were prepared to make an attractive offer.

The New York Times - Sports

He had met with Vietnamese leaders.

The New Yorker

I had met with Carl's widow, Janice, the previous afternoon.

The New York Times - Magazine

Frisch had met with his parents that morning.

The New Yorker

Possibly the regular wig had met with a terrible accident.

The Guardian

I had met with British intelligence in Pakistan.

The Guardian

Ghiya said that he had met with representatives from Christie's as late as January, 2003.

The New Yorker

Bosh's meeting lasted 2 hours 40 minutes, the longest any player had met with the Knicks.

The New York Times

Mr. Harper said he had met with envoys from Qatar and the Emirates.

The New York Times

Nungesser, who had met with the President a few weeks before, was not invited.

The New Yorker

He confirmed that he had met with baseball's investigators, saying, "I cooperated; they were very happy".

The New York Times - Sports

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "had met with" to clearly indicate a past meeting or interaction, particularly when specifying the parties involved. It's suitable for both formal and informal contexts.

Common error

Avoid using "had met with" when a simpler verb like "met" suffices. Overusing the past perfect can make your writing sound unnecessarily formal or convoluted.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "had met with" functions as a verb phrase indicating a completed action in the past, specifically a meeting or encounter that occurred before another point in time. Ludwig confirms this usage is correct and common.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

62%

Encyclopedias

10%

Wiki

5%

Less common in

Formal & Business

3%

Science

1%

Academia

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "had met with" is a grammatically sound and frequently used verb phrase indicating a past meeting or interaction. Ludwig confirms its validity and common usage. Its primary function is to provide context and establish a timeline for events. While generally neutral in register, it's important to consider simpler alternatives like "met" in informal settings to avoid unnecessary formality. As indicated by Ludwig's examples, it commonly appears in news and media, encyclopedias, and wiki sources. Remember to use it to highlight the sequence of past events clearly.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

conferred with

This alternative suggests a more formal or official meeting.

had an appointment with

This phrase implies a scheduled and formal meeting.

interviewed

This suggests a formal meeting, often for assessment or information gathering.

had a discussion with

This phrase emphasizes the exchange of ideas during the meeting.

held talks with

Suggests formal discussions, often in a political or diplomatic context.

engaged with

Implies interaction and involvement beyond a simple meeting.

had dealings with

Suggests a business or transactional interaction.

encountered

Implies a chance meeting or unplanned interaction.

crossed paths with

Similar to 'encountered', suggesting a brief or coincidental meeting.

came into contact with

This phrase is broader, including any form of interaction or exposure.

FAQs

How do I use "had met with" in a sentence?

"Had met with" indicates that a meeting occurred before another point in the past. For example, "He presented the proposal, which he "had met with" resistance last time" shows the resistance happened before the presentation.

What's the difference between "met with" and "had met with"?

"Met with" describes a meeting in the past. "Had met with" describes a meeting that occurred before another point in the past. The use of "had" establishes a sequence of events.

Are there formal alternatives to "had met with"?

Yes, formal alternatives include "conferred with", "held discussions with", or "engaged in talks with". The choice depends on the context and desired level of formality.

Can "had met with" be used in informal contexts?

While "had met with" can be used in informal contexts, simpler alternatives like "met" or "talked to" are often more appropriate. The past perfect emphasizes the sequence of events, which may not always be necessary in informal communication.