L'exemple et la règle

Question

Après être venue me voir, Martha passera chez Julien.
Note that in French, if you're using après + [verbe], we consider that this action always takes place in the past of when you're speaking.

Je trouve une contradiction entre ces deux propositions, l'exemple la règle.

Accepted Answer

Bonjour PJ,
Thank you for your question!
@Christian, the answer got ticked correct by mistake.
Après être venue me voir, elle passera chez Jacques
You're correct that she has not yet come to see the person talking but she will. However, this sentence is correct. The action in the "après" clause always takes place before the action of the other clause. Imagine being on a timeline with you (talking) in the middle of the line (your present time) between action A (coming to see me) which happens before the action B (popping by Julien's place).
I hope this is helpful.
Bonne journée !

Answer

Bonjour à tous,
We discussed this query (and the thread) and we agree that my explanation was not the best. We also agree that the way we expressed the rule was not correct either. So we've amended this part to avoid any ambiguity.
(I edited my previous answer accordingly too).
We hope this is helpful.
Bonne journée !

Answer

Ou si elle n'est pas encore venue quand cela soit dit, il faut dire : Après qu'elle sera venue me voir, elle passera chez Jacques?
Mais si elle était déjà venue, la version anglaise serait plutôt : having (already) come to see me, Martha will pop by Julien's place.
De toute façon "After coming to see me, Martha will pop by Julien's place" permet, voire suggère, qu'elle n'est pas encore venue mais qu'elle va venir, c'est-à-dire dans le future quand on parle.

Answer

I think the post marked as correct implies that given the two sentences:

A: Après qu’elle sera venue me voir, elle passera chez Jacques.

B: Après être venue me voir, elle passera chez Jacques.

Sentence B cannot be used, if the action of the “après clause” is still in the future when the statement is made.

I think this is not correct.

From all I understand the following two sentences are interchangeable. The only difference is that in the case of sentence B it is only evident from the context whether the action of the “après clause” has already taken place or not at the time when the statement is made.

The part of the original rule “always takes place in the past of when you are speaking” pointed out in the opening post just does not seem correct. The only thing that can be said is that the action in the “après clause” happens before the action in the main clause.

Answer

This is a little hard to follow. There seems at first sight to be a contradiction between "she has not yet come to see the person talking" and "with you (talking) in the middle of the line (your present time) between action A (coming to see me) which is in your past".

So, perhaps, you are talking about an imagined timeline which is not the actual timeline. Similarly "we consider that this action always takes place in the past of when you're speaking" doesn't mean that it actually takes place in the past.

I suppose this is similar to the English construction "After she has come to see me, Martha will pop by Julien's place." This is the present perfect, so it assumes a "present" which is actually in the future. So I can understand this concept, but I wouldn't refer to this present as "when you're speaking".