Sorry for not getting back with you earlier... ODER
I apologize for not getting back with you earlier...

Meiner unbescheidenen nicht-muttersprachlichen Meinung hat Julia eine falsche Präposition verwendet. Statt "get back with you" müsste es heißen "get back to you".

"get back with you" würde heißen "dass ich erst jetzt wieder mit dir zusammen komme".

Beides ist möglich. Aus diesem Grund habe ich auch beide Formen erwähnt. Mir scheint das "with" etwas mehr "formal" zu sein... "to" eher Umgangssprache.

As so often, Jalapeno is right: "getting back with you" isn't possible here.

SophieW's suggestion is also fine.

...unless of course "get back with you" is okay in AE, which I'm not competent to judge.

As so often, Jalapeno is right: "getting back with you" isn't possible here.

Aw, shucks, now you're making me blush ... Thanks for confirming my gut feeling.

I am sorry that it took so long for me to get in touch...

I am sorry that it took so long for me to get in touch...

unless of course "get back with you" is okay in AE, which I'm not competent to judge.

Daran hatte ich auch schon gedacht. Vielleicht meldet sich noch ein AE-Muttersprachler.

I would have precisely the opposite gut instinct. While I think "get back with you" is probably used, "get back to you" appears correcter or more formal.

I think "get back with you" is related to "to check with", and I would expect it in instances where one might also say, "I will check back with you..."

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner than this

"erst jetzt wieder" melde. Nicht nur früher gemeldet habe. Oder so wie Oats. Kein Native.

Like EY I can imagine "get back with you" is sometimes used, but I (AmE) would consider it sloppy. (Except to mean e.g. "I miss you, baby, I want to get back (together) with you.")

It's similar to "be back with you", e.g. "Let me go check on that. I'll be back with you in a moment." Maybe that's where the confusion arises.

Hmmm, reading this post I must confess I'm thoroughly confused. I proposed "to get back to you" in another post, and was told that this phrase would mean "I'll get even with you on something rather nasty you've done to me".

I won't find the other thread again, though, I'm afraid ...

@Dirk: Are you sure it wasn't "I'll get you back"?

Yep. 100% sure. It was in a thread concerning "I'll get even with you" (or something along those lines) and someone proposed "I'll get back to you on this" or something similar. I gently (very gently) objected to this and was told "No, to get back to you on this" was wrong for "Ich melde mich".

Weird... I would have gotten your back on that one. ;-)

Poppidirk, could it possibly have been "get back at you"?

Nope, neither that one. That's the reason I still remember this - it seemed definitely strange to me, but then - hey, I'm no NS and have experience whatsoever (never lived abroad, knowledge only from books, etc.), so who am I contradict native speakers - except in some very rare legal questions in my special field of expertise?

Hmm, curiouser and curiouser... If you can find the link, maybe we can solve the mystery.

actually, "I'll get back TO you" is the grammatically correct usage.
Get back "at" you is an act of revenge, and get back "with" you just sounds kinda wrong.

dulci, from 108045 (!!) posts? Hopeless, I fear.

I agree, Lara. We're just trying to figure out why Poppidirk was told by native speakers in a different thread that "get back to you" (rather than "get back at you") meant "to take revenge".

Whatever it was, hopefully Poppidirk will sleep better at night now knowing that he was right all along.

Abra, NOW I know where my nightmares these last days came from ... ;-)

Gosh, does that mean that if this is the right link, Poppidirk will now have fabulous dreams? (-;

to come back to s. o.

The secret method: google for keywords (here: 'get back' plus his nick) plus site:.leo.org, click on the cached version, note the title (since the URL no longer works), go back to LEO and search for keywords in the title.

I think since only yesterday the LEO software is now even converting old links if you paste them into a thread -- and maybe even showing the title of the thread, though that seems less universally successful so far. Let's see if the same link would have worked without {a href="etc.}:

new-style numbered link (idThread=1840&idForum=4):
related discussion: to come back to s. o.

old-style link by date (&group=forum004_general&file=20060511102125):
http://forum.leo.org/cgi-bin/dict/forum.cgi?a...

Don't know if it will ever be possible to access old-style links from outside LEO, but at least after a transition period, the new ones should replace them in the search engine caches.



To get back to the actual question, I agree that 'get back to' is the normal way to say this. 'Check back with' is fine for shorter intervals; 'get back with' is heard a lot in the US but does sound much sloppier to my ears as well, and 'come back' just sounds wrong to me. So I would say

Sorry to be / Sorry I'm just now getting back to you
Sorry to be / have been so slow to get back to you
Sorry it took / it's taken me so long to get back to you
etc.

Oops, not only did those two links without the extra code not convert to a title )-: , but I don't think it was the right thread. Sorry. But maybe it was this one:

to make so. mad (coll.)

The lasat thread was the right one and I was again barking up the entirely wrong tree. My memory is not what it used to be ... Sorry, dulcinea :-(

And, of course, hm, thanks for figuring this out. Seems I'm utterly useless with Google :-(

Don't knock yourself, Poppidirk, it was smart of you to remember the question at all. My memory isn't what it used to be either, that's why I have to cheat by finding workarounds. Maybe the tip on using the Google cache (i.e., not the direct link, but where it says 'Cached') to find the title will help the next time.

Anyway, after all this I bet you won't forget either 'get back at' or 'get back to' ever again. (-:

hm, thanks for the effort, but seeing as I don't even know what a "cache" is (mental note to self: ask colleague, tomorrow), well, as I said, useless ...

Aww, this is such a sad story. (-;

It's the version of the file stored on the Google server, the one that Google copied the last time its robot searched the internet looking for these files. In German it's what you get when you click on 'Im Cache':

http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=%22get+ba...

So it should work even if the old LEO link doesn't.

But in a few weeks all this won't matter, because the Google robot will have found the same files under their new addresses at LEO. So if it's a hassle, never mind, just don't worry about it. (-:

So, this is what this weird link is good for. I alkways wondered but could never bothered to check it out. You're my new hero, hm!

And most importantly, your English was right, even if your memory was mixed up. So sweet dreams, Poppidirk!

No worries, Poppi. And thanks to hm for saving the day yet again!