|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
out of context, what do you make of the difference between the following sentences?
Jean would have liked to see those letters.
Jean would have liked to have seen those letters.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,072 Likes: 2
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,072 Likes: 2 |
The discussion should include
Jean would like to have seen those letters.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Jean would have liked to see those letters indicates at least the possibility of the present: Jean was skipped over when the letters were passed around, and she would like to see them now.
Jean would have liked to have seen those letters means (I think) that now either the letters or gone and/or Jean is gone. Can't be done at the moment, in other words.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
Out of context, and without contexualizing:
1) Asserts that there was a time in the past when Jean, who did not see the letters in question, would have had some enjoyment from seeing them. The enjoyment referred may be having pleasure or some other use.
2) Asserts that there was a time when Jean, who had not *then* seen the letters, would have had pleasure from the fact of having, indeed, seen them.
Now, why do I feel like this is a trap?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
It might be, but. Faldage explained this difference very well, some time ago. Wish I could find it again, but maybe he'll favor us with a repeat.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Perhaps Faldage explained some other difference that only looked like this one. "[W]ould have liked to see" doesn't sound quite right to this poor coffee-deprived brain right now. Perhaps this evening I'll be able to pontificate in a productive manner.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
>>Perhaps this evening I'll be able to pontificate in a productive manner.
Jeez, how much coffee do you drink, anyway?!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>"[W]ould have liked to see" doesn't sound quite right..
nor did it to me when I read it, and I wanted to substitute "would have liked to have seen" -- but I wondered if I was missing some nuance. I can type in the context if that would be helpful.
no trap intended
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
As far as sounding goes, I prefer the simpler version. Why don't you, yes, post the context.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
the simpler version
Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.
It's not how much coffe I drink, it's when I can get back to a computer that I can post to this board from.
I think that what I opined on in some earlier thread, now unlocatable, was some other, similar construction. The simpler version still looks wrong to me and, unless someone can come up with a reasonable rationale for its existence, I'm voting against it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
Faldage:
I would have liked to believe you when you said, "It's not how much coffee I drink, it's when I can get back to a computer."
Does that work? If not, okay. If so, then why not "Jean would have liked to see those pictures?"
For my dime, so far, the more complicated tense is less desireable because it requires more effort to interpret. The question is which is more accurate. And, I think, that is only *really* the question if the statement is something "more" than casual.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
One historian's supposition had it that he had been bequeathed the bulk of the Rev. __'s estate, having 'kept in good grace with that gentleman by dint of regular correspondence down the years'. Jean would have liked to see those letters, but nobody had quoted from them in any of [her source] books.
(from Scots author Ian Rankin's The Falls; emPHAsis added)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
This seems fine and accurate to me. It suggests that she was aware of the (claimed) existence of the letters when she was doing her research and was disspointed by her inability at that time to find quotations from them.
While your revised sentence could, I think, suggest that when she was doing her research, she would have found it helpful already to have been aquainted with the letters. It does not, however, necessarily imply that, at that time, she was even aware that such letters or claim existed.
Given just these lines, I have difficulty with the pronoun 'he,' since it is unclear whether its antecedent is "one historian," or some word in a previous sentence. The apparent equation of the letters themselves with quotations from them in the last also gives me trouble. I think, if the sentence were less of a stumbling block generally its tense would be less of one, also.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
what I struggle with is that "would have liked" sounds like past tense, and "see" sounds like present tense. so I guess I prefer the "would have liked to have seen" version.
wofa's version seems like the cleanest to me.
I, too remember the earlier discussion about this, around the time that I joined this august assemblage...
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
>>what I struggle with is that "would have liked" sounds like past tense, and "see" sounds like present tense. so I guess I prefer the "would have liked to have seen" version.
wofa's version seems like the cleanest to me.<<
It is not the verb, "see," but the verbal, "to see."
***
Wofa's is the cleanest, but it means something else, again!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
I would have liked to believe you when you said, "It's not how much coffee I drink, it's when I can get back to a computer."
The difference is that you can continue to believe me even after having read the sentence, having shut down the computer, and having gone to bed. Seeing is something that only happens in the moment so it requires the finality of the perfect tense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Hey, I have that book, thanks to Jo! Maybe having a Britspeaking author is the explanation; they say incorrect things like, "I don't know how many letters I have got since the semester began."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
>>The difference is that you can continue to believe me even after having read the sentence, having shut down the computer, and having gone to bed. Seeing is something that only happens in the moment so it requires the finality of the perfect tense.<<
But the phrase "when you said" places the believing at a specific time in the past. While common sense may say that I can continue to believe you, the sentence does not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>Given just these lines, I have difficulty with the pronoun 'he,' since it is unclear whether its antecedent is "one historian," or some word in a previous sentence.
I empathize; but you're gonna have to get the book for additional context; I cannae type more.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
etaoin writes: around the time that I joined this august assemblage...
No, Roger, you joined in June.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
In reply to:
Maybe having a Britspeaking author is the explanation; they say incorrect things like, "I don't know how many letters I have got since the semester began."
No, they don't. It would be "I don't know how many letters I have had since the term began."
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Well, that wasn't much of a rise, but I'll respond anyway: the correct way would be to say, "I don't know how many letters I have gotten since the semester began."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
Well, if you are so prejudiced as to condemn people for saying things they never in fact say, no amount of reason will convince you of the error of your ways.
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 38
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 38 |
a) Jean would have liked to have seen those letters.
b) Jean would have liked to see those letters.
I would like to hazard a solution to the discussion as to which of these two sentences is the correct one.
They are both correct.
In the first case the predicate of the dependent clause is in the present perfect tense; while in the second case the predicate is in the simple present tense.
In other words, the subjunctive modal 'would' governs, in the first case, a verb phrase in the infinitve form (without any inflection to indicate a state completion) and, in the second case, a verb phrase in the present perfect (inflected to indicate a state of completion).
It is simply a difference of how you choose to conceive the imagined enjoyment of Jane in the event she had seen the letters.
In the first case, the speaker imagines Jane has already seen ("have seen") the letters, and is pleased. In the second case the speaker imagines the experience of seeing the letters without any indication of time or completion ("to see"), by which Jane is equally pleased.
It's merely a different use of tense to express the cause of a hypothetical state in the subjunctive mood.
|
|
|
|
|
