should have

[jayan12]

He should have reached his destination by Monday, if the weather is good.

He will reach his destination by Monday, if the weather is good.


Are both sentence correct grammatically? Please explain the difference in meaning of these sentences.

[euncu]

He should have reached his destination by Monday, if the weather is was good.

This will do I guess

[bhaisahab]

He should have reached his destination by Monday, if the weather is good.

He will reach his destination by Monday, if the weather is good.


Are both sentence correct grammatically? Please explain the difference in meaning of these sentences.

Yes, they are both correct. The first one is more conditional than the second.

[yogahelps2]

If today is Friday and the person traveling was expected to reach his destination some time in the past (e.g. the Monday that fell earlier in the same week), then the first sentence would be correct if you substitute 'was' for 'is', as noted by euncu.

The second sentence is correct if today is Friday, and the person is expected to reach his destination next Monday--in the future.

[Excalibur]

He should have reached his destination by Monday, if the weather is good.

He will reach his destination by Monday, if the weather is good.

He should have reached reach his destination by Monday, if the weather is good.
You can't talk about this future event in a past tense form of the verb!

Otherwise, if this is an event that happened in the past six days, then:
He should have reached his destination by Monday, if the weather is was good.

He will reach his destination by Monday, if the weather is good.

[Raymott]

He should have reached his destination by Monday, if the weather is good.

He will reach his destination by Monday, if the weather is good.

He should have reached reach his destination by Monday, if the weather is good.
You can't talk about this future event in a past tense form of the verb!

Actually, I think you can. It's the present perfect form.
What about: He should have dropped off your parcel by next Monday.
This is a conditional form of the future perfect: He will have dropped off your parcel by next Monday, which also uses the form 'have reached'.
"He should drop off your parcel by next week" doesn't have the same meaning.

How about this, which refers to the present, but uses the same "past tense form"?
He would/should have reached his destination by now.

[Excalibur]

Raymott is confusing two of the uses of 'should':

1. when it is used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions :
"He should have been more careful."

and
2. used to indicate what is probable : AS IN THE GIVEN SENTENCE (to which my response was directed.)
"The bus should arrive in a few minutes."

By Raymott's reckoning, that would read: "The bus should have arrived in a few minutes." (Past tense form referring to a future event.)

compare:
"The bus should have arrived by now." (Past Perfect looking to some point in the past, up to 'now' (but NOT beyond 'now'.)

[Raymott]

Raymott is confusing two of the uses of 'should':
No, actually I'm not. All my examples refer to your second meaning - the one about probability.

1. when it is used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions :
"He should have been more careful."

and
2. used to indicate what is probable : AS IN THE GIVEN SENTENCE (to which my response was directed.)
"The bus should arrive in a few minutes."
Well, there were no buses in the original sentence, but we can let that pass.

My response was directed to your correction of the given question.
"He should have reached reach his destination by Monday, if the weather is good." I was attempting to demonstrate that:
"He should have reached his destination by Monday, if the weather is good." is also correct.
My example was of the same form, but it was easier to demonstrate the grammar.
He should have dropped off your parcel by then. (Your parcel should be ready to pick up).

A: Do you have my parcel?
B: No the courier hasn't arrived yet.
A: Can I call back after 3 o'clock.
B: Yes, he should have dropped off your parcel by then.
I don't see how you've misunderstood this sentence to refer to the 'obligation, duty, or correctness' meaning. Don't you use this construction in UK? Can you see that the sentence is right now?

By Raymott's reckoning, that would read: "The bus should have arrived in a few minutes."
No, I wouldn't argue that that was right.
In the right context, "The bus should have arrived by 3 o'clock" (in the future) is a correct sentence, just as the sentence above is correct.
Can you see that there's a difference between "in a certain amount of time" and "by a certain time"?
Sometimes the appropriate grammar gets a bit tricky when you change a preposition, or add an adverb, etc.

R.

[Kondorosi]

The use of the modal perfect with should to refer to a time in the future is not possible, in my book. He should have reached his destination by Monday, if the weather WAS good.

[Excalibur]

Some sense in the forum!