about "should, must or could have done"

[endeavor6636]

here is some examples

1.i was surprised that sarah wasn't at the meeting. she might not have known about it.

2.it was a great party last night. you should have come.


lets say "it was a great party last night"- the first clause. "you should have some"- the second clause. ( i wonder which clause happened first)

is it correct when you use "should , must , or could have been done something, it means something happended before another clause?

(for ex. #2: you should have come to the party before it starts? or it means
something should have happened during another clasue ( the party)? )


in another words, is it the sentence talking about the person should come to the party during the party or before the party start?

[Humble]

Hi, endeavor,
No, your supposition is wrong. Sentences like You should have come are somebody's reaction to a fact in the past: You didn't come and it's a pity (= it's bad, regrettable etc)
She might not have known = Maybe, she didn't know - this is the speaker's supposition about the past.
Hope it helps. Regards,
Humble

[endeavor6636]

but "you didn't come " mean you didn't come during the party, or you didn't come before the party? (that what i am looking for, same thing as should have come) (should have come mean "you should come before the party or during the
party" ?

i wonder if "should have done" etc. implied any meaning about "time" order in the past.

[Tdol]

should have done- refers to the past; you didn't do it and the speakers thinks this was bad in some way.

[sheena55ro]

here is some examples
1.i was surprised that sarah wasn't at the meeting. she might not have known about it.
2.it was a great party last night. you should have come.
lets say "it was a great party last night"- the first clause. "you should have some"- the second clause. ( i wonder which clause happened first)
is it correct when you use "should , must , or could have been done something, it means something happended before another clause?
(for ex. #2: you should have come to the party before it starts? or it means
something should have happened during another clasue ( the party)? )
in another words, is it the sentence talking about the person should come to the party during the party or before the party start?

1. She might not have known about it - indicates guess, doubt [Maybe she didn`t know anything about the meeting and that`s why she didn`t attend the meeting]
We cannot talk here about anteriority or simultaneity of the action stated by the verb because there are 2 independent clauses.

2. You should have come = You were supposed to come [or to be present at that party]- indicates reproach, expectation, obligation, something between recommendation and obligation.


Regards,