Would, Should, Could, Have, Had, Has

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by riverkid

Last year he can't have run three miles. He's been a quadriplegic for two years.

Now we have, according to you, a present tense verb describing a past tense situation.

Yes. But a better version would be "Last, year he couldn't have run three miles." That would have a past tense verb describing a past time.

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by riverkid

You might not be confused but you are confusing semantic versus syntactic. Is it then deliberate?

I'm not confusing anything. Past tense is past tense. I'm sorry that you have a problem with that.

[riverkid]

Originally Posted by MikeNewYork

Yes. But a better version would be "Last, year he couldn't have run three miles." That would have a past tense verb describing a past time.

One collocation isn't better than another, Mike. We use language to express meaning and the meaning expressed by "can't have + PP", which denotes a past time event is a better version when we want to express something with greater emotion.

'can' can do this because of its modal meaning expresses a greater reality than "couldn't have + PP". Modal 'could' expresses greater uncertainty so it isn't as good a choice when we want to be nmore strident/ more assertive/ more {__}.

Below we see that it is very common to use the purported present tense modals in modal perfect which describes a past time event.

Results 1 - 10 of about 891,000 English pages for "will have already".

Results 1 - 10 of about 71,200 English pages for "shall have already".

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,330,000 English pages for "may have already".

The language just doesn't support your opinions, Mike. Nor does language science. But you keep crankin' 'em out.

Results 1 - 10 of about 56 English pages for "can have eaten".

Plug in some more with specific verbs, here I've used 'eaten' and you'll see that modals operate in all time sequences; that's how tenseless verbs work.

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by riverkid

One collocation isn't better than another, Mike. We use language to express meaning and the meaning expressed by "can't have + PP", which denotes a past time event is a better version when we want to express something with greater emotion.

'can' can do this because of its modal meaning expresses a greater reality than "couldn't have + PP". Modal 'could' expresses greater uncertainty so it isn't as good a choice when we want to be nmore strident/ more assertive/ more {__}.

Below we see that it is very common to use the purported present tense modals in modal perfect which describes a past time event.

Results 1 - 10 of about 891,000 English pages for "will have already".

Results 1 - 10 of about 71,200 English pages for "shall have already".

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,330,000 English pages for "may have already".

The language just doesn't support your opinions, Mike. Nor does language science. But you keep crankin' 'em out.

Results 1 - 10 of about 56 English pages for "can have eaten".

Plug in some more with specific verbs, here I've used 'eaten' and you'll see that modals operate in all time sequences; that's how tenseless verbs work.

Pass.

[riverkid]

Originally Posted by MikeNewYork

I'm not confusing anything. Past tense is past tense. I'm sorry that you have a problem with that.

Stamping your feet and repeating the same thing over and over doesn't qualify as proof, Mike.

===============

The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Book

In English, modals are derived from verbs that did carry tense and take agreement markers during a much earlier stage of the language.

In fact, phrasal forms developed in part because the original class of modals lost their connection to time, and the phrasal forms gave English users a way to mark tense and express modality on one and the same verb form.

=============

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by riverkid

Stamping your feet and repeating the same thing over and over doesn't qualify as proof, Mike.

===============

The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Book

In English, modals are derived from verbs that did carry tense and take agreement markers during a much earlier stage of the language.

In fact, phrasal forms developed in part because the original class of modals lost their connection to time, and the phrasal forms gave English users a way to mark tense and express modality on one and the same verb form.

=============

<<<Stamping your feet and repeating the same thing over and over doesn't qualify as proof, Mike.>>>

Advice that you would do well by taking.