Can have + past participle, Please HELP HELP HELP Guys

[riverkid]

MikeNewYork: This may come as a shock to you, but all of the examples that follow "would is the past tense of will" are examples of would used as a past tense verb. I'm surprised you haven't thought of that.

I have given you independent examples and so have others. You just simply say that isn't past tense; that's not past tense, and that can't be past tense. Why would anyone bother doing that again?

Here, once again is the AHD's list of uses and examples of the past tense verb "would".

[b][size=3]would aux.v., Past tense of will2.
[*]Used to express desire or intent: She said she would meet us at the corner, but she isn't here yet. Why do you think she's late?

Clearly a future meaning. This is an example of reported speech and 'would' is ONLY used to mark indirect speech. It does NOT mark a past time/tense situation.

[*]Used to express a wish: Would that we had gone with you!

I wish that we would have gone with you.

Yes, 'would' like all modals can be used in a one time specific manner when they are used as modal perfects. Can 'would' be used as a standalone to designate a past tense.

*I wish that we would go with you.*

Clearly not, for it is ungrammatical for the situation.
[*]Used after a statement of desire, request, or advice: I wish you would stay.

You think that this is a finished event. It's a FUTURE.
[*]Used to make a polite request: Would you go with me?

You think that this is a finished event. It's a FUTURE.

[*]Used in the main clause of a conditional statement to express a possibility or likelihood: If I had enough money, I would buy a car. We would have gone to the beach, had the weather been good.

You think that these are finished events. They're hypothetical FUTURES.

[*]Used to express presumption or expectation: That would be Steve at the door.

You can substitute 'will' here. "That will be Steve at the door". Clearly NOT a past time. Shall I go on. Remember, Mike, you said that "all of the examples that follow "would is the past tense of will" are examples of would used as a past tense verb".

None of them have been so far.
[*]Used to indicate uncertainty: He would seem to be getting better.

This is a less certain, more tentative version of "He is getting better". And you think this is a past time situation, whoa Mikey.
[*]Used to express repeated or habitual action in the past: Every morning we would walk in the garden.

Past tenses normally do not describe repeated or habitual actions. They describe a one time specific event.

*On December 3, 1956, we would walk in the garden.*

Clearly, when we try to use 'would' in a real past tense manner it creates an ungrammatical utterance for the situation. Moreover, how is it a past of 'will'. Did the speaker say sometime before December 3, 1956,

"We will walk in the garden on December 3, 1956."

I don't think so. Even if that speaker had they would not, for that context, describe the situation by using 'would';

*On December 3, 1956, we would walk in the garden.*

UNGRAMMATICAL FOR THE SITUATION

On December 3, 1956, we walked in the garden.

[Listener]

Hello. Let me join you!!

Your arguments are confusing because you are not distinguishing "the time of the event" and "the time of the judgment." What's complicating is that both events and judgments can have probability.

"Can have + past participle" construction refers to "present probable judgment on a past fixed event."

Example: We can have used the bus instead of the train. (Both were possible; actually the train was used.)

"Could have + past participle" construction can refer both (1)"present possible judgment on a past fixed event," and (2)"present fixed judgment on a past probable/possible event."

Example (1): The child in a pretty dress we saw yesterday could have been a boy.(Actually one of the two was true; still not completely sure which was.)

Example (2): You could have been killed in yesterday's accident. (There was a possibility but actually it did not happen.)

My analysis may not be complete, but the point is that the event and the judgment must be distinguished.