"would have" for past readiness

[riverkid]

Originally Posted by Horsa

I am not convinced by the last argument. 'I met' here surely just restricts the group 'The Mexicans' to those 'I met'. If we change this to the pronoun 'They' we get

They would have done anything to come to the United States.

or

They would do anything to come to the United States.

Good day, Horsa. Obviously, we disagree. That's certainly okay with me as discussion is exactly what language needs. I'm not sure I understand what difference it makes changing to the pronoun 'they.

For me, at least, there is clearly a difference in meaning here. In the first it seems to me that the speaker has chosen this form because he is emphasizing 'at that time' i.e. when he met them. This may be because the speaker has doubts about whether this is still true or merely chooses not to speculate but to stick to the facts. The second, on the other hand, clearly states that this is true now in the mind of the speaker.

Hence, I am of the opinion that Angelika is right - especially as option one states 'tends to have past meaning' and does not exclude the possibility that it may still be true but that the speaker is concentrating on 'then'.

If you would, please tell me what exactly in the example sentence indicates that it "tends to have past meaning".

####

What are these two "Ads by Google" doing within my posting box. I don't believe it's kosher to infer that I have approved of this, especially when I haven't been recompensed one sou.

Now the ads seem to have disappeared.

[vil]

Dear experts,

I beg pardon for my intervention. I am only an unostentatious member in this forum, but I think, I am in the oneself rights to express my opinion in order to clarify my position.

I have read in an English Grammar that "would" was originally the past tense of "will" in the same way as "should" was the past of "shall". But while the latter has acquired new shades of meaning, "would" has preserved those of "will". Thus it express volition, persistence referring to the PAST.

For better visualization and facile comprehension I allowed oneself the luxury of generalization of the written statements by Anglika, Horsa and Velimir in the following compilative (see compilation) sentence. Here you could see the both usage in the immediate vicinity in Indian file.

Well, it is impossible to be sure what they (the Mexicans) would have done and would do in the future, but we can make reasonable assumption based on positions they have already taken.

The quoted bellow sentence, which I have recently read in an American magazine corroborate additionally the statement that the expression "would have done" definitely "tends to have past".

"In a roundabout way, what Kennedy would have done as the 43 rd president of the United States is simple: that which is directly opposite to what Bush has done to date."

Excuse me again. I don't want to give pain to somebody.

V.

[velimir]

Hello everybody,

The discussion has made me think about other possible meanings of the sentence :

The Mexicans I met would have done anything to come to United States.

Of course, I still stick with Anglika's and Horsa's explanation and I would like to ask for some more explanation from Horsa. If I choose the present perfect tense instead of simple past i.e

The Mexicans I've met would have done anything to come to United States.

does it still holds true for "any time" what you've said earlier "..the speaker has chosen this form because he is emphasizing 'at that time' i.e. when he met them .."

And a few questions for Riverkid if he would be so kind to consider them. I will quote your explanation first too :

.."While this isn't an example of reported speech in its commonly understood form, I think that from the meaning we can see that it is indeed a report of what the group of Mexicans had to say.

The Mexicans I met said they would have done anything to come to United States.

The Mexicans I met said "we will/would do anything to come to the United States"

I understand that in this interpretation "would" is past form of "will" and is part of reported future perfect sentence . Wouldn't the original in that case be :

The Mexicans I met said : " We will have done anything to come to United States "
Is the above sentence grammatical at all ?

And finaly in that sense could it imply situation (I'm taking an example, unfortunately I havent read the entire article ) in which the Mexicans she met were offering her to do anything for her if she helps them to reach U.S and she is describing such situation being kind of narrative,for stylistic reasons

Thankful

[riverkid]

Originally Posted by velimir

And a few questions for Riverkid if he would be so kind as to consider them. I will quote your explanation first too :

.."While this isn't an example of reported speech in its commonly understood form, I think that from the meaning we can see that it is indeed a report of what the group of Mexicans had to say.

The Mexicans I met said they would have done anything to come to United States.

The Mexicans I met said "we will/would do anything to come to the United States"

I understand that in this interpretation "would" is past form of "will" and is part of reported future perfect sentence.

Hi Velimir. I'd be please to reply to your questions.

'would' is not the past form of 'will' in this case or in any other case in English. The only proof ever offered for the modals have tense is that of reported speech. But the backshifting that occurs for modal verbs is a backshift to the Historical Past Tense Form. In modern English, modal verbs are tenseless.

And in any reported speech, even with lexical verbs, this backshift does not represent a change in tense. It is merely a change in tense FORM to signal that it is a report of the speech, not a direct, word for word report.

++++++++++++++++

SCENARIO ONE

A: I'm going to go to the movies tonight.

B: [to C] What did A say?

C: She said that she was going to go to the movies tonight.

++++++++++++++
SCENARIO TWO:

Betty: "I'm going to go to the movies tonight. ... Oh, I just realized that I can't go. I have to babysit.

Betty: [turns to her friend, Louise] Louise, I was going to go to the movies tonight but I can't now.

In scenario two, Betty's use of 'was going to" tells us that she is no longer going to the movies. That's the meaning of 'was/were going to'; something has caused us to change our minds about an initial plan.

If someone else reported Betty's speech they COULD NOT choose to use "is going to"; they could only use "was going to", because the real meaning of Betty's use of "was going to" is that she has changed her initial plan.

However, in scenario one, C could report A's speech with either 'was going to' or 'is going to'. WHY? because the meanings are identical. The only difference is that using 'was going to' provides a clear signal of REPORTED SPEECH.

In scenario one, C's use of 'was going to' is stripped of its usual meaning. It doesn't say that A's plan to go to the movie has changed. The only reason that C shifted to 'was going to' was to signal that C was only reporting the speech, that C was NOT giving a word for word report of what A said.

The only thing that is past tense/past time in scenario one is what A said and that is appropriately marked by the past tense verb [NOT the past tense verb FORM] 'said'.

Here's the real test to determine whether modals have tense. Can you actually use 'would' as the past tense of 'will'. Let's give it a try.

Velimir: [Tuesday, October 16th] I will go to Moscow on the weekend.


[It's now Tuesday, Oct 23rd. Velimir went to Moscow on the weekend]

Velimir: *I would go to Moscow on the weekend.*

[* denotes ungrammatical for the language situation]

Obviously 'would' is NOT the past tense of 'will'

Originally Posted by velimir

Wouldn't the original in that case be :

The Mexicans I met said : " We will have done anything to come to the United States "

Is the above sentence grammatical at all ?

It's perfectly grammatical in the sense that all the words are there and they run in a normal and possible English word order, but it's not the right choice of modal structure for the meaning and there are other word choices that make it a bit strange.

Originally Posted by velimir

And finally in that sense could it imply situation (I'm taking an example, unfortunately I haven't read the entire article ) in which the Mexicans she met were offering her to do anything for her if she helps them to reach U.S and she is describing such situation being kind of narrative,for stylistic reasons

I don't know the answer to these questions, Velimir and there's no sense in me speculating as I haven't read the article either. The important point is that seems to be a report of what the Mexicans said. As such, it doesn't have anything to do with a past tense.

"they would have done anything" doesn't signal at all to a native speaker's brain that the Mexicans actually did anything. The language just doesn't include that the Mexicans did anything. It was theoretical then, and with no further information to show us otherwise, it's theoretical now.

[Horsa]

Hi again! I was away last weekend and so didn't follow up on the questions I was asked. I'd like to do so now.

So for Riverkid

I'm not sure I understand what difference it makes changing to the pronoun 'they.

No difference in meaning. My reason for changing to the pronoun was merely to be able to examine the sentence without the confusion seemingly caused by 'I met'. My contention is that 'I met' has no effect on anything but the group 'the Mexicans' and is a reduced defining relative clause. If we remove it entirely from the sentence we get, 'The Mexicans would have done ...'. This sentence is different in meaning from the original in that it refers to all Mexicans whereas the original refers only to those 'I met'. Hence, as a defining relative clause it exists to restrict the group 'the Mexicans' and has no effect on the remainder of the sentence.


If you would, please tell me what exactly in the example sentence indicates that it "tends to have past meaning".

You are, of course, absolutely right it does not state that in the example sentence. I was referring to the first option in post number five. At the time of writing I understood the question posed there was an extract from a test of some sort.

[Horsa]

and now to Velimir's question

If I choose the present perfect tense instead of simple past i.e

The Mexicans I've met would have done anything to come to United States.

does it still holds true for "any time" what you've said earlier "..the speaker has chosen this form because he is emphasizing 'at that time' i.e. when he met them .."

I hold to my contention that 'I met' or indeed 'I've met' does not have any effect on 'would have done anything to ...'. It exists in this sentence merely to restrict the group 'the Mexicans' to those 'I met'/I've met'. However, the use of the present perfect here might make a difference, depending on context, to the group 'the Mexicans'. For example, if the context were 'when I was in Mexico last year' the past simple would seem to be more appropriate. On the other hand, if the context were 'while I have been here (the speaker is still in Mexico)' or 'in my lifetime' the present perfect fits better.

[velimir]

Hello again,

Thanks a lot Horsa and Riverkid . Really nice of you to discuss the question in such an elaborate way. Riverkid your last explanation was really edifying and I think I've got the point (though it will certainly take time to really internalize it). To be more precise, I understand that if I replaced "would have" with "would do",the sentence would still convey exactly the same meaning , i.e, it is a mere nuance which of the two I used , am I correct? Still one question about the sentence remains which I forgot to ask Riverkid earlier . Is it possible to interpret the sentence as a personnal opinion of the reporter, not in a way you've said in previous post ..

" The Mexicans I met said they would have done anything to come to United States."

but

The Mexicans I met would have done anything to come to United States ( It is my opinion, I think that they were apt to it )

Was it the following sentence in the heading ( "All I needed was a plane ticket") that make you interpret it that way or even without that sentence you would still interpret it same? And for example, am I expressing my personal opinion with the following two sentences and do the both sentences convey it in the same way :

He would have done anything for money . ( I think he is like that)

He would do anything for money .

or you'd rather interpret it like you've explained with the sentence analyzed earlier :

He said he would have done anything for money

or both meanings are possible and the context will reveal the real meaning ?

And that would be all ,and yes, I know that I'm asking too much

Thanks

[riverkid]

Originally Posted by velimir

Hello again,

Thanks a lot Horsa and Riverkid .

You're welcome, Velimir and I'm sure that Horsa is of the same mind.

Originally Posted by velimir

To be more precise, I understand that if I replaced "would have" with "would do",the sentence would still convey exactly the same meaning , i.e, it is a mere nuance which of the two I used , am I correct?

As this seemed to be a reported speech situation, the two HAVE TO have the same meanings because the "backshifting" that occurs in reported speech has nothing to do with an ACTUAL change in tense.

When we use reported speech we don't make any attempt to change the meaning of what someone else has said. Again, we use reported speech to try to convey the meaning as best we can, BUT we signal that it may not be a perfect rendition by using past tense FORMS.

When we use reported speech we make no effort to relate/tell the outcome of the original speaker's comments. Most times we can't because the action hasn't happened.

A: I'm going to London next year.

B: [to C] What did A say?

C: He said that he was going to London next year.

Looking at reported speech in this way clearly shows us that there is no past time / past tense associated with it, except for the reporting verbs.

Originally Posted by velimir

Still one question about the sentence remains which I forgot to ask Riverkid earlier . Is it possible to interpret the sentence as a personal opinion of the reporter, not in [a] the way you['ve] said in your previous post ..

"The Mexicans I met said they would have done anything to come to United States."

but

The Mexicans I met would have done anything to come to United States ( It is my opinion, I think that they were apt to it )

Without the reporting verb 'said', it would be possible that it was merely the reporter's opinion. With the reporting verb 'said', I'd say that it wouldn't be glossed that way.

###

[velimir]

Hello again,

One more question for you Riverkid and I quit, promise .Am I right then that the original sentence ( The Mexicans I met said they would have done anything to come to United States) can be interpreted as a reporting of what the Mexicans said ,and as a personal opinion of the speaker as well , but it is more likely that you would understand it as reported ,and in some sense you are expecting that the meaning of the following context get along (is accorded) with that meaning ?

Once more many thanks to Anglika,Horsa,Vil and Riverkid for discussing this. Riverkid's discussion about reported speech was really explanatory and a great help. It's also opened some questions for me which I will post in other thread since they are not closely connected to this topic .

Thankful

[riverkid]

I'll get to this later, V, when I have more time but I urge you NOT to quit if you or any other ESL has any further questions on this topic.

For far too long, people, not only ESLs but native speakers as well, have been seriously misled by traditional/prescriptive grammarians who have been content to supply either uniformed opinions or in some cases, flat out falsehoods/lies.

For native speakers, it doesn't make any difference for we have the real rules of grammar in our brains which override phony rules, but for ESLs it has caused a great deal of damage.

There really is no need at all for prescriptive grammar. In actuality, it doesn't exist because it provides "rules" that are not of the English language. For the odd time that they've described something that does mesh with how English works, then it's simply a description of how language works.