"would have" for past readiness

[velimir]

Hello

I'm really grateful to you Riverkid for putting your time and attention in this. I still have a lot questions on the topic of course , I just wished not to be tiresome.
I have often found the inadequacy of traditional grammars a problem too, but that is just the beginning of the list of the disadvantages I am encountering in learning English. I will open a thread in the appropriate rubric on the forum about the ways I learn English and what I feel is a problem and what I've found convinient. Here I'll just say I regret I haven't found this place earlier.
I'm expecting your answer Riverkid and thanks again.

[Horsa]

And on that Riverkid and I are in total agreement ;^): English has for too long been hijacked by prescriptive grammarians. Now, that corpus linguistics has emerged to show up the inadequacies of what we have been teaching, perhaps we can finally get down to helping learners rather than confusing them with imaginary 'rules'.

One question I'd like to put to Riverkid - although it probably belongs in a new thread - is:

To what extent do you feel it is helpful to teach the ESL/EFL 'tense system'? Isn't it simpler to teach that we only have 2 tenses (past and present) and to deal with the perfect and progressive aspects separately?

Sorry that's two questions. If you think we should transfer this to some other forum, just let me know where - I'm relatively new here.

[riverkid]

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 ?

Thankful

I can't say for sure whether there was any "opinion" given by the speaker as I don't know the speaker or the full context. Normally, reported speech is an attempt to report, as accurately as possible, what some person said.

But that doesn't mean that people can't or won't materially change what was said. Some may completely misrepresent what was said, so Velimir, I really don't know.

[velimir]

Hello Riverkid,

I'm not sure whether I communicated what I wanted to say in a proper way so please let me try once more.

I will pick up on what you've said in your first post : " 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. "

(You coloured 'said they" as implied by the original sentence)

Now I will give two similar examples in which I am relating to someone how was it on my business trip to Mexico :

1. :

"I arrived at the airport at seven o'clock. While I was waiting at the ticket office I entered into conversation with some Mexicans.They would have done anything to get to the United States. I asked them why they were so desperate to reach the United States "

Is the red-coloured sentence possible,grammatically and logicaly correct continuation of the preceding passage ? Precisely,am I right that in this situation the sentence with "would have done" clearly implies "They said they would have done..." ?

2.

"I arrived at the airport at seven o'clock.There was a crowd of people,jostling and shoving in the queue for the ticket office. It is a common sight there. The Mexicans would have done anything to reach the United States.

Is the red-coloured sentence in this context clearly and unmistakeably expressing that it is my personal impression about the Mexicans in general (I'm saying it as my opinion,no matter how I came to such conclusion - maybe I talked to some of them and they said me personally,or I read newspapers,or watched tv..)

In the first example,where "would have done" is the reported version of a concrete,specific speaking act,I feel like it is necessary to put in the reporting verb "said" to get the meaning "they said they will do .."

I hope that I've put my questions clearly this time and many thanks for your help Riverkid

Best regards

[riverkid]

Hello Riverkid,

I'm not sure whether I communicated what I wanted to say in a proper way so please let me try once more.

I will pick up on what you've said in your first post : " 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. "

(You coloured 'said they" as implied by the original sentence)

Now I will give two similar examples in which I am relating to someone how it was [it] on my business trip to Mexico :

1. :

"I arrived at the airport at seven o'clock. While I was waiting at the ticket office I entered into conversation with some Mexicans.They would have done anything to get to the United States. I asked them why they were so desperate to reach the United States "

Is the red-coloured sentence possible,grammatically and logically correct continuation of the preceding passage ?

[color=blue]The sentence is grammatical, possible and semantically, it fits perfectly with what precedes it.[/blue]

Precisely,am I right that in this situation the sentence with "would have done" clearly implies "They said they would have done..." ?

In this situation, no, it doesn't have the characteristic markings denoting reported speech. In this case, I would tend to think that it could be the speaker's determination/opinion that that is what the Mexicans led him to believe.

I can't rule out that that was an accurate report but, as I said, there is nothing that marks it, specifically, as an attempt to report their speech.

2.

"I arrived at the airport at seven o'clock.There was a crowd of people,jostling and shoving in the queue for the ticket office. It is a common sight there. The Mexicans would have done anything to reach the United States.

Is the red-coloured sentence in this context clearly and unmistakeably expressing that it is my personal impression about the Mexicans in general (I'm saying it as my opinion,no matter how I came to such conclusion - maybe I talked to some of them and they said me personally,or I read newspapers,or watched tv..)

No, it would NOT necessarily be glossed/read as a personal opinion. Note I said, "not necessarily". There would be a greater tendency on the part of ENLs to feel that it was an opinion because, as you've noted below, the markings of reported speech, reporting verbs, are absent.


In the first example,where "would have done" is the reported version of a concrete,specific speaking act,I feel like it is necessary to put in the reporting verb "said" to get the meaning "they said they will do .."

That would make it much clearer that the speaker was at least attempting to report, accurately, what someone said. But again, I must say that just because it has all the signals denoting reported speech does not mean that the "reporter" isn't lying thru his/her teeth.

And to specifically address your idea that "it is necessary to put in the reporting verb "said" to get the meaning "they said they will do .." ", no, it is NOT necessary.

[10] i. I have too many commitments.
[original utterance: present tense]

ii. Jill said she had too many commitments.
[backshifted report: preterite]

"It is important to emphasize, ..., that the backshifted preterite is used much more generally than in reported speech. Compare:

[21] i. This meant that Jill had too many commitments.
ii. That Jill had too many commitments was undeniable.

[The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language at page 151 & 154]

In [10] you see a normal example of reported speech, complete with the reporting verb, "said". In [21] we see some examples that still make use of the preterit forms, underlined, [meant & was] even though Jill still HAS these commitments. Another strong indication that, for reported speech, the preterit/past tense is only a special FORM; it is NOT a true past tense describing a real finished event.

And while [21] i & ii seem to have faithfully reported the facts, they also seem to have added a measure of opinion.


I hope that I've put my questions clearly this time and many thanks for your help Riverkid

Don't mention it. It was my distinct pleasure, Velimir.


Best regards

And to you, the same.

###

[velimir]

Hello Riverkid,

Your explanation was edifying and elaborate and I am earnestly grateful. I feel that your explanation has helped me to think about it in the right direction.The quote from the grammar I have to think over though.For now, could you give some brief passage which would exemplify the context in which "would have + V-en" ,without presence of the reporting verb in the sentence ,make you understand it (or tend to think of it ) as a reported statement rather than as the speaker's personal opinion.

Velimir

[riverkid]

Hello Riverkid,

For now, could you give some brief passage which would exemplify the context in which "would have + V-en" ,without presence of the reporting verb in the sentence ,make you understand it (or tend to think of it ) as a reported statement rather than as the speaker's personal opinion.
Velimir

No, I can't create such a sentence, Velimir. It's impossible. There is nothing specific in any language that would tell me whether it's an opinion or an example of reasonably accurate reported speech. Even with a reporting verb, one can't be 100% sure that the person is giving an accurate report. People have many reasons for deception.

If I create an imaginary situation, then I decide what the parameters are but that doesn't mean that it would have anything meaningful for what you're asking.

In the examples from the CGEL, unless I'm privy to the original speech, I wouldn't know for sure whether [21] i & ii, are opinions or accurate reports.

[10] i. I have too many commitments.
[original utterance: present tense]

ii. Jill said she had too many commitments.
[backshifted report: preterite]

"It is important to emphasize, ..., that the backshifted preterite is used much more generally than in reported speech. Compare:

[21] i. This meant that Jill had too many commitments.
ii. That Jill had too many commitments was undeniable.

[The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language at page 151 & 154]

[velimir]

Hello Riverkid,

Once again great thanks for your answers. Would you be so kind to review whether the following examples are grammaticaly and logicaly correctly put and interpreted :

1. (John is pointing at a house we're passing by together,and tells me )

“Mary would have bought this house but she doesn’t have enough money.”

I’m inclined to think that he is reporting what Mary has told him, but I’m not absolutely sure and I may ask (but not necessary) rather expecting positive answer:

“Did Mary tell you that ? ”

or maybe :

"Who told you that ? "

In both cases I infer that some conversation took place ,and on the ground of that conversation the speaker relates me the information. Asking the first question above I' mrather assuming that Mary told John that and in a way asking for confirmation of my surmise, and by the second question I do not assume it but ask : "Who told you Mary told that ?" , but still I assume that the statement is not John's hunch but retelling of Mary's words. It seems for me much less probable to understand the sentence as a opinion in this case. I mean in the sense for example " She is so spendthrift that she would buy this house in a moment if she had money.

2. A husband says to his wife :

H: It is really annoying that our car has broken down again.

W: Charlie would have mended it for 20 euros .

H: How do you know ? Did he tell you that?

Would you be induced to ask above or similar questions , to learn what exactly she meant – she guesses or she spoke to Charlie and she says what she’d been told ?
As to me, in this example I’m disposed to understand her statement like a opinion rather than reported speech, but that disposition is not so strong as it was in the sentence about the Mexicans. I’m not sure what she meant and probably would ask above mentioned questions expecting negative answer.

In all the examples with “would have” I am trying to grasp whether the statements are set forth as a personal opinion or as someone else’s words reported. In other words , did the subject of “would have” say something (he told me personally and I report it or someone told me who had spoken to him or similar ) and is cited by the speaker or the speaker is speculating and commenting on possible behaviour and actions of the subject and therefore who is in focus : the subject or the speaker? For this question it doesn't matter to me are they possibly deceiving the listener,or how accurate their reports are actually.

I apologize if the examples or comments are grammaticaly incorrect, this is very intricate topic for me, considering my momentary knowledge of English.

Thanks

[riverkid]

Hello Riverkid,

Once again great thanks for your answers. Would you be so kind to review whether the following examples are grammatically and logically correctly put and interpreted :

You're most welcome, V.

1. (John is pointing at a house we're passing by together,and tells me )

“Mary would have bought this house but she doesn’t have enough money.”

I’m inclined to think that he is reporting what Mary has told him, but I’m not absolutely sure and I may ask (but not necessarily) rather expecting positive answer:

1. “Did Mary tell you that ? ”

or maybe :

2. "Who told you that ? "

In both cases I infer that some conversation took place, and on the grounds of that conversation the speaker relates to me the information. Asking the first question above I'm rather assuming that Mary told John that and in a way asking for confirmation of my surmise, and by the second question I do not assume it but ask : "Who told you Mary [told] said that?", but still I assume that the statement is not John's hunch but retelling of Mary's words. It seems for me much less probable to understand the sentence as a opinion in this case. I mean in the sense for example " She is so spendthrift that she would buy this house in a moment if she had money.

Again, I don't think that it's possible to assume the things you have, Velimir, other than, as I mentioned in a previous posting, it's your scenario. But there's nothing in the language that would ABSOLUTELY confirm that which you believe, though, of course, you could be completely right too.

Admittedly, both your questions [I've numbered them 1 & 2], point to a listener that has some doubts as to whether this is a report of Mary's speech. Number 2 might show a bit more doubt.


2. A husband says to his wife :

H: It is really annoying that our car has broken down again.

W: Charlie would have [fixed] mended it for 20 euros .

['mended' sounds odd for NaE; maybe it's okay for BrE]

H: How do you know ? Did he tell you that?

Would you be induced to ask above or similar questions , to learn what exactly she meant – she guesses or she spoke to Charlie and she says what she’d been told ?

As to me, in this example I’m disposed to understand her statement like a opinion rather than reported speech, but that disposition is not so strong as it was in the sentence about the Mexicans. I’m not sure what she meant and probably would ask above mentioned questions expecting negative answer.

Of course, my response could well have mirrored H's. There was no indication in the speech of W's that Charlie said that.

It could be pure speculation on her part or she's bonking Charlie and thinks Charlie would do anything for her, or [some other idea that any human could possibly formulate].


In all the examples with “would have” I am trying to grasp whether the statements are set forth as a personal opinion or as someone else’s words reported. In other words , did the subject of “would have” say something (he told me personally and I report it or someone told me who had spoken to him or similar ) and is cited by the speaker or the speaker is speculating and commenting on possible behaviour and actions of the subject and therefore who is in focus : the subject or the speaker? For this question it doesn't matter to me are they possibly deceiving the listener,or how accurate their reports are actually.

You can never know that for sure unless you are the one who has heard the speech. There's nothing inherent in 'would have' or the surrounding language, even a reporting verb like said/told/etc. that would guarantee you can determine what you want to determine.

I apologize if the examples or comments are grammatically incorrect, this is very intricate topic for me, considering my momentary knowledge of English.

Thanks

I think that you can easily see, V, by the decided absence of moderators/native English speakers, that this is a very intricate area of language.

I'm participating only because I don't have the brains god gave a turnip.

I'm impressed with both the power of thought you possess and the language with which you display that thought, V. Keep it up!

[velimir]

First of all thanks for having such high opinion about my writing here Riverkid.It is very very encouraging to hear that,thank you very much. Yet,I want you to know that I do not write it so smoothly,unfortunately.Often,I proofread what I've written by searching Google to learn whether it is possible to write something in that way or other,has anybody ever uttered something like that and similar.Sometimes I consult BNC,(now I know that there is such thing)as to the correctness of some collocation of words and so.

Again to make myself clearer, I would like to give some comments on the second example (with a husband and wife).This is how I would understand what she has related:"I believe on the ground of my experience,previous knowledge or the information I have that he will fix it for 20 euros".From her statement I cannot infer what knowledge is it exactly that enables her to bring up,introduce what she have said ,but instead,I expect from her in further context to corroborate with some facts what she said. Or,if I'm jealous,I'll not wait for the answer,and I will ask : "How do you know, are you bonking him?",or I can leave out my guesses from the question and say only "How do you know",although I maybe surmise that she knows that Charlie usually charged that much in the past,for fixing brakes for instance, or so. I understand that the number of possible answers is infinite and everything is possible,the circumstances will determine what the listener will think about it of course.But,it is her assertion,utterance,(I'm afraid that I was using the word"opinion" improperly all the time in previous posts,sorry if it is the case)and I expect her to corroborate it with some plausible explanation in the further talk.If that was all she had to say I would probably ask (if I'm not previously informed that she had talked to Charlie,of course): Why do you think so? (On what ground are you telling me that?). I want to say that there is no way I could understand it as reported speech because I don't see that it is the option which, generally ,could stand out as more probable amongst the large number of other possible interpretations of her assertion. Moreover,in this case,(unless,again,he had been previously informed that she has talked to Charlie about it) it doesn't sound probable to me that the husband will ask something like: "Did he tell you whether he has time to fix it today" or similar,which clearly would indicate that he infers that that were Charlie's words in person.

And to put my dilema concisely, it is the usage of "would have" in the situations other than past i.e, situations not situated in the past,that is problematic for me to grasp.Those are the situations in which "would have" is freely interchangeable with "would" without significant changes in the sentence construction.And those are mostly simple sentences.The usage of "would have" is,everywhere I've read,defined as: "Would have" is used for possibilities in the past which did not become reality (third conditionals)".If I take the example with a conversation between a husband and wife I understand that "would have" rather refers to a future posibility than to a past posibility,and that it can be freely replaced with "would" without the change in the meaning.

Anyone who is willing to answer is allowed,I will not blame him/her for that.

Thanks