Doesn't "would probably have kissed" have to be corrected to "probably kissed"? As I learned from teachers here, for past presumption, "probably kissed" or "might(could) have kissed" works. "would have pp" is for counterfactual imaginary past result. Did the test-maker make a mistake or does it make sense?
Q. Find a proper word in the text
In Persia, a servant would probably have kissed his owner (on the cheek) to show respect.
ex)In the old days, kissing was better known as an act of respect than one of love. In Persia, a man would show his respect for another man by kissing him on the lips if they were in the same social position, or on the cheeck if they were not. The ancient Greeks and Romans also used to kiss the mouth, eyes, hand, or even the knee or foot, as a sign of respect or as a greeting.
It shatters my belief that "would have pp" is a counterfactual statement. As you say so, it can be used either way, but I'm confused.
"If they would have kissed" is a counterfactual.
I'd like to know the order of certainty centering around "would have pp". Could you check if the following order is correct? I think can/may precede could/might as past modals always represent more distant possibility than present ones.
1 kissed> will have kissed > would have kissed > must have kissed > can have kissed > could have kissed > may have kissed > might have kissed
2.probably kissed> will probably have kissed > would probably have kissed > same order...(if probably considered)
...In Persia, a servant would probably have kissed his owner (on the cheek) to show respect
Last edited by keannu; 21-Aug-2012 at 00:00.
This is a pointless question, keannu. Without context there is no meaning.