If the flight was on time, he should have arrived in Jakarta early this morning.

[IlyaTretyakov]

"If the flight was on time, he should have arrived in Jakarta early this morning."

I found this sentence in my grammar book. (Advanced Grammar in Use Third Edition) There was written: "We also use should have + past participle to talk about an expectation that something happened, has happened, or will happen."
But in this thread I have asked the same question and I was told that I couldn't.
Who is wrong? Martin Hewings or 5jj?
(I know that in my thread I asked about myself. But that wasn't the point, the point I asked about was possibility.)

 

[Tarheel]

I'm afraid it's not the same question.

I don't think they disagree.

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

I'm afraid it's not the same question.

I don't think they disagree.

So we can use should have + pp with real past events which we don't know exactly happened as we do it with 'may' but with higher possibility?
They may have done it. But I don't know. 50%
They should have done it. But I don't know. 70%
They must have done it. But I don't know. 90%

 

[5jj]

They may have done it. But I don't know.
They should have done it. But I don't know.
They must have done it. But I don't know.

Those are not real past events. They express the speakers suppositions/assumptions about possible past events.

They did it expresses a real past event.

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

They express the speakers suppositions/assumptions about possible past events.

It turns out that "subject + should + have + past participle" doesn't mean 0% as we've been told throughout our life? We can make assumptions about past using "subject + should + have + past participle"? Just as we do it with "may have" and "must have"?? Wow!! My school teachers would have never believed me!

 

[5jj]

It turns out that "subject + should + have + past participle" doesn't mean 0% as we've been told throughout our life?

I don't really know what you mean by that.

We can make suggestions about past using "subject + should + have + past participle"? Just as we do it with "may have" and "must have"?? Wow!! My school teachers would have never believed me!

I don't think 'suggestions' is the right word.

Depending on full context, He should have done it can express:
a degree of possibility/certainty - Bill's plane took off on time, so he should have arrived in London by now.
an unfulfilled obligation - I am going to have to repair the washing machine. John should have done it before he left, but he was too busy.

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

I don't really know what you mean by that.

I don't think 'suggestions' is the right word.

I'm sorry it's because of my bad English I can't express thoughts clearly.
I'm going to rehash the things.

In combination with the perfect infinitive should can be used to make guesses or draw conclusions about things which may or may not have happened in the past. Just like we do it with may and must.

He may have already left home. 50%
He should have already left home. 80%
He must have already left home. 90%
Right?
I hope my question is clear now.

 

[5jj]

He may have already left home. 50%
He should have already left home. 80%
He must have already left home. 90%
Right?

No.

These percentages are an attempt, usually not a very successful one, to give a numerical figure to a degree of possibility that is not scientifically measurable.

He may have already left home. The speaker is expressing the possibility of 'his' having left home. Without real context, and insight into the speaker's mind, we have no idea how likely it is that 'he' has left home.

He should have already left home. Without context, we don't even know whether the speaker is talking of an obligation or a degree of certainty.

He must have already left home. The speaker is expressing logical certainty. We have no way of knowing, without real context, and insight into the speaker's mind, how close that logical certainty is to the reality of He (has) left home.

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

These percentages are an attempt, usually not a very successful one, to give a numerical figure to a degree of possibility that is not scientifically measurable.

Those numbers I gave were just an example. It wasn't an attempt to indicate the probability precisely.
I am talking about grammatical constructions that, by providing the necessary context, can mean some degree of certainty.

"They can't see the wood for the trees."

 

[5jj]

"They can't see the wood for the trees."

What has that do do with anything we are talking about?

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

What has that do do with anything we are talking about?

In the post 7 my question was if it is right: "In combination with the perfect infinitive should can be used to make guesses or draw conclusions about things which may or may not have happened in the past. Just like we do it with may and must."

But you answered: "No" to my percentages. As a result, you answered the wrong question and didn't convey the meaning.

 

[jutfrank]

In post #8, 5jj made a special effort to help you understand the meaning of the sentences you wrote in post #7.

 

[Tdol]

"If the flight was on time, he should have arrived in Jakarta early this morning."

I found this sentence in my grammar book. (Advanced Grammar in Use Third Edition) There was written: "We also use should have + past participle to talk about an expectation that something happened, has happened, or will happen."
But in this thread I have asked the same question and I was told that I couldn't.
Who is wrong? Martin Hewings or 5jj?
(I know that in my thread I asked about myself. But that wasn't the point, the point I asked about was possibility.)

If the flight had been on time [it wasn't], he should have arrived in Jakarta early this morning [he didn't].
If the flight was on time [we don't know], he should have arrived in Jakarta early this morning [we don't know]'

Who is wrong? [we don't know]

 

[emsr2d2]

The important part of Tdol's sentences above is "If the flight had been on time". That's what we'd say if we knew the flight had landed late. If we didn't know the arrival time, we'd use "If the flight was on time".

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

The important part of Tdol's sentences above is "If the flight had been on time". That's what we'd say if we knew the flight had landed late. If we didn't know the arrival time, we'd use "If the flight was on time".

Can we use 'shouldn't have' to make guesses about the past as we do it with 'should have'?

"If the flight was on time, he should have arrived in Jakarta yesterday morning"
"If the flight was late, he shouldn't have arrived there yesterday morning"

 

[emsr2d2]

Your second sentence is unlikely. You'd be more likely to hear:
1. If the flight was late, he can't have arrived yesterday morning.
2. If the flight was late, I don't see how he can have arrived yesterday morning.

These would only work as part of a longer dialogue in which someone has said the flight landed late, and you're challenging them on that. The suggestion is that you know he got there in the morning and that simply isn't possible if the flight landed late.

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

Your second sentence is unlikely.

Thank you for the examples.
Ok, it's unlikely but is it still grammatically possible to say (with a certain context) or is it always impossible to say?
And what about my first sentence, is it OK?

1."If the flight was on time, he should have arrived in Jakarta yesterday morning"

 

[jutfrank]

If the flight was on time, he should have arrived in Jakarta yesterday morning

The green part expresses the hypothesis that the flight was on time.
The blue part expresses an expectation logically dependent on the truth of the hypothesis.

The whole utterance expresses an expected outcome, based on a real past possibility.