should have withheld

[keannu]

Is this "should have withheld" a mistake or an exceptional usage of "should+have+p.p" meaning past obligation?
Considering the context, it seems to have to be "had to withheld" as it already happened and doesn't mean any regret.

ex)The death of Martha of Graham of April 1, 1991 finally premitted Agnes de Mille to publish her biography of the dancer, after nearly twenty-five years of work and four years of waiting. It is a measure of de Mille's respect for Graham that she should have withheld until after the subject's death what is by any standard an affectionate and appreciative account of her life and art, rather than risk offending Graham's own sense of herself in the slightest degree...

 

[cereal_chick]

First, it wouldn't be "had to happened" – it makes no sense; "have" followed by a "to" is to have to.

And second, it does mean "had withheld" and the usage of should is acceptable. Although, any further details I cannot provide.

[Not a teacher]

 

[emsr2d2]

Is this "should have withheld" a mistake or an exceptional usage of "should+have+p.p" meaning past obligation?
Considering the context, it seems to have to be "had to withheld" as it already happened and doesn't mean any regret.

ex)The death of Martha of Graham of April 1, 1991 finally premitted Agnes de Mille to publish her biography of the dancer, after nearly twenty-five years of work and four years of waiting. It is a measure of de Mille's respect for Graham that she should have withheld until after the subject's death what is by any standard an affectionate and appreciative account of her life and art, rather than risk offending Graham's own sense of herself in the slightest degree...

It's a rather formal use of "should have" meaning "that she chose to".

It is a measure of her respect that she should have withheld publication until ...
It is a measure of her respect that she withheld publication until ...
It is a measure of her respect that she chose to withhold publication until ...

I am very honoured that you should have included me in this list of well-respected actors = I am very honoured that you included me ...

"Had to withheld" is not a correct construction, no matter what the context.

 

[BobK]

:up:

...

"Had to withheld" is not a correct construction, no matter what the context.

Because, keannu, 'withhold' behaves like 'hold': hold held held => withhold withheld withheld

'Had to held' is wrong. Depending on meaning, it could be either 'Had to hold' or 'Had to be held.

b

 

[keannu]

I learned from grammar books that "should" can be used in the subordinate clause when you express opinions or emotions, but I haven't seen these often, so that's why I was confused with should's obligation usage.

1.opinion- It's natural that Korea should welcome Obama's visit(much less seen) => It's natural that Korea welcomes Obama's visit(much more seen)
2.emotion - It's surprising that Obama said a few Korean words(much less seen) => It's surprising that Obama should have said a few Korean words(much more seen)

I was wondering about the reason, now you taught me. I got it's because it's rather formal, so in colloquialism and normal written forms, "should"-less form seems to be more preferred. Anyway, it's more of my honor that you should have welcomed my including you in my friends' list.