Dear Raymott,
Since I'm the one who's asking favour from you, I'll try to make it as easy as I can for you to answer my questions. Double quotes are not supported by this forum engine, though I've done it several times before by quoting the former posts and inserting the quotes into another quotes, etc., but this method is extremely time-consuming, especially when the browser crashes during the procedure, as it happened to me when I wrote that mile-long post. So I'll basically (but not fully and entirely) copy my former post here (that mile-long one :lol: ), but NOT because of arrogance or being meticulous or something, but in order to make things easier, and to avoid unnecessary quotes. I'm going to use
pink for my current questions, notes, etc., and I'm also going to number my points to make them easy to refer to.
:arrow:
I (Mav) in black (as night, black as cole ) in the parts which are recycled from my former posts, but now in pink; Raymott in blue, as usual.
So, here we go:
c) "He turned angry enough to have killed."
Did he, or did he NOT kill in the end?
It’s not implicit in the sentence whether he did or not.
1.a) Does it simply mean that once in the past he was so angry that (even sooner - see also 1.b, please) he had been capable to kill? In other words, does the Perfect Infinitive acts here the way as the Past Perfect does? (A 'yes' or 'no' will do, but a 'no' will raise questions.:lol: )
1.b) Consider this (let's say it's a narrative): "
He was strong enough (Back then, in those years being strong was one of his peculiarities)
to have beaten up (referring to a former event)
that rascal who had attacked his family a week ago (before the narrative point). Is it correct?
I would still like to know whether it (and the whole sentence) is correct or not. I tried so hard, I tried to put it into context, so "I think I'm entitled to know the truth":-D about my sentence. I could handle it.
In the following example, it’s clear that he didn’t: "He turned angry enough to have killed if he was pushed much further.”
Some people would prefer the past perfect in this sentence.
2.a) Did you mean: "
He turned angry enough to have killed if he had been pushed much further.”?
Did you mean the Past Perfect in the 'if part' of the 3rd conditional? (Again, a 'yes' or 'no' will do; if you say 'yes', I'll also take it as your approval on my sentence being grammatically correct. )
2.b) OR "
He had turned angry enough to have killed if he had been pushed much further.”?
2.c) OR "
He had turned angry enough to kill if he had been pushed much further.
Acording to your last post(s), is it just a "a matter of style"?
2.d) In this latter example I could imagine something like: "
Eventually he calmed down, but it was surprising as he had (sooner)
turned angry enough to have killed if he had been pushed much further.”
Is it correct? (I tried to put it into some context.) Am I right about this?
3.a) Now there's something I wanted to ask you after your penultimate post... I realize it's a multiple use of the Past Perfect, but one of them is only technically Past Perfect, since it functions as the 'if-part' of the 3rd conditional, so it's not really more than once instance of the past perfect, at least in my humble opinion. Or how's that?:-?
Fowler gives a categorical "No" to this structure.
To the 3rd conditional?
No, to the use of a double past perfect when a single one will do.
3.b) So, would my sentence be correct and flawless if I replaced the Past Perfect with Simple Past? :arrow: If I had known that my endeavour to write a useful addition to my previous post would result for you not to finish your enlightening post you [STRIKE]had[/STRIKE] (without 'had'; simple past) started to have written, I would never have posted Mr. Fowler's notes. ("If I 'had known'..." is necessary due to the 3rd conditional, thus it's not a real Past Perfect, though technically it is.)
The perfect form suggests (to me) that it actually happened, but if I remember correctly, the Perfect Infinitive has something to do with the 'imaginary past', where the actions did NOT complete. (Eg.: 'He was to have come.' implies that he did not come.
That’s right, and “He was to have come, but he was caught up” is even more revealing.
Again, if the context makes it clear, then what extra 'good' does the Perfect Infinitive do?
4.a) A matter of style, right?:-D
4.b) If I say "He was to have been spared, but he was roasted in the electric chair" then I think it's the brute truth that makes things clear, not the infinitive, so to speak.:-|
Was I correct about it? Y/N:-D)
//I got a 'nice' message from the forum engine: "The text that you have entered is too long (10058 characters). Please shorten it to 10000 characters long", so I had to cut it short.:lol:
I wrote a sentence by Shakespeare in my previous post: "I had thought, Sir, to have held my peace." Does it convey that he couldn't hold his peace? Or would it be correct (without changing the meaning, of course!!) to replace it with "I had thought, Sir,
to hold my peace."?
5.a) I THINK it would be correct. The Past Perfect already implies antecedence, there's no need for the Perfect Infinitive. (Am I correct about it? Y/N:-D) What's the difference?
5.b) Style, and four centuries?:-D Y/N
And last, can the Perfect Infinitive be used after Present Perfect?
Yes. You generally wouldn’t write, “He has turned angry enough to have killed”. But it could be made to work:
A: “Do you think John could have killed this man yesterday?”
B: “Well, over the last week, he has turned angry enough to have killed this man yesterday.”
6.a) But it's still not sure whether John is a murderer or not, is it? Ii is not the case of "imaginary past", where the Perfect Infinitive carries the implication of nonfulfilment, is it
?
6.b) Would it change the meaning if you used Present Infinitive: “Well, over the last week,
he has turned angry enough
to kill this man yesterday.”:?: In this latter case, I'd think he killed that man.:-?
???
How often is the Perfect Infinitive used among the native English speakers? I only very seldom come across with it, and maybe (only maybe) because the Present Infinitive holds its sway, and for a reason, I think.
I promise that I will never ask so many questions (especially not that complicated and complex ones) again.
I really meant that, but I only repeated/rephrased my
former questions in this post, since you
had kindly asked me if there was anything that remained unanswered or/and were still unclear to me. :-D Well, what can I say? :mrgreen: