Should have + PP

[toloue_man]

Consider this sentence:

Joe should have visited the doctor yesterday. It means that Joe did not visit the doctor yesterday, although he was advised to do so.

Now, consider this dialogue:

A: Should Joe have visited the doctor yesterday?
B: Yes. Joe should have visited the doctor yesterday.

What does the first statement (the question) mean? And what does the answer to this question mean? I think that the answer to this question has a different meaning because the context is different with that of the first sentence that I mentioned at the beginning of this post.

 

[Tdol]

A lot would depend on the intonation- the first person could be expressing surprise at learning this and the second their anger over his not going. It depends on who knew what and when and how they are expressing this through the stress and intonation.

 

[toloue_man]

Can this dialog mean the following based on intonation and stress?
The speaker asks a question about an event that has happened in the past and the answer to this question means that Joe had an appointment with the doctor, but the speaker is not aware that Joe has visited the doctor or not.

Please mention your idea about the below-mentioned sentence about a question in "should+ subject+ have+PP" form. My grammar says that:
"In a question with perfect form, the action has in fact been performed: Should he have gone to the dentist yesterday? Here the speaker is merely questioning the advisability of an event that has occurred."

If the aforementioned sentence is correct, be so kind as to simplify it for me, would you please?

I think that the above-mentioned sentence is not correct because a question with this formula "should+ subject+ have+PP" has no clues in itself that implies the event in question has certainly happened!

 

[bhaisahab]

Can this dialog mean the following based on intonation and stress?
The speaker asks a question about an event that has happened in the past and the answer to this question means that Joe had an appointment with the doctor, but the speaker is not aware that Joe has visited the doctor or not.

Please mention your idea about the below-mentioned sentence about a question in "should+ subject+ have+PP" form. My grammar says that:
"In a question with perfect form, the action has in fact been performed: Should he have gone to the dentist yesterday? Here the speaker is merely questioning the advisability of an event that has occurred."

If the aforementioned question is correct, be so kind as to simplify it for me, would you please?

I think that the above-mentioned question is not correct because a question with this formula "should+ subject+ have+PP" has no clues in itself that implies the event in question has certainly happened!

The question is perfectly correct. It's asking whether Joe was supposed to go to the doctor or not.

 

[toloue_man]

Here is it the dialog:
A: Should Joe have visited the doctor yesterday?
B: Yes. Joe should have visited the doctor yesterday.

So based on our discussion, so far, we have arrived at two possible interpretations of this dialog. One is this:

A lot would depend on the intonation- the first person could be expressing surprise at learning this and the second their anger over his not going. It depends on who knew what and when and how they are expressing this through the stress and intonation.

And the other is this one:

Can this dialog mean the following based on intonation and stress?
The speaker asks a question about an event that has happened in the past and the answer to this question means that Joe had an appointment with the doctor, but the speaker is not aware that Joe has visited the doctor or not.

Do all agree with these two usages? Is there any other potential usage for this structure?

 

[toloue_man]

I know that I must post all my questions in one post, but as far as people tend to forget answer all of questions in a post that has several questions and the importance of this question for me, I decided to post it here! I'm sorry!

Please mention your idea about the below-mentioned sentence about a question in "should+ subject+ have+PP" form. My grammar says that:
"In a question with perfect form, the action has in fact been performed: Should he have gone to the dentist yesterday? Here the speaker is merely questioning the advisability of an event that has occurred."

Be so kind as to simplify this sentence for me, would you please? What does this sentence try to convey? What does "questioning the advisability of an event" mean?

However, I think that the above-mentioned sentence is not correct because a question with this formula "should+ subject+ have+PP" has no clues in itself that implies the event in question has certainly happened!

 

[Tdol]

I don't agree with your grammar if it says that is the only way to use this form in a question.

Should he have gone to the dentist yesterday?

This could be asking whether it was a good idea for to have gone yesterday (= questioning the advisability of the event). For instance, maybe today would have been better for some reason. However, it could be asked when trying to find out if he was supposed to have gone yesterday but did not go- you could ask this if you didn't take him and now are learning that you should have taken him (an event that did not occur).

 

[toloue_man]

Can this dialog mean the following based on intonation and stress?
The speaker asks a question about an event that has happened in the past and the answer to this question means that Joe had an appointment with the doctor, but the speaker is not aware that Joe has visited the doctor or not.

I do not have the intention to insult the user bhaisahab who has answered this question earlier and I extend my sincere thanks to her/him whole-heartedly for the time he/she alloted to me but is there anyone else who confirms the above-mentioned question. I need to get thoroughly sure about it.