glad to be/to have been appointed

[joham]

Mr Dargis was glad to be/to have been appointed as chairman of the club.

Do both infinitives work well in this sentence?

Thank you in advance.

 

[Rover_KE]

Yes, they do.

Rover

 

[corum]

Mr Dargis was glad to be/to have been appointed as chairman of the club.

Do both infinitives work well in this sentence?

Thank you in advance.

Only "to have been", IMO. This is why:

Mr Dargis is glad to be appointed as chairman. :cross: (I am appointed?)
Mr Dargis was glad to be appointed as chairman. :cross: (I am appointed?) )
Mr Dargis was glad to be a chairman. :tick: (I am here.)
Mr Dargis was glad to see you. :tick: (I see you.)
He was glad to be honest. :tick: (I am honest.)


Why the :cross: and the :tick: here? It has something to do with aspect. Tense can't interfere with these sentences as we have tenseless clauses.

"(A)ppointed is a dynamic verb in the sentence. The act of appointing has either happened already or it has not. When he is glad, it means his happiness is preceded by the act of appointing. The time of appointing him frames the speaker's now and this triggers the perfective aspect in the low clause (to have been appointed). The neutral aspect (to be appointed) with the dynamic verb "appointed" does not work unless a temporal adjunct expressing habitual action (with which the neutral aspect is compatible) is inserted like this:
Mr Dargis was glad [to be appointed as chairman every year]. :tick:

----------------------------------

Mr Dargis was glad to have been appointed as chairman. :tick: -- First he was chosen, and later he was glad.
Mr Dargis was glad to have seen you. :tick: -- First he saw you, and later he was glad.

 

[5jj]

Mr Dargis was glad to be/to have been appointed as chairman of the club.

Do both infinitives work well in this sentence?

Rover is right - both work. Corum is wrong.

1. Mr Dargis was glad to be appointed. Mr Dargis was appointed. He was glad about this.

2. Mr Dargis was glad to have been appointed. Mr Dargis had been appointed. He was glad about this.

In #1, the gladness and the appointment happen at the same time; in #2, the appointment precedes the gladness. In fact, in normal conversation, most speakers would not worry too much about this.

 

[corum]

In #1, the gladness and the appointment happen at the same time; in #2, the appointment precedes the gladness.

That is exactly what I was saying too. However, the idea behind "being glad" and "being appointed" happening at the same time strikes me as somewhat strange.
Cause and effect relationships have a logically determined temporal sequence relationship. Only the perfective aspect can express sequence in time. I still believe "to be" does not work. :up:

 

[5jj]

Cause and effect relationships have a logically determined temporal sequence relationship. Only the perfective aspect can express sequence in time. I still believe "to be" does not work. :up:

Once again you are trying to fit English into a perspective aspect mould.

You are, of course, free to believe what you wish. However, two experienced teachers, both native speakers, know that both infinitives are possible.

 

[corum]

That is exactly what I was saying too. However, the idea behind "being glad" and "being appointed" happening at the same time strikes me as somewhat strange.
Cause and effect relationships have a logically determined temporal sequence relationship. Only the perfective aspect can express sequence in time. I still believe "to be" does not work. :up:

I was giving my ideas a little bit of thought and I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong here:

Only the perfective aspect can express sequence in time.

:down:

I was glad when I was appointed. :tick:

No perfective aspect, still It is obvious that my being glad came later.

Yes, both options are correct. :up:

 

[5jj]

I was glad when I was appointed. :tick:
No perfective aspect, still It is obvious that my being glad came later.

Perhaps I am splitting hairs here Corum, but are you perhaps placing too much emphasis on 'later'?

Clearly, if my gladness was caused by my appointment (and I think we are saying that), then that gladness cannot begin before the appointment. Indeed, I admit that it must begin after the appointment. However, the period of time between the the appointment and the onset of the emotion could be so short as to be almost non-existent.

I feel that it is not distorting the situation unreasonably to suggest that the appointment and the onset of gladness are virtually simultaneous.

 

[corum]

However, the period of time between the the appointment and the onset of the emotion could be so short as to be almost non-existent.

For those who are quick on the uptake. :up: