If you had seen the notices in all papers you must have supposed my evening's entertainment an unqualified success

[shootingstar]

. . .
The lads vowed I was the soul of good company and the prince of lecturers; and - so wonderful an institution is the popular press - if you had seen the notices next day in all the papers you must have supposed my evening's entertainment an unqualified success.
. . .
(The Wrecker by R. L. Stevenson and L. Osbourne, Chapter vi (at the end))

I have dealt with this problem many a time. Does must have supposed have or convey the meaning of the Conditional iii-sentence there. My problem is must isn't like should, would, could and might. It normally has an indicative - affirmative meaning. It doesn't have a conditional meaning normally. Now, what is true?

 

[Piscean]

I have dealt with this problem many a time. Does must have supposed have or convey the meaning of the Conditional iii-sentence there. My problem is must isn't like should, would, could and might. It normally has an indicative - affirmative meaning. It doesn't have a conditional meaning normally. Now, what is true?

It is rather dated, but it's still possible.

 

[jutfrank]

It's a logical statement. The modal 'must' is used to express a logical conclusion. It doesn't have an 'indicative meaning' or a 'conditional meaning'.

If you had seen the notices next day in the papers = condition
you must have supposed my evening a success = logical conclusion

I can't sense anything unusual or anything dated about this.

 

[Piscean]

If you had seen the notices next day in the papers = condition
you must have supposed my evening a success = logical conclusion

I can't sense anything unusual or anything dated about this.

1. If you saw the notices next day [I believe you did you did], you must have supposed ...
2. ?If you had seen the notices next day [I believe you didn't], you must have supposed ...
3. If you had seen the notices next day [I believe you didn't],you would probably/almost certainly supposed ...

#1 is fine.
I, personally, find #2 a little unnatural in modern English. I would be more likely to say something like #3.

 

[shootingstar]

Thank you .very much.

It's a logical statement. The modal 'must' is used to express a logical conclusion. It doesn't have an 'indicative meaning' or a 'conditional meaning'.

Does this mean there isn't any unreality in both the if-clause and the main clause? They both suggest reality - it's a real condition in the past such as in a sentence like If it wasn't raining we went for a walk?

 

[jutfrank]

Does this mean there isn't any unreality in both the if-clause and the main clause?

The unreality is in the if-clause only.

They both suggest reality - it's a real condition in the past as in a sentence like If it wasn't raining we went for a walk?

No. It means that you didn't see the notices in the papers.

(I'm not sure but I believe that Piscean is allowing for the possibility that it means that you may have seen the notices. I'll let him comment on that.)

 

[Piscean]

(I'm not sure but I believe that Piscean is allowing for the possibility that it means that you may have seen the notices.

I'm not.

 

[jutfrank]

I'm not.

Oh, okay. I thought that's what you meant by "#1 is fine".

 

[Piscean]

I said this sentence was OK: 1. If you saw the notices next day [I believe you did you did], you must have supposed ...

That does allow for the possibility that it means that you may have seen the notices.

 

[shootingstar]

Thank you very much.

1. If you saw the notices next day [I believe you did you did], you must have supposed ...

What do you mean by I believe you did you did? Could you rephrase it, please. I don't understand it.

 

[Piscean]

The second you did was a slip. Sorry.

 

[shootingstar]

jutfrank said:
The unreality is in the if-clause only

Since the main clause (. . . you must have supposed my evening's entertainment an unqualified success) isn't a (second or third) conditional, there is still a question open: what tense does must suggest or convey in this clause? Is must (by itself) present tense or past tense there or anything else (maybe future in the past/future perfect in the past, which would be the same as conditional to me in this context)?

 

[Piscean]

Regardless of the message it conveys, must have supposed is a modal perfect form.

 

[jutfrank]

Since the main clause (. . . you must have supposed my evening's entertainment an unqualified success) isn't a (second or third) conditional

The condition clause is the if-clause. Conditional sentences consist of two clauses: a condition clause (the if-clause) and a result clause. The clause you've quoted above is the result clause. When we use the terms 'second and third conditional', we're talking about the whole sentence.

there is still a question open: what tense does must suggest or convey in this clause?

It doesn't have a tense.

I can tell from your questioning that you don't have a clear idea of what tense is in English. You're applying your knowledge of German grammar to English, which you shouldn't do.

What are you really asking about? Grammar or meaning?

 

[shootingstar]

Thank you very much.

When we use the terms 'second and third conditional', we're talking about the whole sentence.

Agreed. The sentence isn't a second or third conditional one, though. It is a mixed or combined one - the if-clause (= the conditional clause) has an imagined meaning (here an unreal one) but the main clause is a statement (as you say in #3), an affirmative or declarative clause.

It doesn't have a tense.

I wouldn't say so. Compare can (present simple) - could (past simple or conditional), also may - might, shall - should etc. Must is a special case or exception - it doesn't have a special past simple or conditional form. Sometimes you have to reword it by using other expressions if you want to express other tenses (e.g. had to etc.). Must has a present simple meaning originally in my opinion.

What are you really asking about? Grammar or meaning?

I am asking about both the grammar and the meaning - they can't be separated from each other in this case in my opinion.

 

[Piscean]

Must has a present simple meaning originally in my opinion.

Must is the present-tense form of the verb. There is no such thing as a' present simple meaning'.

 

[shootingstar]

Must is the present-tense form of the verb.

Present simple is a special form of the present tense. There is a present continuous as you know for sure.

 

[Piscean]

Present simple is a special form of the present tense. There is a present continuous as you know for sure.

The present simple is the name given to the present-tense form of the verb. The present continuous is regarded as an aspect, not a tense.

 

[jutfrank]

Agreed. The sentence isn't a second or third conditional one, though. It is a mixed or combined one - the if-clause (= the conditional clause) has an imagined meaning (here an unreal one) but the main clause is a statement (as you say in #3), an affirmative or declarative clause.

I'd class it a third conditional sentence, though I believe these classifications are of limited benefit to learners at your level. Don't get mixed up with trying to classify conditional sentences by type—just focus on the meaning and use.

I wouldn't say so. Compare can (present simple) - could (past simple or conditional), also may - might, shall - should etc. Must is a special case or exception - it doesn't have a special past simple or conditional form.

It doesn't have a binary present and past form like the other modals. There is no 'conditional form' in English. You don't need to ask whether must has a present or past tense.

Sometimes you have to reword it by using other expressions if you want to express other tenses (e.g. had to etc.).

You're getting confused between tense and meaning here.

Must has a present simple meaning originally in my opinion.

No, it doesn't, and this is not a matter of opinion. There's no such thing as a 'present simple meaning'.

I am asking about both the grammar and the meaning - they can't be separated from each other in this case in my opinion.

So what exactly is your question? I still can't work it out.

Do you feel you understand what meaning the sentence as a whole expresses?

Present simple is a special form of the present tense.

See Piscean's answer above.

 

[shootingstar]

I'd class it a third conditional sentence

If you had said that at the very beginning, we could have saved ourselves the whole thing. I see you have revised your opinion: In fact, it is a third conditional sentence. The third conditional is used when you imagine a different past, where something did or did not happen, and you imagine a different result, and that's the case in this sentence. The imagined (maybe unreal) condition is in both the sentences.

You don't need to ask whether must has a present or past tense

I know, but its meaning can differ (not its form).

You're getting confused between tense and meaning here.

An example:
I must talk to you about the new project.
He is talking about the new project.
He had to talk to me about the new project.
He was talking about the new project.
Now, please tell me what is present tense and what is present simple, what is past tense and what is past simple, what is the form, what is the tense or what meaning do the verbs have in regard to the tense.

There's no such thing as a 'present simple meaning

Please, what does the term 'present simple' mean? Is it a tense, is it a form or anything else?

So what exactly is your question? I still can't work it out.

Do you feel you understand what meaning the sentence as a whole expresses?

These question are needless and answered by your first statement of your last reply, #19: I'd class it a third conditional sentence - your revised opinion.