It would have been fun.

[keannu]

This is a question I made, but 1's would have been's interpreation is dubious as most people interpret it as counterfactual hypothesis. How can I modify this? If you have any good opinion, please let me know.

[FONT=맑은 고딕]Q. Translate the underlined and discuss the difference of the usages.[/FONT]
[FONT=맑은 고딕]1)[/FONT] [FONT=맑은 고딕]My friend went to Girls’ Generation’s concert yesterday. It would have been fun.[/FONT]
[FONT=맑은 고딕]2)[/FONT] [FONT=맑은 고딕]I didn’t go to the concert. If I had gone, I would have seen Taeyoun. [/FONT]
[FONT=맑은 고딕] [/FONT]
Answer - 1's would have been means a certainty about the past, while 2's [FONT=맑은 고딕]would have seen means counterfactual hypothesis that actually didn't happen.[/FONT]

 

[5jj]

1. 'It will have been fun' expresses certainty about the past. 'It would have been fun' is less certain. Additional context might also reveal that the speaker is actually suggesting regret that s/he did not go - (It would have been fun if I had been able to go).
2. This is indeed counterfactual. The speaker did not go to the concert and did not see Taeyoun.

 

[keannu]

1. 'It will have been fun' expresses certainty about the past. 'It would have been fun' is less certain. Additional context might also reveal that the speaker is actually suggesting regret that s/he did not go - (It would have been fun if I had been able to go).
2. This is indeed counterfactual. The speaker did not go to the concert and did not see Taeyoun.

For 1. I meant it as a certainty meaning "It would have been fun for my friend, not me" Can't this a part of the meanings it can imply? A presumption, not a counterfactual hypothesis. I learned from a grammar site that "would have been" without "had+pp" can mean less certainty for the past.

 

[5jj]

For 1. I meant it as a certainty meaning "It would have been fun for my friend, not me" ... I learned from a grammar site that "would have been" without "had+pp" can mean less certainty for the past.

If you learnt that it could mean less certainty (which is also what I said), why did you use it for certainty?

 

[keannu]

If you learnt that it could mean less certainty (which is also what I said), why did you use it for certainty?

I meant it as a certainty for the subject in the context who is my friend, but it seems to have a different nuance than I intended, so is it always the speaker involved?

 

[keannu]

Okay, I got it! As context is vital,
if you say "It would been fun for my friend", it will mean "I'm quite certain that it was fun for my friend.",
but if you say "It would been fun for me", it will mean "If I had gone, it would have been fun for me".
What do you think?

 

[5jj]

Okay, I got it! As context is vital,
if you say "It would been fun for my friend", it will mean "I'm quite certain that it was fun for my friend.",
but if you say "It would been fun for me", it will mean "If I had gone, it would have been fun for me".
What do you think?

I think you should read the second, third and fourth words of your own second sentence again.

 

[Raymott]

Okay, I got it! As context is vital,
if you say "It would been fun for my friend", it will mean "I'm quite certain that it was fun for my friend.",
but if you say "It would been fun for me", it will mean "If I had gone, it would have been fun for me".
What do you think?

I'm commenting only because you seem to attribute too much certainty to this phrase.

Martha: My daughter went to the Girls’ Generation concert last night.
Jane: Oh, that would have been fun for her!

In this case, Jane has no certainty at all. She is merely answering sociably. It's the sort of thing you say. Martha's daughter may well have overdosed on Ecstacy and ended up in hospital for all Jane knows at the exact moment of saying this. It's part of a dialogue.

 

[keannu]

You mean it's always a certainty for counterfactual hypothesis? The daughter actually didn't enjoy it, so Jane is just wishing the counterfactual fact?

The reason I made such utterance is because of this grammar I found on internet. It was to show "would have pp" in some cases can have the meaning of presumption.
Since then, I was obssessed with this grammar that affected me into believing "would have pp" can be a certainty without any conditional mood or hypothesis,
Isn't there any possibility that "would have pp'" can be a certainty without any conditional mood? There seems a few, if any, according to many teachers' opinions. I'd better abandon this grammar.

http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-modal-would.htm

[FONT=&#44404]would: Presumption or expectation[/FONT]
* [FONT=&#44404]That would be Jo calling. I'll answer it. [/FONT]
* [FONT=&#44404]We saw a police helicopter overhead yesterday morning. | Really? They would have been looking for those bank robbers. [/FONT]​

 

[emsr2d2]

Given that there is no way of knowing whether it was fun for your friend (unless she already told you that she had fun), I find the use of "would have" quite odd.

My friend went to a concert yesterday. It was probably fun.
My friend went to a concert yesterday. I imagine it was fun.
My friend went to a concert yesterday. It's likely that it was fun.

I would only use "She would have had fun" if she hadn't gone.

It's a shame my friend couldn't come to the concert last night. It would have been fun (for her, had she been there).
If you went to the concert, you already know if it (the concert) was fun or not.

 

[keannu]

Given that there is no way of knowing whether it was fun for your friend (unless she already told you that she had fun), I find the use of "would have" quite odd.

My friend went to a concert yesterday. It was probably fun.
My friend went to a concert yesterday. I imagine it was fun.
My friend went to a concert yesterday. It's likely that it was fun.

I would only use "She would have had fun" if she hadn't gone.

It's a shame my friend couldn't come to the concert last night. It would have been fun (for her, had she been there).
If you went to the concert, you already know if it (the concert) was fun or not.

Then, what is this grammar stuff talking about?
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/v...odal-would.htm

[FONT=&#44404]would: Presumption or expectation[/FONT]
* [FONT=&#44404]That would be Jo calling. I'll answer it. [/FONT]
* [FONT=&#44404]We saw a police helicopter overhead yesterday morning. | Really? They would have been looking for those bank robbers[/FONT]​

 

[5jj]

You mean it's always a certainty for counterfactual hypothesis? The daughter actually didn't enjoy it, so Jane is just wishing the counterfactual fact?
No. Nobody has suggested that.

The reason I made such utterance is because of this grammar I found on the internet. It was to show "would have pp" in some cases can have the meaning of presumption. ...Isn't there any possibility that "would have pp'" can be a certainty without any conditional mood?
Yes, but the certainty is not as great as with 'will have + past particple', as a couple of us have explained.

5

 

[5jj]

Given that there is no way of knowing whether it was fun for your friend (unless she already told you that she had fun), I find the use of "would have" quite odd.

emsr2d2 merely said that she found the use of 'would have' in your particular example quite odd. I happen not to find it as odd as she apparently does, but agree that we would probably be more likely to hear one of the alternative versions she suggested.

We are dealing here with a construction that is fairly uncommon. Not everybody is going to see it in exactly the same way.