should have left her map at home

[Verona_82]

Hello,

We can use 'should + V" to say that we know something is probable (it's logical or normal in the circumstances). Is it possible to use "should + have + past participle" with the same meaning, but in the past?

- She got lost while driving to Florida.
- She should have left her road map at home.

Is 'should + have + p.participle" ever used to make deductions?

Thank you.

 

[bhaisahab]

Hello,

We can use 'should + V" to say that we know something is probable (it's logical or normal in the circumstances). Is it possible to use "should + have + past participle" with the same meaning, but in the past?

- She got lost while driving to Florida.
- She should have left her road map at home.

Is 'should + have + p.participle" ever used to make deductions?

Thank you.

I would think "She should have taken her roadmap with her" would be more logical.

 

[charliedeut]

What you are saying with that example is that she took the map with her, but the map is what made her get lost (because she was in Florida and the map was, say, of Louisiana). So, judging by what happened, the best thing for her would have been to leave the map home.


If you want to make a guess in the past, I would say something like:

- She got lost while driving to Florida.
- She probably/must have left her road map at home.

 

[emsr2d2]

Remember that "She should have ..." = "It would have been a better idea if she had ..."

If she got lost in Florida, I'm sure you will agree that it would not have been a better idea if she had left her roadmap at home. It would certainly have been a better idea if she had remembered to take her roadmap with her.

 

[Verona_82]

Thanks to all! I do know that "should have +..." = it would have been a better idea if....
I was just curious if the structure could be used to make logical deductions in the past. Now I see the answer is a firm no.