... the valve would've had to have been a little bit smaller

[Tony_M]

Hello,
Asked the same question at forum.wordreference.com, but didn't get a clear answer.
Source: Mat Armstrong, Title: REBUILDING A PORSCHE 911 GT3RS FROM SCRATCH, Time: 37:40
YouTuber Mat Armstrong is repearing his Porsche GT3 RS:

- If we had took the valves out and cleaned the top of the valves into the cylinder head, which is called lapping, then we’d risk that the valves would sit closer inside the cylinder head, which would mean that they poke out more at the top, and because of that, the shim between the rocker arm and the valve would’ve had to have been a little bit smaller, which would mean we’d have to order a lot of these shims.

Why does he need this monstrosity of a construction?

Thank you

 

[Rover_KE]

I asked the same question at forum.wordreference.com, but didn't get a clear answer.

Please give us a link to those answers.

 

[jutfrank]

He doesn't 'need' this construction. For consistency with the rest of the verb phrases, he could better have used:

would have to be a little bit smaller

The reason he uses the backshifted version that he does use is that he still has in mind the past hypothetical 'if'-clause that he used at the beginning of the sentence. The resulting sentence is an inconsistent mix of tenses.

Even so, there's no need for this 'monstrosity' as you call it, which is double-backshifted. To backshift the verb phrase sufficiently, he could have used:

would have had to be a little bit smaller

Here's my corrected version of the entire sentence:

If we had taken the valves out and (had) cleaned the top of the valves into the cylinder head, which is called lapping

This is the correct 'if'-clause, initiating a past hypothetical condition. Here's the result clause, which expresses a hypothetical future result of the condition:

then we would have risked that the valves would sit closer inside the cylinder head, which would have meant that they poked out more at the top, and because of that, the shim between the rocker arm and the valve would have had to be a little bit smaller, which would have meant we would have had to order a lot of these shims.

Notice how I didn't backshift the would sit verb phrase, as it refers to relative future hypothetical time.

 

[Tony_M]

Please give us a link to those answers.

https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/english-would%E2%80%99ve-had-to-have-been.4124655/#post-21202363

 

[Tony_M]

Even so, there's no need for this 'monstrosity' as you call it, which is double-backshifted.

Thank you very much, @jutfrank

What is double backshifting?

 

[Tarheel]

Thank you very much, @jutfrank

What is double backshifting?

Any time somebody uses "double" you can assume it means it (whatever "it" is) was done a second time.

 

[jutfrank]

What is double backshifting?

Backshifted twice.

would have to be (not backshifted)

would have had to be (backshifted once)

would have had to have been (backshifted twice)

 

[Tony_M]

Any time somebody uses "double" you can assume it means it (whatever "it" is) was done a second time.

Sorry, I don't understand.

 

[Tony_M]

Backshifted twice.

would have to be (not backshifted)

would have had to be (backshifted once)

would have had to have been (backshifted twice)

Thank you, @jutfrank

In 2013, Niki Lauda enticed Lewis Hamilton into joining Mercedes AMG Petronas. During the period 2014-2021, he won a lot of races, but now the situation is different.

Can I say:

- If Niki Lauda hadn't enticed Lewis Hamilton into joining Mercedes in 2013, he wouldn't have been able to have won so many races. (his winning streak came to its end in 2021)

But if he still were on a winning streak, could I say:

- If Niki Lauda hadn't enticed Lewis Hamilton into joining Mercedes in 2013, he wouldn't be able to have won so many races.

 

[jutfrank]

he wouldn't have been able to have won so many races.

That's just as monstrous as Mat Armstrong's similarly double-backshifted creation. There's no need, or indeed reason, for the perfective aspect of 'have won'. Use this:

... he wouldn't have been able to win so many races

The to-infinitive verb form to win covers all winning from the time of the enticement onward into an indefinite future.

But if he still were on a winning streak, could I say:

- If Niki Lauda hadn't enticed Lewis Hamilton into joining Mercedes in 2013, he wouldn't be able to have won so many races.

No. Use the same sentence that I've written above for this too. The to-infinitive form to win covers all future winning, including those in the past and present with respect to now.

I'll break it down a bit for you:

he wouldn't have been able

This is necessary because you want to talk about past ability as well as present ability. The perfective aspect is what expresses this past meaning.

he wouldn't be able

This talks only about present ability (his current winning streak) but doesn't include past ability (his wins 2014-2021) so it doesn't work.

to win

This covers all future winning from 2013 on into an indefinite future, incuding his current streak. That's why it works perfectly well, as well as being simpler in structural form.

to have won

This is not necessary, for reasons I've mentioned, but could be used specifically to emphasise that you're talking only about the past relative to now. One reason that you may consider doing that would be if you wanted to make a distinction in time between past and present. Let me show you what I mean:

... he wouldn't have been able to have won, and to be still winning, so many races

The perfective aspect (red) works in conjunction with the progressive aspect (blue) for the sake of aspectual contrast. The red part sets the past and the blue part sets the present (both with respect to now—the moment of utterance).

 

[Tony_M]

Thank you very much, @jutfrank.

 

[EngLearner]

I've read the replies to the present thread, and the following example comes to mind (which I came across some time ago on another forum):

For him to be here by now, he would have had to have driven much faster.

I remember that a native speaker said there that the bolded part was clumsy, and that it should be said like this instead (he said that either version is fine):

A. For him to be here by now, he would have had to drive much faster.
B. For him to be here by now, he would have to have driven much faster.

The context is that the speaker and the listener are waiting for someone who hasn't arrived yet.

As I understand it, @jutfrank, you don't find B acceptable for the same reason that you don't find "wouldn't be able to have won" acceptable in Tony's example:

But if he still were on a winning streak, could I say:

- If Niki Lauda hadn't enticed Lewis Hamilton into joining Mercedes in 2013, he wouldn't be able to have won so many races.

No. Use the same sentence that I've written above for this too. The to-infinitive form to win covers all future winning, including those in the past and present with respect to now.

Or does version B work for you?

 

[jutfrank]

I think B is not only 'acceptable' but is in fact the right way to express it.

would [This creates the hypothetical]
have to [This expresses logical necessity]
have driven [This places the action in the hypothetical past]

]@jutfrank[/USER], you don't find B acceptable for the same reason that you don't find "wouldn't be able to have won" acceptable in Tony's example:

No, they're not comparable. The 'be able' bit in Tony's example ought to be backshifted because the sense is past ability, not present ability. In your example, 'have to' stays in the unbackshifted base form as it expresses a logical necessity. If something is logically necessary, it's necessary for all time.

 

[EngLearner]

A1. If X hadn't happened, he wouldn't have been able to have won (until then) and still be winning (at that time).

B1. If X hadn't happened, he wouldn't have been able to win (up to now) and still be winning (now).

In sentence A1, "...and still be winning (at that time)" expands to "...and wouldn't have been able to still be winning (at that time)." The perfect infinitive in "he wouldn't have been able to have won" refers to the wins secured up to the time at which he was still winning.

In sentence B1, "...and still be winning (now)" expands to "...and wouldn't still be winning now."

Do I understand this correctly?

 

[jutfrank]

I wrote ... and still be winning to refer to the present, not the past. The idea was to conjoin past and present achievements, and the point of my sentence was to use the perfect aspect have won along with the continuous aspect be winning with the emphatic force of making a distinction between past and present. However, I suggest you forget about this dubious sentence, which is confusing you, and which is not a model I'd want you to analyse anyway. Your sentence B1 is fine to express the meaning, so use that as your model. You can expand it like this:

he wouldn't have been able to win and [wouldn't be able to] still be winning

The ability, past and present, is concurrent with the winning, past and present.