Tense

Hi,

Isn't it also possible for 'should have -ed' to mean something which actually happened? I can't think of a context where that would work. I think that you have misunderstood MrP, or that he misunderstood your intended meaning.

[ Possibly, you might say something like 'If I should have offended you, I apologize'. But this kind of thing is rare, outdated and still 'not real'. ]

If I start with 'I believe that men created religions...', should the rest of the sentence be past tense, as '...that could teach values that were different from those of ordinaly people'? Or is present tense also acceptable if my focus in on their present activity?

Present tense would be OK, if that's where your focus is.

ie 'I believe that men created religions...that can teach values that are different from those of ordinary people'

Clive

Hi againTaka,

'He should have arrived in Montreal by tomorrow' This is a sort of prediction/obligation statement. Because it's the future, we can't yet know if it will happen.

'He should have arrived in Montreal by now.' This refers to the present, but is used in a situation where we are not yet in a position to know if it has happened.

'He should have arrived in Montreal last week.' This refers to the past, but is used in a situation where we are not yet in a position to know if it happened.

'He should have arrived in Montreal 500 years ago.' We are never going to be in a position to know if this happened. Consequently, this form of words is associated with cases where it did not happen. If it had happened, we'd just say 'He arrived . . . '

Men's creation of religion with such values, in your sentence, is a very long time ago, so I read it as meaning that it didn't happen.

Best wishes, Clive

Clive wrote:

(1)'He should have arrived in Montreal last week.This refers to the past, but is used in a situation where we are not yet in a position to know if it happened. (2)'He should have arrived in Montreal 500 years ago.' We are never going to be in a position to know if this happened. Consequently, this form of words is associated with cases where it did not happen. If it had happened, we'd just say 'He arrived . . . '

Hi,

Ah, language. So easy to use, yet so hard to explain! I'm sure it's my explanation and not your understanding that is lacking, so let me try a bit more.

Then, according to your theory, (1) is semantically equal to 'I believe that he arrived in Montreal last week', I think you are putting words in my mouth a little. I didn't say they are semantically equal, did I?What I said was that the 'should have ' version was a sort of prediction/obligation statement.

but (2) is NOT equal to 'I believe that he arrived in Montreal 500 years ago'?? If it's not, what does it mean? How would you rewrite (2), if you were supposed to? Because I don't think these statements are equivalent, let's concentrate on

'He should have arrived in Montreal 500 years ago.'

If you say this, I take the meaning that he didn't. My point is that you can have ideas about today or last week in terms of predictions/obligations, but it's pretty hard to have such ideas about 500 years ago. Or thousands of years ago, when many religions were created.

I hoped to clarify things with my 'Montreal' example, but perhaps we should get back to

'Men should have created religions which . . .  teach  .. values...'

This suggests not only that men didn't, but also that you have grounds for thinking they had an obligation to create such religions.

We are getting tied up in knots here. I don't mind, as long as you can put up with my attempts at explanation, but please don't lose track of the fact that there are so many other and simpler ways to say what I think you are trying to say.

Best wishes, Clive