A: Tom failed the exam.
B: ...........................................
Which sentence should I use in the blank.
- I thought he would pass the exam.
- I would have thought he would pass the exam.
- I would have thought he would have passed the exam.
- I would have thought that he passed the examination.
I only know that "I thought" express that there was a real thought in the past. "I have thought" expresses the opinion indirectly. "I would have thought" also expresses the speaker's surprise when hearing a fact.
I also think (4) is wrong. Right?
Actually, I am still vague about the differences between them and how to use them correctly.
Use the first one.
The other sentences express the speaker's reflection on their own past thinking process, and not directly on Tom's failure.
They get increasingly obscure, abstract and detached from Tom's situation.
1 2
Comments
Thank you so much for your answer.
This is a transcript of a listening test in my IELTS practice book.
Here, why doesn't Jack say "I thought It would be compulsory" instead?
As I see, my example in my original post is similar to this example.
Both examples show that there is a surprising fact that the speaker just heard. And that fact is contradictory to the speaker's belief.
You told me that 3 other sentences in my original post are obscure, if so how is the sentence (1) in the quote? Is it also obscure?
The idea is the same. Jack is expressing an response in the past that he expected or predicted he would have had. It is much less direct than saying "It should be compulsory." It expresses a response in the past. Remember, with the verb "think", the past could be one second ago.
You told me that 3 other sentences in my original post are obscure, if so how is this sentence? Is it also obscure?
(1)I would have thought it would have been compulsory
I don't know the difference between "would be compulsory" and "would have been compulsory":
Sorry that I still don't get what you mean. With "thought", Jack also expresses a response in the past.
(3) I thought it would be compulsory.
Is this sentence (4) also correct to use?
(4) I thought it was compulsory.
I did not say they were obscure. I said:
They get increasingly obscure, abstract and detached from Tom's situation.
The just are growing more in that dimension.
On a scale of direct to indirect, they slide in the direction of indirectness.
They are not "obscure" in that native speakers would not understand them. Your difficulty in understanding them is exactly what I meant.
Yes, it directly expresses what he thought at the time. He was thinking about it, and reports exactly what he thought. That is, what his past opinion or thinking was.
He was not thinking about it in the past. He imagines "If I had been thinking about it, this is what I would have said."
A direct quote in the past:
Tom said, "I think has to be compulsory."
Tom said, "I think has been compulsory for some time."
As in present perfect versus present tense usage, it is more of a matter of focus on recent past up to the present. eg.
He is sick. (present condition)
He has been sick. (he is still sick.)
Thank you so much, AlpheccaStars.
I just read again the Tom example. The other 3 sentences don't make much sense.
I get what you mean here.
I learnt that "I would have thought" often expresses surprise after the fact has been revealed.
I will try another example:
-> B is surprised, he expected one thing but something else happened.
I have some versions:
(1) I thought I would last for years.
- > At a moment in the past, I actually had a thought. This sentence doesn't express surprise. I just tell you what my thought was.
(2) I would have thought it would last for years.
- >I show surprise. I didn't have a thought in the past. This sentence implies this: If the handle haven't been broken, I would have thought it would last for years.
(3) I would have thought it would have lasted for years.
- >I show surprise. If the handle haven't been broken, I would have thought it would have lasted for years.
*I think that all 3 sentences above are correct to use. Right?
Between (2) and (3), I don't know the difference between "would last" and "would have lasted". I tried to apply your explanation about the simple present and the present perfect for this situation but I still don't understand.
When you put the new door handle on last week, you had no concern or thought about how long it would last. You didn't think about that. It simply did not occur to you. You picked out a study handle from a reputable company and installed it.
But if you had thought about it, you would have thought, "This is a good well-made handle. It will last for many years."
A week later, it broke. You are very surprised. You expected that it would have lasted longer than it did.
You mention what you imagine yourself thinking last week at the time you were installing it.
I would have thought it would last many years. (This is indirect speech, and the "will" is shifted to "would")
"would have lasted" refers to the actual experience that it did not last for years, only a week. It emphasizes the element of surprise.