+0
Hi all,

This is my last post about this point of grammar. You know, in all my grammar books, people say:

Subject + would have liked to + infinitive or noun or pronoun. (not perfect infinitive)

But I always see the sentences such as:

I'd have liked to have gone there. (1)

So , IMO:

1. (1) is not standard and is incorrect?

2. There is only 1 standard form: I'd have liked to go there. (2)

If I am wrong, please tell me the difference in meaning btw (1) and (2).

I see many writers write the (1) but I can't distinguish them.

Please help me.

Quoc
Comments  
Both are standard, IMO.

1 is more precise (to me it indicates that "going" should be finished at the time of "liking," but others might see it otherwise; 2 definitely doesn't indicate that, 2 being fuzzier in this respect), but more complicated (more words).

See similar constructions with "have liked to have" at The New York Times:
http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=%22have+liked+to+have%22&srchst=nyt
I think this confirms my opinion.
BUT,
I would have said:
“back then I would have liked to have met her ALREADY [i.e. before of time of liking], but today I have no preference,”

Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993.
PERFECT INFINITIVE
There is nothing wrong with the perfect infinitive; the problem is the sequence of tenses. I would have liked to have met her means that “back then I would have liked already to have met her, but today I have no preference,” but in Conversation and Informal writing it frequently is intended to mean “I would (now) like to have met her (back then),” which would better be said that way, making clear the time of the initial liking. When using the perfect infinitive, use particular care with the time sequencing of nearby verbs.

http://www.bartleby.com/68/20/4520.html
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
The great Fowler is against the present infinitive in many similar situations:
http://cyberspacei.com/greatbooks/authors/hw_fowler/214.html
from from his POW the construction might be non-standard.
Hi,

I'd have liked to have gone there. (1)

I'd have liked to go there. (2)

I think you'll find discussions about this in various other threads. Here are some of my thoughts.

I wouldn't say #1 is incorrect. However, I think you would rarely find a context in which you'd legitimately use it. Almost always, when you hear it, I think the speaker's intention is really the meaning of #2. In other words, the speaker should be using the structure in #2.

Basically, #2 means that at some point in the past, you wanted to go there.

eg On Monday, my friends went to the zoo. On the way, they saw me and invited me. I'd have liked to go there, too, but I was busy.

#1 means that at some point in the past, you wished that you had the result/experience of going there at some earlier point in the past.

eg When I found out on Tuesday that my friends went to the zoo on Monday, I'd have liked to have gone there with them.

In both #1 and #2, 'I'd have liked' refers to a past 'desire'. It does not mean that I have this desire in the present.

You could also say I'd like to have gone there. (3) This means that I have in the present the desire to have the result/experience of a past 'event'.

eg My friends went to the zoo on Monday. I feel sad. I'd like to have gone with them.

Best wishes, Clive
CliveI'd have liked to have gone there. (1)
#1 means that at some point in the past, you wished that you had the result/experience of going there at some earlier point in the past.
Clive:

Would, in your opinion, the "going" be before, symultaneous or after the "liking" event in the past? If I understand you correctly, it's before for you, correct?

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Hi,

Yes.

Clive