re: Must/Must Have Been/Should/Should Have Been? page 2

http://thegrammarexchange.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/340600179/m/4051027123?r=8911099123#89110...
I'm reading this thread, and I've read up to Marius's post and the link he gave me. Please allow me to read and post a reply a little later.

I found GrammarExchange2's answer interesting. Let me quote his/her reply:

In fact, many speakers use the two forms interchangeably, often choosing the simple infinitive when the perfect infinitive would be more accurate.

This comment is about people avoiding "John was supposed to have done that." in favor of saying "John was supposed to do that."

Can't the same thing apply to #1? "It must be...to have been..." where it is correct to say "It must have been...to have been." What do you think about repeating "have been" in one sentence?

Hi everyone! I learned a lot from you! This forum with great many informative replies is essential for me!

Do you never use "should have -p.p." to mean in the epistemic sense? Is it ever used with epistemic sense? Could anyone write a sentence using it?

In other words, can we interpret this sentence "Guinevere should have been a beautiful queen." as meaning "Guinevere must have been a beautiful queen."? Reading your posts, I don't think so.

Judging from the gorgeous shrines and temples, it ( ) exciting to have lived in the Heian period.

First of all, I think that today, on both sides of the Pond, one would use would:

Guinevere would have been a beautiful queen, but she never got crowned.

shows a (contrary-to-fact)-possibility, i.e. in case a condition happened (which it didn't).

And no, would have been does NOT mean the same as must have beeen:

That must have beeen a great party (i.e. it's very probable it was so), but I missed it.

"should have -p.p." ... Is it ever used with epistemic sense?

Yes, but I'm not sure it's exactly the epistemic sense that you're looking for. You may actually be looking for a non-counterfactual epistemic sense.

Here are some central (counterfactual) cases of epistemic should have:

-- I've finished the math problem. The answer is 46.
-- Hmm. That's funny. It should have been 42. [But it wasn't.]

-- The work took three days to complete.
-- I'm surprised. It should have taken only two days. [But it didn't.]
_________

I think you may be more interested in this (non-counterfactual) epistemic sense of should have, which seems to me to be somewhat restricted to certain kinds of situations (the exact characterization of which escapes me!) must have can sometimes substitute, and often does. Another substitute is I'll bet that ... was ...

-- They all got so drunk at the party, they all took their clothes off!
-- Now that should have been interesting!
[I'll bet that was interesting!]
[It is very likely that that situation was interesting.]

-- What did you do about the local boys trampling the garden and stealing the corn?
-- I placed high-voltage electric fences around the perimeter of the property.
-- That should have solved the problem!
[I'll bet that solved the problem!]
[It is very likely that that solved the problem.]

Many instances of this type of should have are anomalous.

-- George just bought a Lexus.
-- That [*should / must] have cost a lot.

-- I banged my knee on the corner of the desk.
-- That [*should / must] have hurt.
___________

Note that Palmer (The English Verb) writes of "epistemic should" that in some cases, "there is little real difference ... between an epistemic and a deontic sense.... The tentative necessity may be seen as belonging either to the speaker's judgment or to the actual situation."

CJ

Judging from the gorgeous shrines and temples, it ( ) exciting to have lived in the Heian period.

Reading all your posts, I see that you can't choose "should have been" in the above sentence (in the epistemic sense). Why?

I'm wondering what determines that for example "should" can't be used in a given sentence? If it's hard to tell for native speakers, it's much harder for us.

I think you may be more interested in this (non-counterfactual) epistemic sense of should have, which seems to me to be somewhat restricted to certain kinds of situations (the exact characterization of which escapes me!) must have can sometimes substitute, and often does. Another substitute is I'll bet that ... was ...

Many instances of this type of should have are anomalous.

-- George just bought a Lexus.
-- That [*should / must] have cost a lot.

-- I banged my knee on the corner of the desk.
-- That [*should / must] have hurt.

I'd like to know what makes "should" anomalous. [F]

CalifJim, I can't thank you enough for your dedication to English education. I greatly appreciate your help!