+0

Hi, dear members. I have been locked in an argument with a Chinese teacher about the use of "should have thought".
The sentence in question is seemingly from a reference book for preparation of an English test:

Aren't you tired? I should have thought you had done enough today.

I think in this case "should have thought" equals "would have thought", which indicates the speaker is surprised at another guy, who is supposed to be tired but is still vigorous, when he sees the guy is still working. The speaker expected the other guy to be tired but it turns out otherwise. It also indicates the other guy is doing the work of his own volition, not being forced.

But the Chinese teacher insist that "should have thought" means "the speaker should have thought he was tired but actually the speaker didn't", indicating the speaker regrets having been inconsiderate towards the other guy by pushing the guy to do some work although the the guy was already tired.
And he he thinks "would have thought" expresses speculation of the past or subjunctive mood, which is different from "should have thought".

But I have read many threads here and know that "should have thought" is just another way of saying "would have thought", so I disagree with him.

So who is right? Please shed light on this.

Thank you.

1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 
Comments  (Page 14) 
GPYThis seems, if anything, the wrong way round. The "might have laughed" example has little to do with expressing actual possibility, and is more like a figure of speech used to describe someone's feelings. Probably you can think of there being a continuum from "ordinary possibility; could plausibly have happened (but didn't)" through to "figure of speech; not about actual possibility".

Hi. I seem to figure it out. When it comes to "could have", there is little or none possibility when describing someone's feelings. But if "could have" doesn't refer to feelings, then the meaning depends (compare floor example and stump example).

When it comes to "might have", whether "someone's feelings" are referred to or not, the meaning depends (there can be or cannot be possibility), as in the pissed example. In its original context (He was so scared he might have pissed himself all over again, but the cold was in him, a cold so savage that his bladder felt frozen solid), there was actual possibility that he might have pissed (if it had not been so cold). But if we take it out of context, the example is ambiguous ---- it can be no possibility that he might have pissed but just a figure of speech to emphasis how scared he was.

Do I get the right idea?

I agree to this
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
I should have thought it would have been better the other way.