+0
Hi,

I've a problem understanding the tenses used in the following sentences. The question in my mind is “Why use ‘HAVE HAD’ or ‘HAD HAD’ ??? Why not just 'HAVE' or 'HAD'?":

1. Mourinho has been given a two-match touchline ban and WOULD HAVE HAD to sit in the stands with a minder anyway.

2. I realized I'D HAD it in my pocket all along.

3. As a member of the Parent Support Group of a secondary school, I HAVE HAD the opportunity to interact with teachers in various programs and activities.

For example, what would be the difference if the tenses (in caps) are replaced by:

1: ‘would have’ or ‘have’?

2: ‘had’?

3. ‘had’?

Thanks,
Clarence.
1 2 3 4
Comments  
Hello, Clarence.

You are going to be so pleased you asked this question! The answer can get a bit complicated, and you need to think about it.

1. Mourinho has been given a two-match touchline ban and WOULD HAVE HAD to sit in the stands with a minder anyway.

Here we are talking about the "future in the past".

At the time the speaker is talking, Mourhino had already received the ban (past). He knew then that for the next match (future, when he got the ban) he would have to sit in the stands.

Two weeks ago Mourhino got a ban. (past) Two weeks ago (past) he knew that in one week's time, (future) he would have to sit on the bench

2. I realized I'D HAD it in my pocket all along.

This is the past perfect form of "have". We use this when we are talking about the past and want to refer to a time in the past which was even earlier.

So - "I realised" - past simple of 'realise' - (a short event which I now finished.)

"I had had it" - the thing was in my pocket even before I realised that it was there.

We could demonstrate this by putting times in, to give you an idea of the time line:

"At 4 pm I realised that I had put the thing in my pocket at 2 pm." I am telling you about something that happened at 4 pm (I realised), and the thing that I realised had happened even earlier, at 2 pm (I had had it ...)

I HAVE HAD the opportunity to interact with teachers" This is the simple perfect continuous (progressive), and we use it to speak about a finished action in the past, which is connecetd to the present.

This is connected with the present, because presumably the speaker learned a lot about teachers, and he still has that knowledge:

In the past I have had French lessons (past) and I can speak some French (present.)
1. Mourinho has been given a two-match touchline ban and WOULD HAVE HAD to sit in the stands with a minder anyway.

JTT: It seems to me, though I may be mistaken, that these two issues are separate. Isn't this indicated by the "anyway"?

Is it not saying,

Even if Mourinho hadn't received the two match ban, he still would have been required to sit in the stands anyway.
Try out our live chat room.
It's slightly misleading without the context, JT – this sentence relates to a report that Mourinho wouldn't be present at the match, e.g. something like:

'Mourinho won't be attending the Bayern Munich/Chelsea game on Tuesday. But he's been given a two-match touchline ban and would have had to sit in the stands [sic] with a minder anyway.'

MrP
It's slightly misleading without the context, JT – this sentence relates to a report that Mourinho wouldn't be present at the match, e.g. something like:

'Mourinho won't be attending the Bayern Munich/Chelsea game on Tuesday. But he's been given a two-match touchline ban and would have had to sit in the stands [sic] with a minder anyway.'

JTT: I agree Mr P, probably there is more in the article that clears this up. But I think it's actually saying that he will be present at the game. He just won't be with his team mates on the sidelines/playing field.

What I suggest it's saying is;

He had already been banished to the stands to be watched by a minder, even before he was given the two game suspension. The suspension, in essence makes no difference.

What is it that you find 'wrong' with 'stands', Mr P?
Once you stood in the stands. Then, after one or two unpleasant incidents, UK football grounds (the bigger ones, anyway) had to be made all-seating, in the hope that rival supporters would behave more politely towards each other. So now UK football supporters 'sit in the stands'. Quaint.

The Mourinho story is as follows: Mourinho (Chelsea's manager) was given a two-match touchline ban (i.e. he couldn't watch the game from the manager's bench by the touchline) and fined by Uefa for bringing the game into disrepute, after he made some comments about the referee when Chelsea played Barcelona.

If he had attended the Chelsea/Bayern M. game, he would therefore have had to watch it from the stands, with a minder (to protect him from troublesome fans). But then the press reported that he wouldn't be present at the game anyway. (The 'anywayness' is because he wouldn't have been allowed to communicate with the players, because of the ban; so it didn't make much difference from that point of view whether he sat in the stands or watched it on tv.)

'It's a funny old game', as English sports commentators traditionally say at this point.

MrP
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Sadly the reason for all-seater stands is not related to "unpleasant" incidents, but to tragedies, in which several people died. There was a fire, and the Herseland incident, and a very tragic incident in which, after a v. boring match, fans were leaving before the game when a last minute goal was scored. In the surge to get back into the ground, several people died.

However, it is a game of two halves; if the ball had gone into the net it would have been a goal, and we are sick as parrots to lose the match.
Meanwhile, Clarence, do not get overly confused by the esoteric debate between Mr. P and JTT Emotion: wink
I didn't want to sadden JT unduly, Abbie.

But any excuse to whack in a page of football quotes:

[url="http://www.geocities.com/mikey_wbt/colemanballs/soccer_quotes.html"]Cheery Football Quotes[/url]

MrP
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Show more