About Would have.

Question

HITwo sentences:Sentence 1:I would have gone out of the house (If I knew there was going to be a tremor) Interpretation:I didn't know about the upcoming tremor therefore i saw no reason to get out of the house.Sentence 2:I would have thought of skewer (If I knew nobody was going to bring any)Interpretation:I didn't know others wouldn't bring skewer so i didn't bring any but if i had noticed i would have brought.I wrote those two sentences to demonstrate what i think about "Would have", It always seemed to work perfectly till i encountered this sentence:Sentence 3I would have never thought of him when i first met him , this is who he would turn out to be.Grammatically the whole sentence seems strange to me anyway!

Andriy Lapin · Accepted Answer

Hello,

first, the bracketed sentences you wrote at the beginning of the message should feature perfect past, and not past simple, as in this case they describe unfulfilled past state:

I would have gone out of the house if I had known there was going to be a tremor.

Secondly, let's divide the compound sentence into two:

I would never have thought of him when I first met him.
+
This is who he would turn out to be.

The first is simply a combination of unreal, unrealised ('I would never have thought...') and real ('... when...') actions. It is similar to the above sentences of yours, save that the second part refers to events that actually took place. Such blends are quite usual and are not ungrammatical.
The second sentence we have separated is future-as-seen-from-the-past. By providing more context, we could produce the following:

(Back then, I didn't even think that) this is who he would turn out to be.

Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoff

Michael841 · Answer

Thanks a bunch.

Michael841 · Answer

Gleb_ChebrikoffHello,first, the bracketed sentences you wrote at the beginning of the message should feature perfect past, and not past simple, as in this case they describe unfulfilled past state:I would have gone out of the house if I had known there was going to be a tremor. Secondly, let's divide the compound sentence into two:I would never have thought of him when I first met him.. The first is simply a combination of unreal, unrealised ('I would never have thought...') and real ('... when...') actions. It is similar to the above sentences of yours, save that the second part refers to events that actually took place. Such blends are quite usual and are not ungrammatical.The second sentence we have separated is future-as-seen-from-the-past. By providing more context, we could produce the following:(Back then, I didn't even think that) this is who he would turn out to be.Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoff

Thanks for mentioning the mistake regarding the tense of the sentences inside the parentheses.
The answer is quite helpful, mind you I still have a confusion. So going to ask a complementary question. How is this sentence different than the questioned one?
The sentence:
"I didn't think of him when i first met him as the one he turned out to be".

Andriy Lapin · Answer

Greetings, Michael,

the difference is mainly in the mood of the clauses and some additional moments.

I would have never thought of him when i first met him , this is who he would turn out to be.

vs

I didn't think of him when i first met him as the one he turned out to be.

contains a verb phrase introduced by 'would' which, in the present case, serves as a 'mood marker' - a marker of hypothetical meaning. By using this type of construction, you imply that thinking this or that way about somebody was even hypothetically impossible for you at a given time. The red part is the same in both of your examples, which means that they both refer to an actual event (your meeting him) in the past. The third part in your first sentence has a verb phrase in future-in-the-past ('would turn out to be'); besides, it has some present relevance as it says 'this is'. On the contrary, the second version refers entirely to the past and, apparently, has no present importance.

In short: #1 --- hypothetical meaning (plus emotional element with 'never'), present relevance ('this is'), more complex structure (future-in-the-past);
#2--- factual past meaning, straight sequence of events, apparently no present relevance.

Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoff

About Would have.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions