0
Teleostomi Posted 19 years ago
Grammar
"should have been" = "must have been"?
Does "That should have been interesting." have the same meaning as "That must have been interesting."?
Top answer
No - it indicates that whatever it is ought to have been interesting, but wasn't. That must have been interesting means that whatever That is contained a great deal that was interesting.
- No - it indicates that whatever it is ought to have been interesting, but wasn't.
- That must have been interesting means that whatever That is contained a great deal that was interesting.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
3 Answers
0
No - it indicates that whatever it is ought to have been interesting, but wasn't.
That must have been interesting means that whatever That is contained a great deal that was interesting.
That must have been interesting means that whatever That is contained a great deal that was interesting.
00
The context could make a difference.
What is the context of "That should have been interesting"? That is, what is the story that comes before it? Which person in the story says it? And why? What situation in the story led that person to say it?
CJ
What is the context of "That should have been interesting"? That is, what is the story that comes before it? Which person in the story says it? And why? What situation in the story led that person to say it?
CJ
00
I take it from CalifJim's answer that "should have -p.p." COULD be interpreted as epistemic "should." I don't think we can tell from the following sentence alone what "should have arrived" mean, in the epistemic sense or deontic. Right?
Jane should have arrived in Hokkaido by now.
0
Related Questions