should have been

Question

I agree that he shouldn't have been allowed to smoke in the house.

1- From this sentence, what should we understand? Did he smoke or not?

2- Can "It was quite right not to let him smoke in the house." be a restatement of the original sentence?

Rvw · Accepted Answer

I can think of contexts in which he did and contexts in which he did not.

A. The house burned down after he smoked in it.

B. A meeting concerning rules of behavior has just concluded. In the meeting, it was decided that he (whoever) be allowed to smoke in the house. One person expresses disagreement with that decision.

The sentence does not state whether or not he smoked. It only expresses one person's feeling that the permission to smoke in the house should not have been given.

Your rewording (2) is close to the original.

Diamondrg · Answer

1- He should have been allowed to smoke. (but he wasn't allowed?)

Doesn't it mean that he wasn't allowed to smoke?

2- He shouldn't have been allowed to smoke. (but he was allowed?)

Doesn't it mean that he was allowed to smoke.

And I think the original sentence below can be interpreted as I wrote in the brackets)

I agree he shouldn't have been allowed to smoke in the house (but unfortunately he was allowed to do so)

But it needs to be verified or validated.

And if what I think is true, "it was quite right not to let him smoke in the house" cannot be a restatement of 2 as the former suggests that he was not allowed to smoke.

What do you think?

Rvw · Answer

Diamondrg1- He should have been allowed to smoke. (but he wasn't allowed?)

Doesn't it mean that he wasn't allowed to smoke? The implication is that he wasn't allowed to smoke, but the sentence only explicitly says He should have been allowed to smoke. It does not explicitly say He was not allowed to smoke.

2- He shouldn't have been allowed to smoke. (but he was allowed?)

Doesn't it mean that he was allowed to smoke. The implication is that he was allowed to smoke, but the sentence only explicitly says He should not have been allowed to smoke. It does not explicitly say He was allowed to smoke.

And I think the original sentence below can be interpreted as I wrote in the brackets)

I agree he shouldn't have been allowed to smoke in the house (but unfortunately he was allowed to do so) This sentence only explicitly expresses the first person's agreement (I agree ....) Again, there is an implication that the other person (he) was allowed to smoke in the house, but the sentence does not explicitly say that he was.

But it needs to be verified or validated.

And if what I think is true, "it was quite right not to let him smoke in the house" cannot be a restatement of 2 as the former suggests that he was not allowed to smoke. The use of let seems to more strongly imply that he was not allowed or permitted to smoke in the house. But saying It was quite right not to let him smoke in the house is still not the same as saying We did not let him [or: he was not permitted to] smoke in the house.

What do you think?

CalifJim · Answer

A decision was made: Either he was allowed to smoke in the house or he was not allowed to smoke in the house.

After this decision was made, someone could have said, "The decision was right".

They might be saying "He should have been allowed to smoke in the house, so the decision to let him smoke in the house was right" or "He should not have been allowed to smoke in the house, so the decision not to let him smoke in the house was right", depending on what had been decided.

Someone else could then agree that the decision was right by saying "I agree that he should have been allowed to smoke in the house (which was what happened. He was allowed to do that.)" or "I agree that he should not have been allowed to smoke in the house (which is what happened. He was not allowed to do that.)"

But suppose that after the decision was made, someone said, "The decision was wrong".

They might be saying "He should not have been allowed to smoke in the house, so the decision to let him smoke in the house was wrong" or "He should have been allowed to smoke in the house, so the decision not to let him smoke in the house was wrong", depending on what had been decided.

Someone else could then agree that the decision was wrong by saying "I agree that he should have been allowed to smoke in the house (which was not what happened. He was not allowed to do that.)" or "I agree that he should not have been allowed to smoke in the house (which is not what happened. He was allowed to do that.)"

Briefly, the sentence shows agreement, but never tells us what the agreement is with. We don't know what was decided. We don't know the opinion of the person with whom we are agreeing with respect to the decision about smoking the house.

Strange example, I must say!

CJ

Hly2004 · Answer

I think the CalifJim's post explains this grammer point quite clear.  And If someone can manage to clearly understand the aboved passages,  this grammer puzzle could be easily solved.

Rvw · Answer

CalifJim and I are just pointing out some of the ambiguities of natural language.  It's very different from mathematics or logic.

Diamondrg · Answer

rvw and Jim, thank you. But can you explain whether

1- "I agree he should not have been allowed to smoke in the house." can be restated as "It was quite right not let him smoke in the house."?

2- "I agree he should not have been allowed to smoke in the house" or "he should not have been allowed to smoke in the house" can be interpreted as "but (unfortunately) he was allowed to do so"

Wwwdotcom · Answer

"1- "I agree he should not have been allowed to smoke in the house." can be restated as "It was quite right not let him smoke in the house."? "

Have been references "at least once". I have been to England and China, but not Brazil.
With a verb, "I have been waiting for 15 minutes". The implication is that you are going to continue an action that started in the past.

Now, let's look at "are/am".

I am in England. I am in China. I am not in Brazil. This states something right now, and the fact I may have been in England in the past is not of concern.

With verbs, I am waiting and I have been waiting, we have the same thing. Right now, I am waiting. "I have been waiting" includes the past.

So, to tell the reader, "He cannot smoke in the house, now or ever from now" I would say "I agree he should not BE allowed to smoke in the house."

"It was quite right not let him smoke in the house." This is only talking about the past. It was, so it's ok now to smoke? If it is still not ok, you shouldn't break the time up and use "was".

Diamondrg · Answer

Wwwdotcom"1- "I agree he should not have been allowed to smoke in the house." can be restated as "It was quite right not let him smoke in the house."? "

Have been references "at least once". I have been to England and China, but not Brazil.
With a verb, "I have been waiting for 15 minutes". The implication is that you are going to continue an action that started in the past.

Now, let's look at "are/am".

I am in England. I am in China. I am not in Brazil. This states something right now, and the fact I may have been in England in the past is not of concern.

With verbs, I am waiting and I have been waiting, we have the same thing. Right now, I am waiting. "I have been waiting" includes the past.

So, to tell the reader, "He cannot smoke in the house, now or ever from now" I would say "I agree he should not BE allowed to smoke in the house."

"It was quite right not let him smoke in the house." This is only talking about the past. It was, so it's ok now to smoke? If it is still not ok, you shouldn't break the time up and use "was".

referring to my last post:

1- yes or no?

2- yes or no?

Wwwdotcom · Answer

Well, getting past a few clerical mistakes, the answer is both YES and NO. It depends on the context. My opinion overall is that it is more NO in 1 and more in between for 2.

If you want to be clearly understood, you SHOULD avoid "was" when talking about a continuous action. If you are a lawyer defending a client, you may not want to establish your client doing some act at 2 times when the question doesn't call for it. In that case, you SHOULD use "was" instead of "has/have been" or "is".

There isn't a right or wrong until you put it into context.

should have been

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions