Should have done

Question

Hello, everybody!!"He should have resigned."Does it have three meanings?1. Evidences considered, it must be certain that he he resigned. (Present possibility).2. I think he was supposed/forced to resign but he didn't.  (duty in the Past)3. I think that if there were a certain situaion, he would have resigned, but there was not such a situation, so he didn't resign.  (probability in the Past)

Philip · Accepted Answer

#1 and #2 make sense to me. I think that #3 needs a conditional somewhere, to make it clear. Let's see what others think.

CalifJim · Answer

pructusHe should have resigned.

(The situation is that he did not resign.)
In my opinion it would have been a good idea for him to resign.
(i.e., I would have advised him to resign.)

That's the only meaning I get from it. I've read all three of your paraphrases, but none of them strikes me as an equivalent of the one I've given above. The first one would be He must have resigned. The second is like He wouldn't resign. The third is He would have resigned.
______________

If the thought (sentence) had been different, I might have got a different meaning from should have.

The answer should have been 56. ~ The expected answer was 56.
(That wasn't the answer obtained, so something went wrong somewhere.)
______________

should have may have several meanings, but it may be difficult to find a sentence that illustrates all of them, if that's what you're looking for.

CJ

Pructus · Answer

Thanks so much, CJ!!

Maybe I will be able to understand this very difficult part with this thread....

By the way.... It's not that I am trying to find a sentence that illustrates all of the meanings that 'should have PP' represents.
would/should/might/could have PP is so confusing....
The grammar books don't seem to be consisent and they seem to be saying differently among different books.
The books don't provide clear cut understanding of this part.....
So, I feel that foreigners usually don't use much of these expressions.

How about if some more is added like below.
For each meanings that I put in, I managed an example sentence.
Are all the example sentences natural, when additional information is provided?

1. Evidences considered, it must be certain that he he resigned. (Present possibility).
2. I think he was supposed/forced to resign but he didn't. (duty in the Past)
3. I think that if there were a certain situaion, he would have resigned, but there was not such a situation, so he didn't resign. (probability in the Past)

1. He didn’t come to work today, so I think he should have resigned.
2. Everybody says that it was his fault, so I think he should have resigned but he didn’t.
3. He was forced to resign but he didn’t. I think that if he could have gotten another job easily, he should have resigned. Actually he didn’t like here very much.

Pructus · Answer

Thanks a lot, Philip....

Your response works as a good guiding light for me....

CalifJim · Answer

pructuswould/should/might/could have PP is so confusing....The grammar books don't seem to be consistent and they seem to be saying differently among different books.The books don't provide clear cut understanding of this part.....

Yes. This is a difficult subject. Sometimes I think the books make things more complicated than necessary. They want to be thorough, so they mention every possible usage, including those that are almost never used, and that just confuses students.

_________

1. He didn’t come to work today, so I think he should have resigned.
Sorry. This doesn't make sense to me. This meaning is rendered as He must have resigned. That is, The only reasonable conclusion we can draw from this evidence is that he resigned.

2. Everybody says that it was his fault, so I think he should have resigned but he didn’t.
This is possible, but the question is whether you understand it the same way that an English speaker understands it, namely,
Everybody says that it was his fault, so I think it would have been a good idea for him to resign, but he didn't.

3. He was forced to resign but he didn’t. I think that if he could have gotten another job easily, he should have resigned. Actually he didn’t like here very much.
This is also possible (with one reservation, below), and it has the same meaning as it does in example 2, namely,
... could have gotten another job easily, so (in my opinion) it would have been a good idea for him to resign.

My paraphrase with would have been a good idea is to get across the "advisability" meaning of should.
There are only two core meanings of should. advice (sometimes paraphrased as I think it's a good idea for ... to ....) and expectation.

My reservation is this. It's paradoxical, in fact, virtually impossible, to be forced to do something and not do it. If you are forced to do something, then you have done it. You had no choice.

CJ

Pructus · Answer

Thanks again, CJ....

Before I start digging into this complex part...

How about if we change this into a question, "Why should he have resigned?"?

Nothing changes in the meaning?

CalifJim · Answer

pructusBefore I start digging into this complex part...How about if we change this into a question, "Why should he have resigned?"?Nothing changes in the meaning?

Oops! You have started to dig into the complex part. (Maybe it's all complex.)

There are two shades of meaning here. The listener will understand one or the other depending on how this sentence comes up in a conversation. In the first interpretation nothing changes in meaning. The idea is For what reason would it have been a good idea for him to resign?

Teacher to class:
Consider this case. There was a man who had so much work to do that it began to affect his health, but he needed the money to support his wife and five children, so he continued to work. Write an essay in which you answer the question "Why should he have resigned?" or you answer the question "Why should he not have resigned?" Support your opinion with evidence or anecdotes from your own life.
_____________

A second interpretation is that a "Why should ... ?" question expresses consternation or puzzlement about someone's motivation for their actions. We find out that this man has resigned, for example, and we see no reason for it. He has seemed happy with his job, but for no apparent reason, he just resigned one day. We don't understand why he did that. We don't find it a reasonable course of action. We say, "Why should he have resigned?" It's almost the same as "Why did he resign?" but with the idea that we don't understand it; it puzzles us.

The meaning in the second case is not completely different from the first meaning, however, because we are suggesting that it was not a good idea for him to resign, or at least that we don't think he had a good reason to resign.
____________

In the first case the speaker asks the listener to come up with reasons why the listener thinks it was a good idea that the man resigned. In the second case the speaker tells the listener that he doesn't understand why the man thought it was a good idea to resign. So, depending on the context, a "Why should?" question may be asking slightly different things.

Complex enough?

CJ

Pructus · Answer

Thanks so much, CJ!!

I am not sure if I am understanding correctly...

The first meaning is that when he did not actually resign, why do you think that for him to resign was the right or good thing? In this case the perspective is on the objective third person.

And the second meaning is that pepole are wondering what was the reason that he had to resign.. In this case the perspective is on the one who resigned.

If my understanding is correct, then there can't be the meaning, (when it's not sure if he resigned or not), "Why do you assume/think he resigned?", "what is the reason that you came to the conclusion that he already resigned?"?

CalifJim · Answer

pructusThe first meaning is that when he did not actually resign, why do you think that for him to resign was (would have been) the right or good thing? In this case the perspective is on the objective third person.And the second meaning is that people are wondering what was the reason that he had to resign.. In this case the perspective is on the one who resigned.

It appears to me that you have understood, except the "had to resign" part. There is no implication in either interpretation that he had to resign. In the second case, he just did. People are wondering why he resigned, not why he had to resign.

pructusIf my understanding is correct, then there can't be the meaning, (when it's not sure if he resigned or not), "Why do you assume/think he resigned?", "what is the reason that you came to the conclusion that he already resigned?"?

I'm not sure what shade of meaning you're aiming at here, but if I understand you correctly, I'm inclined to say this:
No, that's not a possible meaning of Why do you think he resigned? or Why did you conclude that he resigned?

1 Why should he have resigned? is not the same as Why do you think he resigned?
2 Why would he have resigned? is closer in meaning to Why do you think he resigned?

I can see, however, why the two seem closely related. But in example 1 above, there is an added idea of "I don't understand his motivation for resigning." That added idea is not present in example 2.

Why should he have resigned? has nothing to do with coming to a conclusion that he resigned. The speaker wouldn't say Why should he have resigned? unless he already knew for certain that the man had resigned. The speaker doesn't have to deduce from anything else (conclude) that the man has resigned. It's a given.

CJ

Pructus · Answer

CalifJimWhy should he have resigned? has nothing to do with coming to a conclusion that he resigned. The speaker wouldn't say Why should he have resigned? unless he already knew for certain that the man had resigned. The speaker doesn't have to deduce from anything else (conclude) that the man has resigned. It's a given.

Thanks CJ!!....

I think I am getting closer....

Should have done

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions