To make / have made it

Question

Hi teachers,I have been puzzled with this structure.  Would you please help me."Wether the release of al-Megrahi was right or wrong, Scots are standing up for the freedom to have made it."Why isn't "to make it"?Thank you.Regards,TN

Avangi · Accepted Answer

"Wether the release of al-Megrahi was right or wrong, Scots are standing up for the freedom to have made it."

In my opinion, the structure and verb tense are fine, but the choice of verb is incorrect.

Or you could say, "whether the decision to release etc."

You make a decision; you don't make a release.

"Whether the release etc. . . . . . to have done it."

Why isn't "to make it"?

You're talking about a specific past event. Use the perfect infinitive.

Use the present infinitive for generic acts:

". . . for the freedom to make such a decision."
". . . for the freedom to perform such an action."

We did it. We defend the right to do it.
I'd say you can use this form if you're not referring to a specific past act. You're referring to the act generically:
We got married when we were fifteen. We defend the right of others to do the same. (generic act)

We got married when we were fifteen. We defend our right to have done it. (specific past act)

Tinanam0102 · Answer

Hi Avangi,

Thanks for your help. I went back to the excerpts I copied from Newsweek but it didn't have "desicion" in the text. But the perceding sentence is like this:

"What this shows is a government that is ready to make tough decisions." Whether the release of al-Megrahi was right or wrong, Scots are standing up for the freedom to have made it.

1. Does the structure feel better with the preceding text? (I'm sorry, sometimes I don't know where to start and end copying)

2. Could I know if my understanding of the examples below is correct:

I'm sorry to wake you up = I'm sorry that I'm going to wake you up right now.

I'm sorry to have woken you up = Maybe after the person is awake, time lapses, we talk about something, and then I go back and tell her I'm sorry to have woken you up.

Thanks again,

TN

Ivanhr · Answer

tinanam0102Hi Avangi,

Thanks for your help. I went back to the excerpts I copied from Newsweek but it didn't have "desicion" in the text. But the perceding sentence is like this:

"What this shows is a government that is ready to make tough decisions." Whether the release of al-Megrahi was right or wrong, Scots are standing up for the freedom to have made it.

1

TN

Avangi · Answer

tinanam0102 "What this shows is a government that is ready to make tough decisions." Whether the release of al-Megrahi was right or wrong, Scots are standing up for the freedom to have made it. This is much better. Hopefully, if you went back even further, you'd find the specific decision referred to in the singular. To be really correct, the antecedent of "it" should be singular. It wouldn't have to be the exact word "decision," but something which represents it.

I'm sorry to wake you up = I'm sorry that I'm going to wake you up right now. This is a bit poetic - like the father singing a song to his baby son, who is asleep.
"I'm going to wake you up" is future tense. Who will hear your statement?
"I'm sorry to wake you up" is present infinitive. Of course, "I'm sorry" is simple present tense.
Technically speaking, the infinitive is a non-finite verb form and has no tense.
I suppose we must rely on common sense. You must be awake to hear the apology, so the act of waking must have been in the past. But "I'm sorry to wake you" would be taken as referring to the VERY recent past.

I'm sorry to have woken you up = Maybe after the person is awake, time lapses, we talk about something, and then I go back and tell her I'm sorry to have woken you up. Yes. The perfect infinitive would be understood as referring to a greater period of elapsed time than would the present infinitive.

Tinanam0102 · Answer

Dear Avangi,

Thanks for the explanation. In "Scots are standing up for the freedom to have made it", is my understanding correct if I break down the time line for the sentence?

1st part of the sentence: Scots are standing up for the freedom (sometime around the present time.)

2nd part of the sentence: to have made it (sometime before the present, near present time.)

Then why isn't "Scots were standing up for the freedom to have made it." I can't quit get this.

Thank you.

Regards,

Tinanam

Avangi · Answer

tinanam0102 1st part of the sentence: Scots are standing up for the freedom (sometime around the present time.) Present continuous tense is absolutely the present time.

2nd part of the sentence: to have made it (sometime before the present, near present time.) The [nonfinite] perfect infinitive suggests the action is (has been) completed at the time of the "standing up."

Then why isn't "Scots were standing up for the freedom to have made it." I can't quit get this. Doing something, and later arguing that what you did was correct, could surely both be in the past, and could even be years apart. But that doesn't happen to be what the author is expressing here. The freeing of this guy is a done deal. It's over. But the melody lingers on, as they say. People are still talking and arguing about it in the present. The sentence describes two different things in two different time frames, one with present continuous tense, and one with the perfect infinitive.

Tinanam0102 · Answer

Dear Avangi,

There was a movie I watched where the girl wis watching the stars from her telescope, and she says to her company, "My father would love to have seen this." I suppose "would" could be of conditional type since his father went missing couple years agao, but the "to have seen this" totally eluded my understanding, so I think it shouldn't be conditional type. Please help me with this. Thank you.

Regards,

TN

CalifJim · Answer

tinanam0102"My father would love to have seen this."

Most grammarians believe that the correct form is My father would have loved to see this. It's a conditional with an implied if clause: if he were here to see it.

Nevertheless all three versions are commonly used:

My father would have loved to see this.
My father would love to have seen this.
My father would have loved to have seen this.

The have which throws the situation into the past can occur in the first clause, or in the second clause, or in both! (By the way, the present is: My father would love to see this. But that presupposes the father can be found fairly soon to come and see it.)

CJ

Tinanam0102 · Answer

Hi CalifJim,

Thank you for your help. I understand them now.

Regards,

Tinanam

Kooyeen · Answer

Reading this I thought of an interesting thing I learned here (probably from Jim) ...if I'm not mistaken.

I'm sorry to have left you alone. = I'm sorry for leaving you alone.
But: ~~I'm sorry for having left you alone~~

I would love to have seen it.
Thank you for showing it to me.
But: ~~Thank you for having shown it to me~~

So it seems you can use the structure "to have done something", but not "for having done something". You always use "doing something" whether it's present or past. Is it so? Thanks.

To make / have made it

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions