What is the difference "was to have done" between "would have done"?

Question

I can not understand the "auxiliaries" in any way

Especially the "modals"

There are three instances follow and three questions:

1) He was to go

2) He was to have gone
3) He would have gone

Q1= In the sentence 1; I am thinking there is an invisible "going", like this:
"He was (going) to go"
Am i wrong thinking this way?

Q2= In the sentence 1; he would go, but did he go or not right now? What the sentence implies to?

Q3= What is the difference between the sentences 2 and 3?
The sentence 2 and 3 both, seems to me same !

Thanks in advance.

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

uNHoLy1) He was to go
2) He was to have gone

These are rather unusual constructions.

The judge ordered Jim to report to the courthouse Monday at 2:00.
It is now Monday at 2:00 and I am at home. My friend asks me,
"Where is Jim?" I answer, "I don't know, but he was to go to the courthouse."

It is now Tuesday. My friend asks, "Where was Jim yesterday afternoon?". I answer, I don't know, but he was to have gone to the courthouse."

These mean "He was supposed/expected to go", "He was supposed/expected to have gone." However, I have no idea what actually happened.

uNHoLy3) He would have gone

Consider my friend Jim again.
It is Tuesday. My friend asks, "Did Jim go to the courthouse yesterday?"
I answer, "No, he didn't. He would have gone, but he was sick. Instead, he called the judge to reschedule his appointment."

In this case, I know he didn't go, and he had some excuse.

Another possibility is:
I answer, "I don't know, but Jim keeps all his appointments. He would have gone if at all possible."

CalifJim · Answer

uNHoLyEspecially the "modals"

Ah, yes. Sentences with modals often have multiple meanings, and you don't know exactly which meaning is intended unless you see the sentence in context. That can be frustrating.

There is very little I can add to A. Stars' excellent examples except to emphasize that is to ..., are to ..., was to ..., etc. almost always imply an expectation concerning the carrying out of a plan or fulfilling an obligation. You can think of it as the "invisible 'going'" you spoke of in your post, or as an omitted "supposed" or "expected", as explained above. He was (supposed) to [go / have gone].

He was to [ base form] - The expectation is that the duty was still before him at the (past) time referred to.

He was to have [past participle] - The expectation is that the duty might already have been fulfilled at the (past) time referred to.

Totally different in my mind:

He would have [past participle] - The most usual interpretation of this one is: He did not complete the action because some condition (whether explicit or implicit) was not fulfilled. (He would have gone to the play if he had got the tickets in time. But he didn't get the tickets in time, so he didn't go to the play.)

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

hi, I want to ask some questions about "was to do and was to have done"

Actualli, I was looking for their usage in "conditionals" but I came up with your posts. so, I decided to ask my questions here.

Q: for what meanings, "was to do or was to have done" is used in Conditionals.

If I were to do.....,

If I were to have done.....,

could you pls give some clear examples?

Thanks

Anonymous · Answer

Well all three sentences are correct!
'He was to go' means that he planned to go and did exactly according to his plan.
'He was to have gone' means that he planned to go but he didn't do according to his plan.
'He would have gone' means we are not sure that he went or not. maybe he did maybe not!

Anonymous · Answer

If he wasn't sick , he would have gone there tomorrow.
Can you please tell me if it's correct to say tomorrow in a mixed conditional grammar or not?

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousIf he wasn't sick , he would have gone there tomorrow.Can you please tell me if it's correct to say tomorrow in a mixed conditional grammar or not?

Please post this in a new thread as it has nothing to do with the discussion of is to and was to in this thread. Thanks.

CJ

Nitesh giri · Answer

1)he was to go. means, he went or not I don't know.

but

in the 2nd sentence

2)he was to have gone. Means, he was to go, but he did not go...

What is the difference "was to have done" between "would have done"?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions