Would have

Question

Suppose I am watching a clip where a soccer player take off his jersey and gives it to a kid. Now I say, 'it looks like that jersey would have been wet. Does would have mean tentativeness or?

Clive · Accepted Answer

I don't see tentativeness.
I see conjecture.

Anonymous · Answer

CliveI don't see tentativeness.I see conjecture.

Conjecture means not sure?

Anonymous · Answer

CliveI don't see tentativeness.I see conjecture.

Could it be imagination?

Radovan · Answer

Hi,

yes I have heard recently that "would have + past participle" is used to express conjecture/supposition.

Like in the examples I have been thinking about recently:

"Archaeologists say that, because some of these forts were so vast, they'd have been difficult to defend, they must have been built for something else, ...."
"The typical ancient Greek farmer worked a relatively small patch of land; a house with perhaps two or three acres that would usually have been in his family for generations."
"Just like today, people also spoke in their own localised dialect. These individuals would all have been able to undestand each other, but regional differences existed, ..."
(all examples taken from The Ancient Greeks for Dummies)

I guess they are the author's or historians' in general suppositions.

I haven´t managed to find any reference to this use of "would have + past participle" in grammar books though (Murphy, Swan, and other books). I haven't found anything on the internet either. Only the third conditional, which is crystal clear I guess. I also struggle to find a satisfactory translation to my language

Is there any other way how to rephrase this? Is the past simple possible here?

Anonymous · Answer

Califjim, we would love to get your reply.

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousSuppose I am watching a clip where a soccer player take off his jersey and gives it to a kid.

Say, "It looks like it's wet". Later say, "It looked like it was wet".

Even shorter versions are possible: It looks wet. It looked wet.

I see no reason to use 'would' or 'would have'. "it looks" already contains enough information to say that you are commenting on appearances and not actuality. In other words, you aren't saying it is wet, and the use of "looks" already indicates that you are not claiming that it is wet. There is no need to make things more complicated by using 'would'.

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

radovanIs there any other way ~~how~~ to rephrase this? Is the past simple possible here?

Past simple is also possible. Yes.

CJ

By the way, there is a gap in English regarding 'way how'.

We have 'person who', 'thing which', 'place where', 'time when', and 'reason why', but not 'way how'.

CJ

Radovan · Answer

And just another thought. Is the future perfect possible in my examples?

"...they will have been difficult to defend ....", "...will usually have been in his family...", "...will all have been able to..." ??
In the second example is past perfect possible? "had been in his family"

And if the future perfect is possible, is there any difference in the degree of certainty between "will have been difficult to defend" vs. "would have been difficult to defend" etc.?

P.S. Merry Christmas to everyone, especially all you patient lecturers here.

CalifJim · Answer

radovanIs the future perfect possible in my examples?

Yes, but note that those sentence environments are full of past tenses. My best guess is that that is almost certainly why writers choose "would have" over "will have".

because some of these forts were so vast
The typical ancient Greek farmer worked
people also spoke

radovanIn the second example is past perfect possible? "had been in his family"

Yes.

radovandifference in the degree of certainty

Not in my opinion. I'm inclined to believe this is a matter of matching tense types as explained above.

radovanMerry Christmas

Thanks. And to you too!

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

CalifJim AnonymousSuppose I am watching a clip where a soccer player take off his jersey and gives it to a kid.Say, "It looks like it's wet". Later say, "It looked like it was wet".Even shorter versions are possible: It looks wet. It looked wet.I see no reason to use 'would' or 'would have'. "it looks" already contains enough information to say that you are commenting on appearances and not actuality. In other words, you aren't saying it is wet, and the use of "looks" already indicates that you are not claiming that it is wet. There is no need to make things more complicated by using 'would'.CJ

Correction: The sentence was, 'It does look like that would have been wet.'

Would have

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions