0
Daithy Posted 12 years ago
Grammar

You should have thought...

I know that you cannot use past perfect with 'should'. However, can you explain this?

Example:

"You should have thought of it before you bought it."

The should-have-thought-it clause refers to past before buying the item, no? I know that 'before' already sets the clauses right, and I know that that's the proper way of saying it, but logically any other clause would require past perfect.

Thanks.
  

Top answer

"The should-have-thought-it clause refers to past before buying the item, no? Yes, it refers to the time before the time at which you bought the thing. You should have thought of it before you bought it (=It would have been a good idea if you had thought of it before you bought it).

— Laborious

  • "The should-have-thought-it clause refers to past before buying the item, no?
  • Yes, it refers to the time before the time at which you bought the thing.
  • You should have thought of it before you bought it (=It would have been a good idea if you had thought of it before you bought it).
  • Also, I wouldn't say that you've used 'past perfect' in that sentence with 'should'.
  • I'd just call that construction (should have + past participle) 'perfect modal' construction.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

15 Answers
0
DaithyYou should have thought of it before you bought it."The should-have-thought-it clause refers to past before buying the item, no?
Yes, it refers to the time before the time at which you bought the thing. You should have thought of it before you bought it (=It would have been a good idea if you had thought of it before you bought it). 

Also, I wou
0
0
LaboriousAlso, I wouldn't say that you've used 'past perfect' in that sentence with 'should'. I'd just call that construction (should have + past participle) 'perfect modal' construction.
Yes, I know. I didn't mean to say that it is past perfect (just came out wrong). I meant to say it should be past perfect; however, 'should' doesn't allow that tense.
0
0
What's the difference between these two?

"Had you thought of it before, we could have gone by the train."

"Had you had thought of it before, we could have gone by the train."

Thanks.
0
0
The first is correct English (apart from, in most contexts, the definite article before 'train'); the second is not.
0
0
DaithyI meant to say it should be past perfect; however, 'should' doesn't allow that tense.
The sentence

"should" does not allow the past perfect tense.

makes no sense at all.

"should" occurs only in "modal tenses" because "should" is a modal verb. The modal tenses don't have the same tense forms as the other verbs, so
0
0
CalifJim I don't see what you are claiming in your quoted statement above. Maybe,"should" cannot occur in the past perfect tense.Or,"should" has no past perfect tense.
Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to convey.
CalifJimThe sentence"should" does not allow the past perfect tense.makes no sense at all."should" occurs only in "modal
0
0
CalifJimor any continuous tenses
First of all, thanks to you CJ, for your explanation.

If you understood your post properly, you said that a modal doesn't have a continuous form as well. But I see constructions, such as "He should / must / may / might / will (considering 'will' a moda
0
0
LaboriousAren't the modals here in the continuous tense, please?
No. A sentence with a modal verb always has two parts: the modality and the residue. "Modal verbs don't have continuous forms" means there are no such words as maying, musting, coulding, shoulding, and so on. So the modality can't be continuous. All the modal verbs are stative, non-progressi
0
0
CalifJimIs that more clear?
Yes, of course, that's much clearer now.  .. Emotion: smile

So If I say
0

Related Questions