"Would have had to have been" vs "would have had to be" for past event conditions

Question

I instinctively said

I would have had to have been over 180 lbs for that to have happened.

I thought that seemed overly wordy. Too many "have"s and "had"s. So I tried:

I would have had to be over 180 lbs for that to happen.

That didn't feel right, though.

My brother and I were talking of a past event. He suggested something that could have happened. (Something like, You could have hung from the chandelier to get it out). I tried the first of the above statements. I want to speak about something that would need to occur for something else to occur in that past situation.

What would be the proper way of saying what I was trying to say up there‽

I will have had to -> I would have had to -> I would have had to be -> I would have had to have been… It can be proved grammatically correct. — Ram Pillai, Dec 13 '20 at 05:27

score 7 · Accepted Answer · answered Dec 01 '11 at 20:05

7

I would have had to have been and I would have had to be are alternatives, but have had already sets up the time reference, so the infinitive to be, rather than the perfect infinitive to have been is enough. Usage seems to confirm this. The British National Corpus has 15 records of would have had to have been and 45 of would have had to be. The figures for the Corpus of Contemporary American English are 38 and 67.

answered Dec 01 '11 at 20:05

Barrie England

140,205

1

I woulda hadda be ten feet tall! I woulda hadda be really fast! :) My instinct is would have had to be as well. I doubt if I ever use had to have been in normal speech. – aedia λ Dec 01 '11 at 20:17
So, in a technical sense, both are considered proper English? Good to know! :) Much thanks, Barrie! I appreciate the reference, too. – MicronXD Dec 01 '11 at 23:48
1

@MicronXD: Yes, we have a tremendous advantage now in being able to consult corpora. We can see how people actually use language, rather than having some vague idea of how they ought to use it. I prefer not to think in terms of 'proper English' or 'correct English'. It seems to me to make more sense to think in terms of effective English. – Barrie England Dec 02 '11 at 07:22

score 5 · Answer 2 · answered Dec 01 '11 at 14:53

5

Speaking casually:

"I'd have to have been over 180lbs . . ."

answered Dec 01 '11 at 14:53

Mr.Wizard

1,192

Thanks Mr. Wiz! I wanted to upvote your answer, but I haven't enough reputation. – MicronXD Dec 01 '11 at 23:50
@MicronXD thank you. The points will come soon I'm sure. – Mr.Wizard Dec 01 '11 at 23:55

score 1 · Answer 3 · answered Dec 01 '11 at 14:52

1

I would say "I would have to have been. . .". "I would have had to be..." would be grammatical, but as you say sounds odd here, possibly because it's not the tense your brother used.

answered Dec 01 '11 at 14:52

Tim Lymington

35,168

score 1 · Answer 4 · answered Dec 13 '20 at 01:13

I just wrote this same phrase in a document and Googled it for sanity. This discussion was interesting and so here's my own deconstruction:

"I would" (me and some possibility)

"have" (possess)

"had" (possessed in the past)

"to have" (possess in the future)

"been" (in the past)

"over 180lbs." (something)

It does seem that there are too many words ("had" and "been") that make the connection with the past. Is that why the alternative:

"I would have to have been over 180lbs."

also sounds right and may actually be better English?

The third alternative:

"I would have been over 180lbs."

feels more certain although "would" still implies some uncertainty. Doubling up on the "have"s seems to emphasise uncertainty. But is that really necessary?

After I wrote this myself as a native speaker, I too wondered if English grammar was more insane than I had previously thought. — Mateen Ulhaq, Sep 12 '23 at 06:28

score 0 · Answer 5 · answered Nov 05 '17 at 03:52

0

I say "I would have to have been" but I hear it said differently usually. This is the only site I have found just now, so I don't know how to verify this. I wonder if my form is British?

answered Nov 05 '17 at 03:52

user265372

1

Welcome to ELU. If you are a learner of English then maybe ELU is better for you https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions – Nigel J Nov 05 '17 at 04:41

score 0 · Answer 6 · edited Apr 05 '23 at 11:33

This is actually right because it's framing a double conditional: the meta conditional is something that:

has already concluded and is in the past and
is a hypothetical condtion which was not achieved,

thereby making the first conditional a statement of another conditional statement that defines what circumstances would have allow the post conditional to be achieved.

It is sandwiching a part conditional perfect progressive "I would have been" tense (which needs an if and then portion) with a filling of conditional past imperfect (an incompleted action): "had to have (been) [180 lbs]" which was not completed/achieved.

This sets it up for the 'then' statement "for so and so to happen" - so it completes the thought on the continuity and conditional statements.

Extremely confusing answer. Extensive editing and rewording needed. — VTH, Aug 19 '18 at 10:39
It made sense to me. I think it just needed extra whitespace and minor punctuation changes, so I've edited those in. — Tim Baverstock, Apr 05 '23 at 11:13

"Would have had to have been" vs "would have had to be" for past event conditions

6 Answers6

Linked

Related