0

Would a native speaker when tumbling against constructions comprising of the analytical forms of the Subjunctive Mood (would, should+perfect infinitive) or a compound modal verbal predicates (could, might+perfect infinitive), be it in the conditional complex sentences or non-conditional simple sentences, take in their meaning with the Perfective Future aspect when there are definitive time indications? For example:

  1. If I were given instruments today in the evening (it is morning now), I would/could have pulled the job off by 2 p.m. tomorrow.
  2. I would/could have pulled the job off by 2 p.m. tomorrow.
Eugene
  • 235
  • 2
    I don't follow the question (nor the description, but that's normal here; everybody uses their own descriptive terms). Are you asking whether the example sentences are grammatical? What is the difference between the two examples? – John Lawler Dec 01 '20 at 22:39
  • 1
    Given that a sentence like I am sure he will have finished the job yesterday is a statement in the present regarding a past event, I can't see how calling that future anything makes any sense at all. Now work out the backshifted version of that: I was sure he would have finished the job yesterday. Still not much "future" there: everything is in the past, more even than in the original non-backshifted version. Where then is this "future" you speak of? That would just means "was going to". – tchrist Dec 01 '20 at 23:45
  • @tchrist In my previous question I mentioned that the ways of my comprehending the grammatical time of some constructions lies, of course, in conformity with the way of my perception as consistent with the cognitive system of a non-native speaker. Maybe it’s a bit difficult for a native speaker to lay hold of the idea I’m trying to convey using these grammatical instruments and twig it as referring to the future. But for me it seems likely. – Eugene Dec 02 '20 at 07:25
  • For example, we have a talk at this very moment and I’m saying to you: ”Your notebook is extremely powerful. If you give it to me in December-2020, I will/can/may have pulled the task off already by January-2021”. Then I just switch the situation into the unreal mode, and employ the Subjunctive Mood to make this a conditional sentence. “If you gave it to me in December-2020, I would/could/might have pulled the task off already by January-2021”. – Eugene Dec 02 '20 at 07:25
  • What would be your authoritative oppinion? – Eugene Dec 02 '20 at 07:28
  • @John Lawler I'd be very greatful to you if you, as a grammarian, would parse both the text of the question and №№.1, 2 from lexical and grammatical points of view with relation to its relevance and appropriateness. What will really grate upon ears of native speakers? What are the mistakes, flaws etc.? How may I come across or be put down for when saying this way? Grammatical correctness is among priorities for me. Thank you in advance. – Eugene Dec 02 '20 at 08:56
  • "Grammatical correctness" is a social matter, of approving certain ways of speech and not others. What's "correct" depends on where you live, what languages you speak, and who you interact with. As for parsing, sentences 1 and 2 are identical, except that (1) has an if clause. I still don't know what the question is. – John Lawler Dec 02 '20 at 17:21
  • @John Lawler In regard to my question the issue is beginning to turn out kinda enchanted)). For some time by now I have been seeking after the answer. It's all about Future Perfect that my question centers on. Is it possible that when native speakers come across sentences with compound modal predicates comprised of "could, might, would, should+perfect infinitive" they shall put it down for Future Perfect, be there a conditional or a non-conditional aspects present? – Eugene Dec 02 '20 at 20:17
  • Besides my initial examples I'd like to put out one more: “If you gave it to me in December-2020, I would/could/might have pulled the task off already by January-2021” - I'm saying about the Future. – Eugene Dec 02 '20 at 20:18
  • 2
    Native speakers don't put anything down as "future perfect". Native speakers don't even know what "passive" means, let alone "future perfect", which doesn't really mean anything in English anyway, since there's no future tense. Are you asking what the appropriate terminology is? – John Lawler Dec 02 '20 at 23:16
  • 1
    @JohnLawler Eugene has been asking many questions related to all this for the better part of a year now. The one right before this one was 1, which I alas answered in greater length than success. His earlier questions include 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. I'm ready to chalk it all up to misleading EFL textbooks or instructors. – tchrist Dec 03 '20 at 02:45
  • @JohnLawler I'd be eager to get to know what terminology has been adopted by the US English Grammar school. – Eugene Dec 03 '20 at 07:36
  • @tchrist Your answers do have a great success with me and you are rather right about misleading EFL textbooks. But nevertheless you may have noticed that throughout all my questions about modal constructions for future time references I have never gotten a direct answer to my primary issue. And it is as following: can the constructions like “If you gave it to me in December-2020, I would/could/might have pulled the task off already by January-2021” (be it with or without the "if-clause") mean that the action in the main clause is slated to be finished by the defined time in the future. – Eugene Dec 03 '20 at 07:59
  • A direct answer, if you would, please. – Eugene Dec 03 '20 at 07:59
  • 1
    A direct question, if you would, please. I will attempt to answer this one, mutatis mutandis. – John Lawler Dec 03 '20 at 14:49

1 Answers1

3

I have modified the original question, stripping irrelevancies following comments, to:

Can constructions like

  • (If you gave it to me in December,) I would have finished the task already by January

with or without the if-clause, mean that the action in the main clause is slated to be finished by the defined time in the future?

One reason why it's hard to answer this question is because the vocabulary is strange. One pulls a task off only if the task is a crime, usually involving theft, for instance. And slated to refers to a particular official slate of events, which is contrary to the presuppositions of pull the task off. Who's keeping the slate, and how are they related to the task? And then already refers to some previous completion estimate and its incorrectness. The original mentioned giving instruments, and that's even more problematical.

Judging grammaticality requires imagining a context in which the sentence makes sense, and then judging how difficult that was. In this case, there are so many incongruities in the example sentence. I've taken quite a few liberties with it already, but I think the question is about what the speaker expects the listener to assume about what the speaker expected to happen, as contrasted with what really happened. And maybe what some schedule listed as supposed to have happened.

A sentence I can imagine a native speaker tumbling against constructions comprising of mixed modals and perfects might use (i.e, might speak aloud with an intention to communicate with someone who's attending to them) is

  • I would have finished the task by January.

This means that my estimate is, or was, January. The difference in tense depends on what actually is meant. This could be counterfactual: You didn't get it to me in time and I didn't finish it, though if you had I (think I) would have.

Or it could be simply hypothetical estimating: You want it done by January; all right. If you can manage to get it to me in time, I (estimate I) would have it finished by January.

John Lawler
  • 107,887
  • 1
    'One reason why it's hard to answer this question is because the vocabulary is strange. 'I've filed this away. It will save time. – Edwin Ashworth Dec 03 '20 at 16:14
  • @John Lawler Thank you so much for your help! You are the first who approached my question most closely and your answer is the most expedient. Let me, please, inasmuch as you enjoy answering questions, define more accurately the gist of my key issue using some of your inferences: when there is a reflection of something counterfactual relating to some point in time in the future (I'll switch your sentence into the future mode: You will not get it to me in time and I will not have finished it, though if you did I (think I) would have the task finished by the 31-st of January of the year 2021). – Eugene Dec 04 '20 at 11:10
  • And what expresses it in the best way (in my humble oppinion) is going to be: "If you gave it to me on the 31-st of December of the year 2020, I would have finished the task by the 31-st of January of the year 2021". Is it possible, for pity's sake..., please? (or "...,I would have the task finished by the 31-st of January of the year 2021" is the only correct version?) – Eugene Dec 04 '20 at 14:07
  • They both work, though they aren't the same construction. – John Lawler Dec 04 '20 at 15:08
  • @John Lawler You have my deepest thanks! – Eugene Dec 05 '20 at 08:35