Likewise, as I've already tried to make clear, if I had chest pains, I would go to the ER, but I don't have chest pains, so I don't need to. That again is huge difference. Also, I admit that my "if people had had chest pains" was a bit ill advised, but then, the sentence has an erroneous premise to begin with. How can people who experienced chest pain have to have had a catheter implanted before they even have the chest pain? That's what the sentence essentially says.
Wenn ich gewachsen wäre irgendwo... (English translation)
And I still content that the sentence says: A few years ago any person who experienced chest pain was forced to have someone put a cathater in but that is no longer the case not. I do not see how it can possibly be understood to mean anything else. Comment I understand, Selkie, but when you say "they have to have had a catheter put in," that means the catheter had to be in place prior to them having chest pains.
If they "were forced to have someone put a chateter in," as you put it, they had to were forced have it put in, and not "have to have had it put in," which would mean they were forced to have had it put in - ergo, it had to be in prior to the chest pains.
- Host rating.
- Why “werden” and “will” express future!
- Darwins Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design?
- Macbeth (eNewton Classici) (Italian Edition).
- Couldve Been.
Comment To me that is a determined misconstrual of the sentence, but we can agree to disagree. I'll gently poke my linguist a former professor of mine and see if she can jump in here. Mindboggling, just read the sentence from the end. BUT: 'I would have to have done' means I personally possibly did it, not someone else as it is in the original, thats why it becomes so difficult. I would have to have had translated the text by someone familiar with English, if I had known that he transforms me into an object.
Comment Sorry, I can't edit my posting, 2 from Bugay is correct. Comment This is just to say that I still can follow dude's logic better than, say, SD3's. I also think that the temporal logic of would have to have had is all wrong. CM2DD could have explained why in 71 but chose to be a bit secretive. I'd like to add something to the example 'chest pains'.
This is not a conditional at all, IMO. If you had chest pains you would have to see a doctor says that you probably have no chest pains. But, as Selkie pointed out, it really was the case that persons had chest pains, so dude withdrew his 'if people had had chest pains' for good reasons. Therefore, in if somebody had a chest pain , the 'had' is not a subjunctive as ist would have to be in a conditional if-clause, it's a simple statement of fact: if when somebody suffered from chest pains. The would , which then follows, is not part of a conditional, then.
It's a would of the following class: If you suffered from chest pains, you would get up early in the morning, you would pack your bag, and you would go to the hospital where you would have a catheter inserted and maybe an OP performed.
The sentence describes what persons usually had to do a couple of years ago. No conditional at all. Still the point that 'they would have had a catheter inserted' is not correct seems valid to me. I'd like to add something to this analysis and then propose a solution for practical purposes. You assumed that a the have in 'have it done' and in 'have a hammer' are no different grammatically just for the record, many linguists would differ, but I'll accept this as I don't think it makes a big difference here ; b that 'have a hammer' can be replaced by 'possess a hammer'; c that 'he would have had to' means 'he would have needed to' yes, if it's understood that 'he has to' means 'he needs to' or 'he has had to' 'he has needed to' etc.
You then 'translate' the sentence as: He would have needed to possess a hammer and use it in the sentence: [John didn't possess a hammer, and he didn't want to repair the chair, but] if he had wanted to repair the chair he would have needed to possess a hammer. Note that the if-clause has past perfect as required by the perfect conditional in the main clause. You'll have to have an understanding of if-clauses if you pick this solution and discard others.
That means: it's not understood. And you make the meaning clear by adding: "This is a conditional describing a requirement for John at the same time in the past as an unreal past event, a chair repair that didn't happen. But you stop at this point and don't tackle the expressions that are a matter of dispute among us. I don't know why. The phrase he would have had to have it done is the one phrase which is undisputedly correct, nobody in this thread ever doubted that. With your method of substitution you only proved what was accepted anyway.
You transformed a correct sentence into another correct sentence.
Das Buch von Füßringen
I'm going to apply your method to the two sentences which are the subject of this discussion. This translates into: he would have needed to have possessed a hammer. The conditional in the main clause remains the same, so the if-clause can remain unchanged and I can use your sentence: [John didn't possess a hammer, and he didn't want to repair the chair, but] if he had wanted to repair the chair he would have needed to have possessed a hammer.
You can easily see that the logic falls apart. If John had wanted to repair the chair, he would need to possess a hammer at the time he wanted to fix the chair. It doesn't help him to have possessed one in the past and lost it in the meantime and he is not required to have had it in his possession for a while. This translates, on the basis of your assumptions, into: He would need to have possessed a hammer.
In this case, if-clause makes no sense either. You can't say 'he doesn't possess a hammer, and he does not intend to mend the chair, but if he had wanted to repair the chair he would need to have possessed a hammer. And why is he required to have possessed a hammer which, as far as the sentence goes, he doesn't need in the present and didn't need in the past? So, if you make the if-clause agree with the simple present conditional in the main clause, you'd have: If he wanted to repair the chair, he would need to have possessed a hammer.
This is a conditional 2 saying, we don't know if he actually wants now to repair the chair, but if he does, he will need to have possessed a hammer in the past in order to do it now or tomorrow. Anyone who thinks this is correct English? Your very own analysis, if carried out to the end, leads to exactly the same results as my analysis did in And what you introduced in the end of 71, that you have to buy a hammer before you possess it, is an unnecessary complication.
As for the future, there are no unreal events in the future, only improbable ones, so if John wants to repair the chair he will need to possess a hammer. A suggestion I was impressed by CM2DD's analysis of 'blocks of speech' used in oral language in 68 and I think this may lead us to an adequate description of what is actually going on. Let me remind you that I around last Christmas, it seems to me I drew attention to the fact that in the sentence in question and in what I hold is the correct sentence the inflection of the different 'have's' is shifted around.
- Sports (Notes) ... (a Sky Design)?
- Miss Hartwells Dilemma.
- Das Buch von Füßringen ~ Wiktenauer ~☞ Insquequo omnes gratuiti fiant;
- The Turf Problem Solver: Case Studies and Solutions for Environmental, Cultural and Pest Problems.
- The Journey : Matters of Blood.
- Introduction and Gloria, RV639: No. 10, Quoniam Tu Solus Sanctus?
- Als der Nikolaus kam: The German "Night Before Christmas".
This is what I said I'll spell out the abbreviations this time : He would have to have in the sense of 'must' or 'need' have auxiliary verb, needed to form the perfect infinitive required for the following expression had fixed phrase with the following object and participle it done. He would have auxiliary verb which puts the following verb into perfect tense required by the perfect conditional had to this time participle of to-have-to in the sense of must have fixed phrase as above it done. I also said around Easter : "There is one important point which we all have more or less missed sofar.
Obviously, they are not, because they affect the meaning and context would demand to be more precise. Why do they do it anyway? This makes sense if CM2DD's analysis of 'speech blocks' is correct. They simply shift a complete block which 'rolls off their tongues' quite naturally and don't pay attention to how syntactical structure is affected.
Glossary of Grammatical Terms in German & English
They don't parse the sentence before they speak and shut up before they run into paradoxes of logic or temporality. This may explain why sentences as he would have to have had it done occur, even if they are 'wrong' from the purist's point of view. Just an emphasized form of 'you must have had an idea what he was up to. Comment OT: Never claimed it was the conditional, sebastian.
I just found it amusing that all sorts of "have to have hads" seem to be coming to my attention now that this thread has atuned me to them. Comment Ignore post 93 or this one. Conflict during editing. In this case, the if-clause makes no sense either.
This is a conditional 2 saying, we don't know if he actually wants now or in the imminent future to repair the chair, but if he does, he will need to have possessed a hammer in the past in order to do it now or tomorrow. Comment selkie: Up early, still up? I understand how you feel, I dream of had-had's. I see 'would-have-had's' wherever I look, most of them totally irrelevant.
You interrupted my editing, so there is an awkward double post. Never mind, just last touches and elimination of possible inaccuracies the pack might pick on. I'll let it stand as it is now. Comment Up early for an inadvertant round of "editus interruptus".
Discover our new Synonym dictionary based on AI
Annoying that. Where's the LEOxicon or whatever it was called? But Selkie, you're getting so veddy British. Ever so slightly annoying, that.