“should say that” vs “should have said that”
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Example 1: It was odd (that) you should say that
Example 2: It was odd (that) you should have said that
I don't understand what the putative should implies when it's constructed with the present perfect, as in example 2. I can't tell the differences between the two.
tenses modal-verbs
edited Feb 13 at 22:45
sumelic
45.5k8108210
asked Feb 10 '15 at 8:46
Lucie Duck
4116
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Example 1: It was odd (that) you should say that
Example 2: It was odd (that) you should have said that
I don't understand what the putative should implies when it's constructed with the present perfect, as in example 2. I can't tell the differences between the two.
tenses modal-verbs
edited Feb 13 at 22:45
sumelic
45.5k8108210
asked Feb 10 '15 at 8:46
Lucie Duck
4116
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
1
And neither can I. Here is a discussion from another website: 'from my book: 2. It's surprising that he should say/should have said that to you.' _ Bob8964 So, for "It [was] strange you said that", do[es this] mean that we can use either of the following forms to express the same meaning? 1. It [was] strange that you should say it. 2. It [was] strange that you should have said it.// 'e2efour Senior Member: "It's just a different way of saying the same thing." ' http://forum.wordreference.com
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 10:20
But how does one justify the statement that 'it's just a different way of saying the same thing?' he seems to have arrived at the conclusion just like that.
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:29
It might be 'justified' in the sense that OED lists it as an allowable usage. Have a look at tchrist's answer (for 'should after certain adjectives'; I think it's number 4 there) in the Confusing structures with modal verbs thread to see how complicated modal usage is. (I don't think he even gets to 'odd that you should have'!) But OED only tells us what is generally considered acceptable; asking for logical underpinning is usually futile.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 11:00
@Edwin - thanks for the helpful links; I'll certainly have a look at that! :)
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 11:54
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Example 1: It was odd (that) you should say that
Example 2: It was odd (that) you should have said that
I don't understand what the putative should implies when it's constructed with the present perfect, as in example 2. I can't tell the differences between the two.
tenses modal-verbs
edited Feb 13 at 22:45
sumelic
45.5k8108210
asked Feb 10 '15 at 8:46
Lucie Duck
4116
Example 1: It was odd (that) you should say that
Example 2: It was odd (that) you should have said that
I don't understand what the putative should implies when it's constructed with the present perfect, as in example 2. I can't tell the differences between the two.
tenses modal-verbs
tenses modal-verbs
edited Feb 13 at 22:45
sumelic
45.5k8108210
asked Feb 10 '15 at 8:46
Lucie Duck
4116
edited Feb 13 at 22:45
sumelic
45.5k8108210
asked Feb 10 '15 at 8:46
Lucie Duck
4116
edited Feb 13 at 22:45
sumelic
45.5k8108210
edited Feb 13 at 22:45
sumelic
45.5k8108210
edited Feb 13 at 22:45
sumelic
45.5k8108210
45.5k8108210
asked Feb 10 '15 at 8:46
Lucie Duck
4116
asked Feb 10 '15 at 8:46
Lucie Duck
4116
asked Feb 10 '15 at 8:46
Lucie Duck
4116
4116
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
1
And neither can I. Here is a discussion from another website: 'from my book: 2. It's surprising that he should say/should have said that to you.' _ Bob8964 So, for "It [was] strange you said that", do[es this] mean that we can use either of the following forms to express the same meaning? 1. It [was] strange that you should say it. 2. It [was] strange that you should have said it.// 'e2efour Senior Member: "It's just a different way of saying the same thing." ' http://forum.wordreference.com
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 10:20
But how does one justify the statement that 'it's just a different way of saying the same thing?' he seems to have arrived at the conclusion just like that.
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:29
It might be 'justified' in the sense that OED lists it as an allowable usage. Have a look at tchrist's answer (for 'should after certain adjectives'; I think it's number 4 there) in the Confusing structures with modal verbs thread to see how complicated modal usage is. (I don't think he even gets to 'odd that you should have'!) But OED only tells us what is generally considered acceptable; asking for logical underpinning is usually futile.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 11:00
@Edwin - thanks for the helpful links; I'll certainly have a look at that! :)
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 11:54
add a comment |
1
And neither can I. Here is a discussion from another website: 'from my book: 2. It's surprising that he should say/should have said that to you.' _ Bob8964 So, for "It [was] strange you said that", do[es this] mean that we can use either of the following forms to express the same meaning? 1. It [was] strange that you should say it. 2. It [was] strange that you should have said it.// 'e2efour Senior Member: "It's just a different way of saying the same thing." ' http://forum.wordreference.com
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 10:20
But how does one justify the statement that 'it's just a different way of saying the same thing?' he seems to have arrived at the conclusion just like that.
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:29
It might be 'justified' in the sense that OED lists it as an allowable usage. Have a look at tchrist's answer (for 'should after certain adjectives'; I think it's number 4 there) in the Confusing structures with modal verbs thread to see how complicated modal usage is. (I don't think he even gets to 'odd that you should have'!) But OED only tells us what is generally considered acceptable; asking for logical underpinning is usually futile.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 11:00
@Edwin - thanks for the helpful links; I'll certainly have a look at that! :)
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 11:54
1
1
And neither can I. Here is a discussion from another website: 'from my book: 2. It's surprising that he should say/should have said that to you.' _ Bob8964 So, for "It [was] strange you said that", do[es this] mean that we can use either of the following forms to express the same meaning? 1. It [was] strange that you should say it. 2. It [was] strange that you should have said it.// 'e2efour Senior Member: "It's just a different way of saying the same thing." ' http://forum.wordreference.com
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 10:20
And neither can I. Here is a discussion from another website: 'from my book: 2. It's surprising that he should say/should have said that to you.' _ Bob8964 So, for "It [was] strange you said that", do[es this] mean that we can use either of the following forms to express the same meaning? 1. It [was] strange that you should say it. 2. It [was] strange that you should have said it.// 'e2efour Senior Member: "It's just a different way of saying the same thing." ' http://forum.wordreference.com
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 10:20
But how does one justify the statement that 'it's just a different way of saying the same thing?' he seems to have arrived at the conclusion just like that.
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:29
But how does one justify the statement that 'it's just a different way of saying the same thing?' he seems to have arrived at the conclusion just like that.
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:29
It might be 'justified' in the sense that OED lists it as an allowable usage. Have a look at tchrist's answer (for 'should after certain adjectives'; I think it's number 4 there) in the Confusing structures with modal verbs thread to see how complicated modal usage is. (I don't think he even gets to 'odd that you should have'!) But OED only tells us what is generally considered acceptable; asking for logical underpinning is usually futile.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 11:00
It might be 'justified' in the sense that OED lists it as an allowable usage. Have a look at tchrist's answer (for 'should after certain adjectives'; I think it's number 4 there) in the Confusing structures with modal verbs thread to see how complicated modal usage is. (I don't think he even gets to 'odd that you should have'!) But OED only tells us what is generally considered acceptable; asking for logical underpinning is usually futile.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 11:00
@Edwin - thanks for the helpful links; I'll certainly have a look at that! :)
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 11:54
@Edwin - thanks for the helpful links; I'll certainly have a look at that! :)
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 11:54
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
1 refers to something said now.
2 refers to something said in the past.
I see this must be explained more clearly.
If we change the main clause to present tense we get
3 It is odd that you (should) say this.
The that-clause refers to something said just now. That English uses this "should" ( often called putative should) in a similar way as in French the subjunctive is used
after expressions containing a judgement is a special quirk.
4 It is odd that you should have said this.
Here the that-clause refers to something said in the past (yesterday, a week ago, etc)
If we change the main clause to past the that-clause doesn't shift tense because "should" is already in past tense.
The reference of the that-clause remains principally the same.
Some says "It was odd that you should say this" and refers to the remark he just heard at that point in the past.
If he would refer to a remark back in time he would say:
It was odd that you should have said this (some days/a week ago).
Remark: Sometimes should + infinitive is used instead of should + infinitive perfect and the construction can become ambiguous. Then it can be better to avoid "should".
answered Feb 10 '15 at 8:56
rogermue
11.7k41647
2
No; 'It was odd' places the speech act in the past.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 10:08
That's just it. Both are in the past, but I'm thinking 'It was odd (that) you should have said that' implies further back into the past. I'm not sure.
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:19
The thing that bedevils me is that present perfect refers to time up until now, but the act is said and done with, so what exactly is being the focus up until now?
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:32
@rogermue: I suspected all this as much! Thank you for sharing and clarifying further :)
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:50
'Remark: Sometimes should + infinitive is used instead of should + infinitive perfect and the construction can become ambiguous. Then it can be better to avoid "should".' If there's any possibility of 'should + infinitive [being] used instead of should + infinitive perfect', and you imply that there is always such a possibility, you are saying that 'should' should always be avoided. A temporal modifier (or other contextualisation) is useful: "It was odd that you should have said that just two days earlier." Without such, I'd assume the 'one occasion in the past' sense.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 11:08
|
show 4 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
1 refers to something said now.
2 refers to something said in the past.
I see this must be explained more clearly.
If we change the main clause to present tense we get
3 It is odd that you (should) say this.
The that-clause refers to something said just now. That English uses this "should" ( often called putative should) in a similar way as in French the subjunctive is used
after expressions containing a judgement is a special quirk.
4 It is odd that you should have said this.
Here the that-clause refers to something said in the past (yesterday, a week ago, etc)
If we change the main clause to past the that-clause doesn't shift tense because "should" is already in past tense.
The reference of the that-clause remains principally the same.
Some says "It was odd that you should say this" and refers to the remark he just heard at that point in the past.
If he would refer to a remark back in time he would say:
It was odd that you should have said this (some days/a week ago).
Remark: Sometimes should + infinitive is used instead of should + infinitive perfect and the construction can become ambiguous. Then it can be better to avoid "should".
answered Feb 10 '15 at 8:56
rogermue
11.7k41647
2
No; 'It was odd' places the speech act in the past.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 10:08
That's just it. Both are in the past, but I'm thinking 'It was odd (that) you should have said that' implies further back into the past. I'm not sure.
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:19
The thing that bedevils me is that present perfect refers to time up until now, but the act is said and done with, so what exactly is being the focus up until now?
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:32
@rogermue: I suspected all this as much! Thank you for sharing and clarifying further :)
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:50
'Remark: Sometimes should + infinitive is used instead of should + infinitive perfect and the construction can become ambiguous. Then it can be better to avoid "should".' If there's any possibility of 'should + infinitive [being] used instead of should + infinitive perfect', and you imply that there is always such a possibility, you are saying that 'should' should always be avoided. A temporal modifier (or other contextualisation) is useful: "It was odd that you should have said that just two days earlier." Without such, I'd assume the 'one occasion in the past' sense.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 11:08
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
1 refers to something said now.
2 refers to something said in the past.
I see this must be explained more clearly.
If we change the main clause to present tense we get
3 It is odd that you (should) say this.
The that-clause refers to something said just now. That English uses this "should" ( often called putative should) in a similar way as in French the subjunctive is used
after expressions containing a judgement is a special quirk.
4 It is odd that you should have said this.
Here the that-clause refers to something said in the past (yesterday, a week ago, etc)
If we change the main clause to past the that-clause doesn't shift tense because "should" is already in past tense.
The reference of the that-clause remains principally the same.
Some says "It was odd that you should say this" and refers to the remark he just heard at that point in the past.
If he would refer to a remark back in time he would say:
It was odd that you should have said this (some days/a week ago).
Remark: Sometimes should + infinitive is used instead of should + infinitive perfect and the construction can become ambiguous. Then it can be better to avoid "should".
answered Feb 10 '15 at 8:56
rogermue
11.7k41647
2
No; 'It was odd' places the speech act in the past.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 10:08
That's just it. Both are in the past, but I'm thinking 'It was odd (that) you should have said that' implies further back into the past. I'm not sure.
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:19
The thing that bedevils me is that present perfect refers to time up until now, but the act is said and done with, so what exactly is being the focus up until now?
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:32
@rogermue: I suspected all this as much! Thank you for sharing and clarifying further :)
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:50
'Remark: Sometimes should + infinitive is used instead of should + infinitive perfect and the construction can become ambiguous. Then it can be better to avoid "should".' If there's any possibility of 'should + infinitive [being] used instead of should + infinitive perfect', and you imply that there is always such a possibility, you are saying that 'should' should always be avoided. A temporal modifier (or other contextualisation) is useful: "It was odd that you should have said that just two days earlier." Without such, I'd assume the 'one occasion in the past' sense.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 11:08
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
1 refers to something said now.
2 refers to something said in the past.
I see this must be explained more clearly.
If we change the main clause to present tense we get
3 It is odd that you (should) say this.
The that-clause refers to something said just now. That English uses this "should" ( often called putative should) in a similar way as in French the subjunctive is used
after expressions containing a judgement is a special quirk.
4 It is odd that you should have said this.
Here the that-clause refers to something said in the past (yesterday, a week ago, etc)
If we change the main clause to past the that-clause doesn't shift tense because "should" is already in past tense.
The reference of the that-clause remains principally the same.
Some says "It was odd that you should say this" and refers to the remark he just heard at that point in the past.
If he would refer to a remark back in time he would say:
It was odd that you should have said this (some days/a week ago).
Remark: Sometimes should + infinitive is used instead of should + infinitive perfect and the construction can become ambiguous. Then it can be better to avoid "should".
answered Feb 10 '15 at 8:56
rogermue
11.7k41647
1 refers to something said now.
2 refers to something said in the past.
I see this must be explained more clearly.
If we change the main clause to present tense we get
3 It is odd that you (should) say this.
The that-clause refers to something said just now. That English uses this "should" ( often called putative should) in a similar way as in French the subjunctive is used
after expressions containing a judgement is a special quirk.
4 It is odd that you should have said this.
Here the that-clause refers to something said in the past (yesterday, a week ago, etc)
If we change the main clause to past the that-clause doesn't shift tense because "should" is already in past tense.
The reference of the that-clause remains principally the same.
Some says "It was odd that you should say this" and refers to the remark he just heard at that point in the past.
If he would refer to a remark back in time he would say:
It was odd that you should have said this (some days/a week ago).
Remark: Sometimes should + infinitive is used instead of should + infinitive perfect and the construction can become ambiguous. Then it can be better to avoid "should".
answered Feb 10 '15 at 8:56
rogermue
11.7k41647
edited Feb 10 '15 at 10:59
answered Feb 10 '15 at 8:56
rogermue
11.7k41647
answered Feb 10 '15 at 8:56
rogermue
11.7k41647
answered Feb 10 '15 at 8:56
rogermue
11.7k41647
11.7k41647
2
No; 'It was odd' places the speech act in the past.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 10:08
That's just it. Both are in the past, but I'm thinking 'It was odd (that) you should have said that' implies further back into the past. I'm not sure.
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:19
The thing that bedevils me is that present perfect refers to time up until now, but the act is said and done with, so what exactly is being the focus up until now?
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:32
@rogermue: I suspected all this as much! Thank you for sharing and clarifying further :)
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:50
'Remark: Sometimes should + infinitive is used instead of should + infinitive perfect and the construction can become ambiguous. Then it can be better to avoid "should".' If there's any possibility of 'should + infinitive [being] used instead of should + infinitive perfect', and you imply that there is always such a possibility, you are saying that 'should' should always be avoided. A temporal modifier (or other contextualisation) is useful: "It was odd that you should have said that just two days earlier." Without such, I'd assume the 'one occasion in the past' sense.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 11:08
|
show 4 more comments
2
No; 'It was odd' places the speech act in the past.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 10:08
That's just it. Both are in the past, but I'm thinking 'It was odd (that) you should have said that' implies further back into the past. I'm not sure.
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:19
The thing that bedevils me is that present perfect refers to time up until now, but the act is said and done with, so what exactly is being the focus up until now?
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:32
@rogermue: I suspected all this as much! Thank you for sharing and clarifying further :)
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:50
'Remark: Sometimes should + infinitive is used instead of should + infinitive perfect and the construction can become ambiguous. Then it can be better to avoid "should".' If there's any possibility of 'should + infinitive [being] used instead of should + infinitive perfect', and you imply that there is always such a possibility, you are saying that 'should' should always be avoided. A temporal modifier (or other contextualisation) is useful: "It was odd that you should have said that just two days earlier." Without such, I'd assume the 'one occasion in the past' sense.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 11:08
2
2
No; 'It was odd' places the speech act in the past.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 10:08
No; 'It was odd' places the speech act in the past.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 10:08
That's just it. Both are in the past, but I'm thinking 'It was odd (that) you should have said that' implies further back into the past. I'm not sure.
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:19
That's just it. Both are in the past, but I'm thinking 'It was odd (that) you should have said that' implies further back into the past. I'm not sure.
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:19
The thing that bedevils me is that present perfect refers to time up until now, but the act is said and done with, so what exactly is being the focus up until now?
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:32
The thing that bedevils me is that present perfect refers to time up until now, but the act is said and done with, so what exactly is being the focus up until now?
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:32
@rogermue: I suspected all this as much! Thank you for sharing and clarifying further :)
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:50
@rogermue: I suspected all this as much! Thank you for sharing and clarifying further :)
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:50
'Remark: Sometimes should + infinitive is used instead of should + infinitive perfect and the construction can become ambiguous. Then it can be better to avoid "should".' If there's any possibility of 'should + infinitive [being] used instead of should + infinitive perfect', and you imply that there is always such a possibility, you are saying that 'should' should always be avoided. A temporal modifier (or other contextualisation) is useful: "It was odd that you should have said that just two days earlier." Without such, I'd assume the 'one occasion in the past' sense.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 11:08
'Remark: Sometimes should + infinitive is used instead of should + infinitive perfect and the construction can become ambiguous. Then it can be better to avoid "should".' If there's any possibility of 'should + infinitive [being] used instead of should + infinitive perfect', and you imply that there is always such a possibility, you are saying that 'should' should always be avoided. A temporal modifier (or other contextualisation) is useful: "It was odd that you should have said that just two days earlier." Without such, I'd assume the 'one occasion in the past' sense.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 11:08
|
show 4 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f226669%2fshould-say-that-vs-should-have-said-that%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
And neither can I. Here is a discussion from another website: 'from my book: 2. It's surprising that he should say/should have said that to you.' _ Bob8964 So, for "It [was] strange you said that", do[es this] mean that we can use either of the following forms to express the same meaning? 1. It [was] strange that you should say it. 2. It [was] strange that you should have said it.// 'e2efour Senior Member: "It's just a different way of saying the same thing." ' http://forum.wordreference.com
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 10:20
But how does one justify the statement that 'it's just a different way of saying the same thing?' he seems to have arrived at the conclusion just like that.
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 10:29
It might be 'justified' in the sense that OED lists it as an allowable usage. Have a look at tchrist's answer (for 'should after certain adjectives'; I think it's number 4 there) in the Confusing structures with modal verbs thread to see how complicated modal usage is. (I don't think he even gets to 'odd that you should have'!) But OED only tells us what is generally considered acceptable; asking for logical underpinning is usually futile.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 10 '15 at 11:00
@Edwin - thanks for the helpful links; I'll certainly have a look at that! :)
– Lucie Duck
Feb 10 '15 at 11:54