Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: Future in the past... un po' strano

Ciao a tutti,
Poco fa stavo facendo un esercizio sul coursebook di preparazione al CAE 
(Certificate of Advanced English, anche se poi mi sa che faro' solo il FCE), 
e ho notato una strana frase, che vi riporto qui:
"I thought she would have got me a present but she hasn't got me one."
La consegna dice:" Delete any words in the following sentences that do not 
need to be there", percio' io ho cancellato "got me one", perchè sono 
superflui. La frase risulta quindi:
"I thought she would have got me a present, but she hasn't".
A parte cio' che richiede l'esercizio, che è piuttosto facile, la frase non 
doveva essere:
" I thought she would give a presente, but she hasn't" ?
Che io sappia, il future in the past si usa con il condizionale semplice, e 
non quello passato.  Supponendo che non sia future in the past, ma un'azione 
precedente a quella descritta dalla frase principale (I thought), sarebbe 
stato:
"I thought she had got me present",  senza alcun "would" di mezzo.  Sbaglio?
Grazie mille a chi vorrà rispondermi.
Frohes neues Jahr,
Enrico il Pentolaio.
--
"I'm not from these parts. From a little place called England. We used to 
run the world before you." (Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes) 

 " I thought she would give a presente, but she hasn't" ?
Ops, mi scappato qualche errore.
"I thought she would GET me a present, but she hasn't"


 Ops, mi scappato qualche errore.
Stavolta ho dimenticato un "è". Uffa!
:-DDDDD


 " I thought she would give a presente, but she hasn't" ?
Beh, sě. The sentence with "would have got" does make sense ("if she
hadn't died", say). (smiling face)
[...]
Bye, FB
-- 
"Do you smoke?" "Well, yes, I must admit I smoke." "I am glad to hear it.
A man should always have an occupation of some kind. There are far too
many idle men in London as it is."
("The Importance of Being Earnest", Oscar Wilde)

"Would have got" doesn't sound right in indirect speech.
It's used for a hypothesis that doesn't come true; e.g. "I would have
got her a present if I'd had time".
"I thought she had got me a present" should be followed by "but she
hadn't".
"I thought she would get me a present" should be followed by "but she
didn't".
-- 
Mary


(I'll refer here to FB and Mary's posts , to avoid 3 separate responses)
As FB and Mary say , the conditional perfect is used in an apodosis followed 
by IF + past perfect ('I would have done it if you had let me') ; but in my 
opinion that isn't its exclusive use .
The original CAE sentence seems perfectly OK to me . The 'would' , as Mary 
points out , is here not related to any condition , but is the normal 
modification of 'will' in indirect speech in a past tense sequence '('I 
thought that') . So if you can use a future perfect in indirect speech in a 
present tense sequence , you can use a conditional perfect in a past 
sequence .
   I think she will have visited him in prison
   I thought she would have visited him in prison
   I'm sure she will have got it all sorted out before she arrives.
   I was sure she would have got it all sorted out before she arrived , but 
she hasn't .
It's true that often in the past version you could substitute a simple 
conditional for the perfect conditional ('would get... but didn't[get]') for 
'would have got ... but hasn't [got]')  -  but there is a difference in 
meaning :-
   I thought she would get me a present , but she didn't
   I thought she would have got me a present , but she hasn't
If , surrounded by the debris of wrapping paper and ribbon , you are forced 
to realise that your ex has in fact totally ignored your birthday , surely 
only the second is feasible ; moaning to your mates a month later , you'd 
use the first . So,
            I thought she would visit him in prison , but she didn't
            I thought she would have visited him in prison , but she hasn't
convey a similar difference ; in the second case , very likely the criminal 
is still in prison , or only just released .
   'I was sure she would have got it all sorted out before she arrived , but 
she hasn't' puts 'I' in the place at which she has arrived , fairly soon 
after her arrival , in a way that 'I thought she would get it sorted out 
before she arrived , but she didn't' doesn't .
(You might say that the need for the perfect tense ('she hasn't' etc) in the 
present dictates the retention of the present perfect it echoes.)
Mike 

 non quello passato.
Dipende da quello che vuoi dire.
"He said he would have come" e "He said he would come" sono entrambi
possibili ma vogliono dire cose diverse.

 possibili ma vogliono dire cose diverse.
We're at a party. My brother is not there, but I'm expecting him.
I say "Where's my brother? He said he would come."
We're at a party. My brother is not there. You're expecting him
to come, but I know he's not coming. I say
"He said he would have come, but his cat was ill."
(I could also say this after the party, if you asked me why my
brother never showed up at all.)

 the present dictates the retention of the present perfect it echoes.)
Pardon?
(non ho proprio capito cosa vuoi dire qui)
Grazie mille comunque per la tua esauriente spiegazione!



Probably because I meant to write 'conditional perfect' , not 'present 
perfect' !! Sorry.
(In case it's still unclear , what I've said in this post should have made 
it clearer - the difference in meaning in these sentences is largely down to 
using the present perfect  - 'she hasn't (got) , 'she hasn't (got it all 
sorted)' , 'she hasn't (visited)' ) - in which case (see my opening comment 
above) it has to go with the conditional perfect 'she would have got' etc.)
Mike 

 perfect' !! Sorry.
Oh that's why I couldn't understand it at all!
:-))))))
Quindi vuoi dire che present perfect e conditional perfect sono strettamente 
legati nel periodo sintattico, giusto?
Grazie ancora per la tua spiegazione!


 Sto dicendo castronerie?
Nessun mi sa rispondere?


 Nessun mi sa rispondere?
For those who are learning Italian, I didn't mean to write "nessun". That 
was a typo. I should have written "nessuno".


 Gli č che degli inglesi affamati mi hanno chiesto di preparare un
risotto per un centinaio di persone. [...] pericoli? [...]
Che la pentola ti cada addosso sotterrandoti. (sai che speciale di Studio
Aperto che viene fuori)
(Dott. Vernes su it.hobby.cucina)

 understood
(I've checked Adam's 2 posts , and he doesn't seem to me to say this at all 
; his posts do seem to arrive a bit late via my server , so perhaps there's 
one I've missed altogether which contained a retraction of the other two !)
But you acknowledge that 'I thought she would have got me a present , but 
she hasn't' makes perfect sense ? Yet here there is clearly no implied 
condition of any kind ; the conditional (perfect) is not there because it is 
in the apodosis to any implied IF clause , but simply because it is 
reporting a future perfect 'will have got' . If you think there's an implied 
condition - what is it ?
 >I don't really understand Mike's remarks, instead.
Oh dear ! Have I had any more success this time ?
Mike

 she hasn't' makes perfect sense ?
Actually I believe I was referring to the sentence till "a present"; I
didn't pay much attention to the question tag.
[...]
Bye, FB
-- 
"It sounds appalling!"
"Interesting and appalling. The others just sound appalling!"
(Cold Comfort Farm, the film)


Well , if it's correct with the tag it's correct .
Now for a concession - as usual when I disagree with FB , whose grasp of our 
language always astonishes me , I've found myself having to think a bit more 
thoroughly ; and there is sometimes a certain lack of logic about our use of 
tenses with ,e.g., 'thought' . Sentences like these :-
   'I thought she'd at least have sent a card ! '
   'I thought she'd have known better' (='I judged her to be more sensible', 
but she got it wrong) are very common . You'd have a job , unlike with 
actual speech , to reconstruct the specific thought : 'I thought ,"She will 
have known better" is obviously ludicrous ; if any , the specific thought 
would have been "She knows better" , yet 'I thought she knew better' is much 
less likely than 'I thought she'd have known better' .
Such observations are often introduced by 'I'd have thought' (with an 
implied IF clause) :
   'You'd have thought that she'd at least have sent a card'
   'You'd have thought that she'd at least send a card'
In both cases , we know she hasn't . Strictly speaking , different meanings 
are indicated : the first implies a conditional prompting to thought after 
the time for sending the card ('she will have sent one') , and the second 
such a prompting before the time for sending the card ('she will send one') 
; but generally people don't have such distinctions in mind - and in my 
experience much the most common form is the first , with the conditional 
perfect in the reported part (even though the sense is usually basically the 
second - everyone expected her to send a card)
Here's a final example where surely the conditional perfect ('she would have 
come') would always be used , as a reporting of 'she will have come' ; 'she 
would have come' has no possible reference to any condition stated or 
implied .
   'You'd have thought that she'd have come to her senses by now .'
Mike

    'You'd have thought that she'd have come to her senses by now .'
Thanks.
Bye, FB
-- 
Sir Robert Chiltern:   And women represent the irrational.
Mrs. Cheveley: Well-dressed women do.
("An Ideal Husband", Oscar Wilde)

 but in this case it makes no appreciable difference to the meaning .
Ok.
Thank you again!
Frohes neues Jahr,
Enrico il Pentolaio.
P.S. Since I'm going to take the CAE exam in the next few months, from now 
on I'll try to write always in English. ;-)


 What does "to give up the ghost" mean exactly?
 
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=32782&dict=CALD
 
M

 
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=32782&dict=CALD
 HUMOROUS If a machine gives up the ghost, it stops working:
We've had the same TV for over ten years and it's just given up the ghost.
Ok, grazie!
Frohes neues Jahr,
Enrico il Pentolaio.


 We've had the same TV for over ten years and it's just given up the ghost.
Insomma, rende l'anima... ;)
-- 
Enrico C
* cut the ending "cut-togli.invalid" string when replying by email *


 Exactly - 'ghost' in the older sense of 'soul','spirit' (cf German 'Geist')
Mike 

 wrote in message 
news:dq5ok3$hov$2...@newsreader.mailgate.org...

I have to (cautiously) disagree with the CALD you refer to here :
2) (of a machine) to stop working  - I wouldn't add the tag 'HUMOROUS' here 
(the SOED doesn't) - it's just a normal expression , which you might use if 
you were extremely irritated or frustrated and not at all in the mood for 
joking
3) the CALD says 'to stop trying to do something because you know that you 
will not succeed', e.g. 'All I'd cherished from early childhood had been 
denied me , so I simply gave up the ghost' . I would never use it in this 
way (here I'd just say 'gave up') , I cannot recall ever seeing or hearing 
it used in this way , and subject to the views of other native speakers 
whose experience might be different , I'd say that this is simply wrong .
Mike 

 computer doesn't have it on its database.
I've added a comment or two on the meaning  elsewhere in the thread .
Mike

 have finished the job by Christmas, and they did finish it", right?
That's possible , yes.
Mike 

"Enrico il Pentolaio" ha scritto nel messaggio:
[CUT]
[Comunicazione privata]
Ma ti è arrivata la mia mail, DL?
[/Comunicazione privata]
Frohes neues Jahr,
Enrico il Pentolaio.
P.S. Non chiedetemi chi è DL, perchè non lo so neanch'io. Mi ha solo scritto 
in privato. ;-)
