David’s arrogant and so self-righteous - you’d think he’d (ha had) never done anything wrong in his life.
I think that ‘Davids’ above means: Davis was.
‘David is’ would be then:
David’s arrogant and so self-righteous - you’d think he’s (he has) never done anything wrong in his life.
Am I right?
I would say that in the original sentence it only makes sense for ‘David’s’ to mean ‘David is…’
The entire sentence is:
David is arrogant and so self-righteous - you would think he had never done anything wrong in his life.
In addition, a native English speaker would not shorten ‘David was…’ in that context.
ok, but what does it mean in the above sentence : if there is no: he’s but: he’d ?
‘he’d’ (present perfect) is situated before Past Simple, so why not: David was?
“You would think he had…”
The modal “would” is important here.
I meant: ‘he’d’ (past perfect), not present, SORRY!
You would think - is an assumption, for example:
I would do it if I were you.
Why there is: ‘had’ after ‘would’ above?
You would think he had never done…
This person has done wrong things in his life and the speaker is fully aware of it. The expression indicates that the person should not be so arrogant because of the mistakes he has made in the past.
I understand the explanation of the expression. I think the same. But even you write: has done.
please tell me why there is ‘had’ after ‘would’?
After ‘You would think …’ both past and present forms are possible -
You would think he’s never done … indicates so far.
You would think he’d never done … indicates so far and previously.
On your earlier point contractions such as - he’s/she’s/it’s are only used in present verb forms.
What would I do without BEES and ALAN !!
Thank You very much.