Here is the conversation I want to ask about.
A: “I wanted to watch The Simpsons last night, but I missed it.”
B: “I’m certain Derek will have recorded it. We can go over to his place to see it.”
I would say “I’m certain Derek recorded it.” rather than “will have recorded”.
What is this “will have +PP” for indicating the past situation?
Anyone could explain the difference to me?
Thax. ^^/
Hmmm.
To me, “will have recorded it” seems to have two different interpretations here. The first is as an emphatic version of “has recorded it”, and the second looks forward to the time in the future when it will be proved true that he recorded it (i.e. the time when they go over to his place).
Hi Dozy, thank you for your comments.
Here, B says “I’m certain…” So I don’t think that it needs to be proved.
I feel it is most likely that you said it could because of emphatic effect.
I wonder if this way of saying is common or very rare among native English speakers?
Hi, this was an interesting question. It reminds me of Schrödinger’s cat - the show has already been recorded (a past event), but you won’t know for sure until you go over to his place (a future event). This is a pretty common phrase I think - probably 50/50 between “will have recorded it” and “recorded it”.
Hi Luschen, yeah, but as I said, B is certain about Derek’s recording. If he was not sure, he must have said “I’m not sure, Derek might have recorded it.”
That’s the point I’ve got confused.
Despite my earlier statement that “will” could be interpreted with an emphatic meaning, “I’m certain he will have recorded it” is actually less certain than plain “he has recorded it”. The latter is stating a known fact. The former is stating an assumption that the speaker thinks is true.
I remember this tense conundrum. Here’s a thread where Alan poses the same question:
english-test.net/forum/sutra76588.html#76588
OK. I’m understanding. So “will” can always indicates an assumption regardless if the situation is in the past or future as long as the speaker thinks it happened.
And “would have + PP” is used only when the speaker thinks it didn’t happen.
Then, my last question is which auxiliary verb indicates stronger assumption, will or must?
Hi, Pooh.
will is only used for the future and nothing else.
Unfortunately, this is not true. If you paid attention while reading this thread, you will have learned about this special usage of “will” where it indicates a past happening.
I think this is where overly prescriptive textbooks fall short of the target - when you (and other students) run into something textbooks “decry” (like this “will”), then it throws you off.
[quote=“Pooh”]
Here is the conversation I want to ask about.
A: “I wanted to watch The Simpsons last night, but I missed it.”
B: “I’m certain Derek will have recorded it. We can go over to his place to see it.”
I would say “I’m certain Derek recorded it.” rather than “will have recorded”.
What is this “will have +PP” for indicating the past situation?
Anyone could explain the difference to me?
Thax.
Hi, Pooh
Your B Seems, awkward since you missed “The Simpsons” and at the same time wanting to go to Derek’s place to have it watched or see it. Since you had missed, you have to say the following:
B: I am certain Derek would have recorded…
It is grammatical to use would since you are assuming Derek had recorded it already, and therefore it is in the past and trying to see it or watch it in the future at Derek’s place.
I think it is okey.
Ebenezer Adu
I am glad your trying to help me, but
please read all comments here including Alan’s thread so that you will know you are making an irrelevant comment here.
Also you are wrong “would have + PP” indicates unreal past situation.
Hi, Pooh.
Remember that it is not any “unreal conditional” here, because it does not start with ‘IF’, to “indicate any past unreal conditional”.
In fact, B is natural English and not at all awkward.
Neither of those statements seems to be true.
Hi OTS,
I thought your description of this ‘will+have+past participle’ construction as a conundrum was perfect. I am impressed that you can recall something written about 4 years again and that has set me off again thinking about something I didn’t really follow through on the quote you gave. My conclusion is that this form of the verb is essentially either a forward or a backward prediction. Now that sounds weird because how can you possibly predict backwards? Nevertheless it is acceptable English to use it that way.
I’ll have a go at illustrating this backward and forward use: (Apologies for the two wooden characters)
A How are you? I haven’t seen you for ages.
B That’s very true. It must have been at least 3 tears.
A At least. So, what have you been up to?
B Well, I assume you will have heard that I got married a few years ago.
A No, I didn’t know. My congratulations.
B Yes, thank you. In point of fact next month we will have been married exactly 3 years.
A I see, well I would have heard but 3 years ago I was living in Australia and that probably explains why I didn’t know.
I hope that illustrates that ‘will have heard’ is an assumed prediction that something actually happened and ‘will have been married’ is an assumed prediction that is very likely to happen. '‘Would have known’ is in a way an imaginery prediction which did not actually happen.
Alan
Hi Alan. Your examples illustrate the whole differences very well. Easy to understand.
I thought “will” was only for future for many years I’ve been so stupid.
But now I’ve known the real meaning of “will”.
Thanks. ^^
Hi Alan,
Nothing to it: when I learned about it, this usage of “will” was so astounding to me it left an indelible imprint in my mind. :))
Thanks for the detailed example !
Hi, Alan people looked at me with leery eyes when they heard from me this recondite usage of wil have been to indicate the past. Well english is sometimes strange in some usage like this one. English is not fair.
I love that statement - “English is not fair”. It requires an exclamation point though, I believe. 