# had the doctor not..., I would estimate he <had> <would have had> ....



## Phoebe1200

_NCIS
After the medical examination._

*Gibbs: *Definitely a suicide?
*Ducky: *Without doubt. But he was only hastening the inevitable.
*Gibbs:* What? 
*Ducky: *His kidney and liver functions were deteriorating at an alarming rate. Suffice to say, had the doctor not taken his own life, I would estimate he *had* but six months to live.



I think it should be "_he *would have had* but six months to live_". 

But somehow the original doesn't sound very incorrect to me either. Could you explain it to me?


----------



## JulianStuart

You only need one "would" thus

I would estimate he *had* but six months to live. (original)
or
I would estimate he would *have had* but six months to live.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Does "_he had but six months to live_" part belong to _"had the doctor not taken his own life_"?


----------



## Florentia52

What do you mean by "belong to," Phoebe1200? The man committed suicide. If he had not done so, he would probably have lived only another six months.


----------



## VicNicSor

Phoebe1200 said:


> Does "_he had but six months to live_" part belong to _"had the doctor not taken his own life_"?



The "_(that) he had but six months to live_" is a clause which is the direct object of the verb "estimate". So, no, specifically in the OP, it doesn't "belong" to the conditional part which is "*had *the doctor* not taken* ......... I *would estimate* ......".


----------



## se16teddy

Phoebe1200 said:


> Suffice to say, had the doctor not taken his own life, I would estimate he *had* but six months to live.


Most listeners would find the tense simplification unremarkable, particularly in the context of the indirect speech marker ("I would estimate") intervening in the middle of the indirect speech. "Had the doctor not" makes it abundantly clear that an unreal conditional is intended.

The strictly grammatical sequence of tenses is _I would estimate that, had the doctor not taken his own life, he would have had but six months to live. _


----------



## Phoebe1200

se16teddy said:


> Most listeners would find the tense simplification unremarkable, particularly in the context of the indirect speech marker ("I would estimate") intervening in the middle of the indirect speech.


I don't understand this part. Could you please explain it to me?

Did you mean to say *direct speech* instead of one of the above?


----------



## VicNicSor

se16teddy said:


> The strictly grammatical sequence of tenses is _I would estimate that, had the doctor not taken his own life, he would have had but six months to live. _


I see it differently
First, what he would estimate was only "he *had* but six months to live". The if-clause (if he hadn't ...) is not included in the estimation. If you, however, meant something like this:
_I *would estimate* that the doctor *would have had *but six months to live if he had not taken his own life._
... the meaning of the OP would be changed anyway. Now "estimate" is not part of the conditional, but still takes "would".

In the OP, the estimation takes place in an unreal present, and that's why "*had*" instead of "*has*" is used in the indirect speech. We have a conditional clause -- an unreal past: "if he had not taken his own life", which causes an unreal present: "I would estimate .......". The direct speech would be: "I estimate he *has* but six months to live".


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> I see it differently
> First, what he would estimate was only "he *had* but six months to live". The if-clause (if he hadn't ...) is not included in the estimation. If you, however, meant something like this:
> _I *would estimate* that the doctor *would have had *but six months to live if he had not taken his own life._
> ... the meaning of the OP would be changed anyway. Now "estimate" is not part of the conditional, but still takes "would".
> 
> In the OP, the estimation takes place in an unreal present, and that's why "*had*" instead of "*has*" is used in the indirect speech. We have a conditional clause -- an unreal past: "if he had not taken his own life", which causes an unreal present: "I would estimate .......". The direct speech would be: "I estimate he *has* but six months to live".


The estimate of 6 months was real at the time. The only reason there is any conditionality is that he can no longer live.  I think the direct speech could easily have been "I would estimate he has but ..." using "would" to "soften" the statement.


----------



## VicNicSor

But the if-clause in the OP makes *all the difference*. It definitely makes the "would" conditional rather than "softening". And it makes the estimation unreal rather than real -- because the doctor is dead and has no months to live.


----------



## JulianStuart

The estimate of 6 months applied to the living person and it was a real estimate.  It wouyld have been the estimate even if the person had not died.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> The estimate of 6 months applied to the living person and it was a real estimate.  It wouyld have been the estimate even if the person had not died.


Sorry I don't understand. The dialog takes place after an examination of a *dead body*


----------



## JulianStuart

That does not affect the estimate of how many months the doctor thought the person would have lived, based on his medical condition when he died.  The death does not affect that estimate.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> That does not affect the estimate of how many months the doctor thought the person would have lived, based on his medical condition when he died.  The death does not affect that estimate.


The death does not affect, but the grammar does. What we have is a typical mixed 3/2 conditional: "*If *the doctor* had not taken* ......... I *would estimate* ......" He could have said it differently, as Teddy suggested, but he said as he did in the OP...


----------



## VicNicSor

Even though he did some estimation now, he's talking about a different estimation -- one that would take place if the doctor was alive. But yes, these two estimations come to six months. Right?


----------



## Loob

Re post 14: I don't think it really is like that, Vic - that would imply that the underlying logic was:
_If the doctor had not taken his own life, I would make an estimate about his life expectancy._

The logic has to be closer to:
_I estimate that if he hadn't committed suicide, he had in any event only six months to live._


----------



## VicNicSor

So we have then to rephrase what the speaker said because he used the conditional clumsily



Loob said:


> Re post 14: I don't think it really is like that, Vic - that would imply that the underlying logic was:
> If the doctor had not taken his own life, *I would make an estimate about his life expectancy.*


I see the logic a little differently: he doesn't tell about the fact of making an estimate, as in this boldfaced part. But about how much time the man would have to live.

I.e., "I would estimate he had but six months to live" doesn't have to mean in the OP that the speaker didn't make the estimate. It just means that since the doctor is not alive, the estimate is unreal too.

But I agree, of course, that if we shift the "would" a little forward, as Julian did in #2, it would be unambiguous: Had the doctor not taken his own life, I estimate he *would have* but six months to live.


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> I.e., "I would estimate he had but six months to live" doesn't have to mean in the OP that the speaker didn't make the estimate. It just means that since the doctor is not alive, the estimate is unreal too.


 This says the doctor *did *make the estimate - "I estimate that a person in his exact medical condition would have but six months ..." The result of the estimation process is "6 months"._ If he hadn't made the estimate, there would be no number of months. _ However, since he's dead, that is now moot.  This seems to be a logic problem not a grammar one, often the case in such threads


----------



## VicNicSor

No one here, including Phoebe, doubts the logic in the OP, I'm sure. What the speaker meant is clear. Another question is how he said it, that is -- grammar. "Would estimate" is part of the mixed conditional in the OP. That's all I'm saying


----------



## Loob

I'd be more inclined, myself, to analyse "I would estimate" as a tentative version of "I estimate", Vic.

(But I don't see anything here worth dying in a ditch over.)


----------



## VicNicSor

Loob said:


> I'd be more inclined, myself, to analyse "I would estimate" as a tentative version of "I estimate", Vic.


Then we have one problem -- where is the "would" that has to be in the main clause of the conditional sentence?


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> Then *we* have one problem -- where is the "would" that has to be in the main clause of the conditional sentence?


(Perhaps it is only you that have a problem?)  If he hadn't died, I (would) estimate he had only six months to live.


----------



## Loob

Well, you could argue that there needs to be a "would":
_Even if the doctor had not taken his own life, he would (in any event) have had only six months to live._

But you could also argue that this would work without "would":
_Even if the doctor had not taken his own life, he had (in any event) only six months to live._
----------

As Julian has just said.


----------



## VicNicSor

Loob said:


> Even if the doctor had not taken his own life, he had (in any event) only six months to live.



Now, without the "would", it looks like we are not sure if the doctor did kill himself, and the if-clause is not really a conditional:

_*Suppose *the doctor had not taken his own life. He had (in any event) only six months to live._
 Am I wrong?...


----------



## JulianStuart

But in the OP there is *absolutely no doubt* that he is dead and by suicide.  I'm am not at all sure I see where you are going with this dicsussion, Vic


----------



## Loob

I'm sorry if my re-write was confusing, Vic.

The idea was:
_The doctor committed suicide. But even if he hadn't committed suicide, he had only six months to live.
+
The doctor committed suicide. But even if he hadn't committed suicide, he would have had only six months to live._
Both of which are correct.
------
PS. Julian was ahead of me again.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> I'm am not at all sure I see where you are going with this dicsussion, Vic


Only to see if the would was used properly in the OP


Loob said:


> The doctor committed suicide. But even if he hadn't committed suicide, he had only six months to live.


I.e., we can indeed omit the "would" in the main clause of a conditional sentence and it'll still be valid! I didn't know that.

Thank you for the replies


----------



## Phoebe1200

Phoebe1200 said:


> had the doctor not taken his own life, I would estimate he *had* but six months to live.


Isn't this whole sentence a direct speech?


----------



## Oddmania

If it was direct speech, the sentence would read _I would tell him: "You have only six months to live, sir"._


----------



## JulianStuart

Oddmania said:


> If it was direct speech, the sentence would read _I would tell him: "You have only six months to live, sir"._


But to the subject of the OP
Ducky would tell Gibbs "He has only 6 months to live" only if the patient were still alive.
Ducky would tell Gibbs "He had only 6 months to live" if the patient is no longer still alive.


----------



## Oddmania

Of course, I agree. I'm not sure I understand what's confusing Phoebe anymore, after all the explaining. What's the matter with the direct speech?


----------



## Phoebe1200

JulianStuart said:


> But to the subject of the OP
> Ducky would tell Gibbs "He has only 6 months to live" only if the patient were still alive.
> Ducky would tell Gibbs "He had only 6 months to live" if the patient is no longer still alive.


But Ducky does say this sentence to Gibbs, so isn't it direct speech?


Phoebe1200 said:


> Suffice to say, had the doctor not taken his own life, I would estimate he *had* but six months to live.


----------



## JulianStuart

Yes - and because the person is dead, he used "had" becsuse the dead person no longer "has" six months


----------



## Phoebe1200

JulianStuart said:


> Yes - and because the person is dead, he used "had" becsuse the dead person no longer "has" six months


Then why did se16teddy use "indirect speech"? Or was one of them a typo?


se16teddy said:


> Most listeners would find the tense simplification unremarkable, particularly in the context of the indirect speech marker ("I would estimate") intervening in the middle of the indirect speech.


----------



## se16teddy

Direct speech
_I would have said "He *has* only about 6 months to live"._
Indirect speech
_I would have estimated he *had *only about 6 months to live". 
_
I now rather think that this thread is spending too much time worrying about a hideous syntactic mishmash.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you!


se16teddy said:


> a hideous syntactic mishmash.


As I understand you don't like the way it's grammatically constructed but I'm not sure if others hold the same opinion so I have to ask this.



Phoebe1200 said:


> Suffice to say, had the doctor not taken his own life, I would estimate he *had* but six months to live.


Is the OP sentence grammatically constructed correctly as it is?


----------



## PaulQ

Phoebe1200 said:


> Is the OP sentence grammatically constructed correctly as it is?





JulianStuart said:


> You only need one "would" thus
> 
> I would estimate he *had* but six months to live. (original)
> or
> I would estimate he would *have had* but six months to live.


----------



## Phoebe1200

And why is the one with two "woulds" wrong?




JulianStuart said:


> I would estimate he would *have had* but six months to live.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Phoebe1200 said:


> And why is the one with two "woulds" wrong?


I don't think it is wrong at all, Phoebe.  The_ I would estimate_ is not contingent on the if-clause - it's not part of the conditional construction.

After all you can make this clear by putting at at the start of the sentence, without altering the meaning - _I would estimate that had the doctor not taken his own life, he would have had but six months to live._




Phoebe1200 said:


> [...]Is the OP sentence grammatically constructed correctly as it is?


Not in my view.  I think your initial instinct was correct, Phoebe.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you, Thomas!

Now I need to know if I understand everything that's been explained here correctly.

First, the doctor begins with the inverted if-clause but cuts off the main clause from it (i.e. _he would have had but six months to live)_


Phoebe1200 said:


> had the doctor not taken his own life,



And instead of the main clause, he continues with "_I would estimate he had but six months to live._" 


Phoebe1200 said:


> I would estimate he had but six months to live.


in which the "would" is only used to "soften" the statement. I mean, it could have easily been said without it
_"had the doctor not taken his own life, I estimate he had but six months to live." _

And this part of the sentence _"I would estimate he had but six months to live."_ it's actually like an independent sentence that was stuffed in there in place of the main clause. 
And I think that because it could have been used on its own, for example:

*Gibbs:* How long do you think he had?
*Ducky: *I (would) estimate he had but six months to live.



What do you say?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I think that's fine, Phoebe, as long as I've interpreted you correctly.

He could easily have said_ I would estimate he had but six months to live_.

However, once you insert the condition _Had he not taken his own life_, you need the clause depending on the condition to become _he would have had but six months to live_.

The_ I would estimate_ doesn't alter the structure of the conditional sentence, in my view.

I wondered slightly whether or not there was a problem of tense shifting after "I would estimate" rather than "I estimate".

I think I'd say

_I estimate that if he had ..._
_I estimated that if he had..._
_I would estimate that if he had..._

I don't think any problem of tense shifting arises.


----------



## JulianStuart

Thomas Tompion said:


> After all you can make this clear by putting at at the start of the sentence, without altering the meaning - _I would estimate that had the doctor not taken his own life, he would have had but six months to live._


I agree - I think that when you put would in the front before a long clause, it needs to be repeated in the second half


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JulianStuart said:


> I agree - I think that when you put would in the front before a long clause, it needs to be repeated in the second half


I don't know whether I agree or not, Julian.  You make this second coming of the _would_ sound slightly gratuitous.

Won't it interfere with the grammar of the second clause?

An example would help.


----------



## Phoebe1200

I'm a bit confused. So, this part in the OP


Phoebe1200 said:


> he *had* but six months to live


is it just a normal separate sentence used casually in place of the main clause or is it the supposed main clause with an omitted "would have"?


----------



## Loob

Phoebe1200 said:


> I'm a bit confused. So, this part in the OP
> 
> is it just a normal separate sentence used casually in place of the main clause or is it the supposed main clause with an omitted "would have"?


I don't understand your question, Phoebe.


----------



## JulianStuart

Thomas Tompion said:


> I don't know whether I agree or not, Julian.  You make this second coming of the _would_ sound slightly gratuitous.
> 
> Won't it interfere with the grammar of the second clause?
> 
> An example would help.


Reordering your example, and actually reusing post #2

_ Had the doctor not taken his own life, I would estimate that he would have had but six months to live._


----------



## VicNicSor

Loob said:


> I don't understand your question, Phoebe.


Phoebe asks if "he had but six months to live" is used instead of the main clause of the conditional sentence, or it _is _the main clause of the conditional sentence but with "would have" left out.


----------



## Loob

Sorry, Vic, I still don't understand.


----------



## VicNicSor

Loob said:


> Sorry, Vic, I still don't understand.


In other words:
In Phoebe's first alternative, the "if-clause" is part of a conditional, while the 2nd clause is not (with the "tentative" "would")
In the 2nd alternative, both parts are conditional, but in the main clause the "would have" is left out (otherwise it would be "he would _have had"_)


----------



## Loob

Sorry, Vic, I still don't understand. It's clearly time for me to bow out.


----------



## VicNicSor

Never mind, Loob. I'm probably not good at relaying someone else's thoughts


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JulianStuart said:


> Reordering your example, and actually reusing post #2
> 
> _ Had the doctor not taken his own life, I would estimate that he would have had but six months to live._


Thanks for this, Julian.

Isn't the first _would_ gratuitous (in the sense that it doesn't affect anything but the softness/hardness of estimate).

We could say either of these, and they mean much the  same:

_I estimate that had the doctor not taken his own life, he would have had but six months to live._
_I would estimate that had the doctor not taken his own life, he would have had but six months to live._

Because we already have a third conditional form, there's no question of shifting tenses as we move from_ I estimate_ to_ I would estimate_.

The _I would estimate_ is outside the structure of the conditional sentence and I hope that learners realise that its placing at the start or in the middle of the sentence makes no difference to the meaning.


----------



## Phoebe1200

VicNicSor said:


> Phoebe asks if "he had but six months to live" is used instead of the main clause of the conditional sentence, or it _is _the main clause of the conditional sentence but with "would have" left out.





VicNicSor said:


> In other words:
> In Phoebe's first alternative, the "if-clause" is part of a conditional, while the 2nd clause is not (with the "tentative" "would")
> In the 2nd alternative, both parts are conditional, but in the main clause the "would have" is left out (otherwise it would be "he would _have had"_)


I think you've interpreted my question right.
And I asked it because of your post


VicNicSor said:


> I.e., we can indeed omit the "would" in the main clause of a conditional sentence and it'll still be valid!


which made me wonder if this part





Phoebe1200 said:


> he *had* but six months to live.


 is just a normal sentence like this


> *Gibbs:* How long do you think he had?
> *Ducky: *He had but six months to live.


that was casually used in place of the main clause in the OP that should have been "_he would have had but six months to live_"
or is it actually the real main clause in the OP in which the "would have" is just omitted.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Let's remind ourselves of the sentence in the OP





Phoebe1200 said:


> *Ducky: *His kidney and liver functions were deteriorating at an alarming rate. Suffice to say, had the doctor not taken his own life, I would estimate he *had* but six months to live.



I'm still not sure I understand your question, Phoebe.

You were right originally to say that Ducky has made a grammatical error in his sentence.

He's producing a type III conditional - _ had the doctor not taken his own life, he would have had but six months to live._

He's reporting it as his estimate: _I would estimate_ _that_ _ had the doctor not taken his own life, he would have had but six months to live_.

He places the _I would estimate_ in the middle of his type III conditional and, for one reason or another - maybe because he's misled by the _would_ in _I would estimate_, drops the _would have_, and this makes his sentence ungrammatical, as you pointed out initially, Phoebe.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you, Thomas!

But what about Loob's post, in which she says that the version without the "would have" is correct.
I take it you don't agree?


Loob said:


> _The doctor committed suicide. But even if he hadn't committed suicide, he had only six months to live.
> +
> The doctor committed suicide. But even if he hadn't committed suicide, he would have had only six months to live._
> Both of which are correct.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Phoebe1200 said:


> Thank you, Thomas!
> 
> But what about Loob's post, in which she says that the version without the "would have" is correct.
> I take it you don't agree?


I'm reluctant to disagree with Loob, but I don't think his having six months to live is contingent upon his not having committed suicide.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thomas Tompion said:


> but I don't think his having six months to live is contingent upon his not having committed suicide.


Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding this part.
Could you please explain what you mean by it?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Phoebe1200 said:


> Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding this part.
> Could you please explain what you mean by it?


It's to do with what is meant by an if clause:

_If he comes, I will see him_ - his coming will mean that I see him.

_If he hadn't committed suicide, he had six months to live_ - I don't see that his not having committed suicide would mean that he had six months to live.

He had six months to live when he committed suicide.  His having committing suicide does not alter that.  What it alters is what his life expectancy became.  We are being told what it would have been had he not killed himself.

The fact is that he would have had six months to live had he not committed suicide.

You can't drop the_ would have_ and retain coherence, in my view.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thanks a lot for explaining, Thomas!




VicNicSor said:


> I.e., we can indeed omit the "would" in the main clause of a conditional sentence and it'll still be valid! I didn't know that.


Could you please clarify if you're talking about the "would" in "_I would estimate_" or "_he had but six months to live_" here?


----------



## VicNicSor

Phoebe1200 said:


> Could you please clarify if you're talking about the "would" in "_I would estimate_" or "_he had but six months to live_" here?


I referred to Loob's explanation:


Loob said:


> The idea was:
> _The doctor committed suicide. But even if he hadn't committed suicide, he had only six months to live.
> +
> The doctor committed suicide. But even if he hadn't committed suicide, he *would have* had only six months to live._
> Both of which are correct.


That is, to be more precise, I was talking about "would have" rather than "would"


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you, Vic!

And my sincere thanks to everyone for your contributions! I appreciate your help!


----------

