# To have got the job was ["perfect infinitive" without subject]



## Unique.s

The following sentences are followed by 'to have+past participle':

1. To have got the job in the face of such stiff compitition was a great achievement

2. To have won the race would have been fanstastic.

(Source: cambridge dictionery perfect infinitive Perfect infinitive with to ( to have worked ) - English Grammar Today - Cambridge Dictionaries Online)

I'm non-native speaker and I'm stil learning English grammar. I find English a bit complex in some grammatical usage.

I don't know the meaning offirst sentence. I also don't know how and when should i use this kind of sentence.
  In my openion,
the second sentence is conditional. I guess it's meaning might be "If subject had won the race, it would have been fanstastic. But, i don't know when and how to use this kind of conditional sentence.

I would appreciate your helpfull answer. Thank you.


----------



## PaulQ

"To have got the job" is a noun phrase (a phrase that acts as a noun.)
There are two types of infinitive: the present infinitive - "to win" and the perfect infinitive - to have won.

The infinitives "to have won" "to win" has no subject - the reader of the listener must supply the subject. They do this from the context.

1. To have got the job was a great achievement =
The fact that I/you/he/she/it/we/they/John/Mary/all the people who applied, etc., have got the job was a great achievement.

You use it when you have already mentioned the subject:

1. I see that Rajeev went for an interview at the bank and he was selected - to have got the job in the face of such stiff competition was a great achievement.

1a. I see that Rajeev went for an interview at the bank and he was selected - the fact that he got the job in the face of such stiff competition was a great achievement.


----------



## Unique.s

Can I say "To get the job in the face of such stiff compitition was a great achevement" without changing the meaning of orginal sentence" ?

Can't i use present infinitive(to get) to refer to a past event ?

Do you mean"To have got the job"= the fact that he had got the job or he got the job ?

I'm confused between 'past perfect' and 'simple past.'


----------



## PaulQ

Unique.s said:


> I'm confused between 'past perfect' and 'simple past.'


With an infinitive there is no tense. The "have" is merely emphatic.


----------



## Unique.s

Ok, sir, i got it
 but could you please reply to my previous question- " Do you mean 'to have got the job= . . . Job ?

Can't i say 'To get the job in the face of such stiff compition was a great achevement" without changing the meaning of the orginal sentene ?


----------



## PaulQ

Unique.s said:


> Do you mean"To have got the job"= the fact that he had got the job or he got the job ?


It can mean either - they seem to be the same thing.


----------



## Unique.s

Ok but, i've also asked another earlier question-can't i say "To get the . . . . . .sentence ? Would you reply me


----------



## Phoebe1200

Unique.s said:


> Can I say "To get the job in the face of such stiff compitition was a great achevement" without changing the meaning of orginal sentence" ?
> 
> Can't i use present infinitive(to get) to refer to a past event ?


I'm interested in an answer to this question too. Could you please help us out?


----------



## johngiovanni

Yes you can.  That's why it's called the infinitive.
"To get the job was/ is / will be..."  (Do a search).

"To have won the race would have been fantastic, but to get second place was pretty good."
The second sentence implies that someone didn't actually win the race.


----------



## Phoebe1200

johngiovanni said:


> "To have won the race would have been fantastic, but to get second place was pretty good."


Thanks. 
And could the second half of the sentence be put like this and mean the same?
_"To have won the race would have been fantastic, but *to have got* second place was pretty good."_


----------



## johngiovanni

Yes, that's possible, it makes sense.  But the infinitive works, and it is (to my mind) neater.
"To win the race would have been fantastic, but to get second place was pretty good".
"It would have been fantastic to win the race, but getting second place was a real achievement".


----------



## Phoebe1200

And is it also possible to change the first half of the sentence without any change in meaning?
_"*To win* the race would have been fantastic, but to get second place was pretty good."_


----------



## johngiovanni

I think so.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Sorry for probably asking twice. But just to make it super clear, in the following sentence those two forms work absolutely interchangeably with no change in meaning, right? 

_"*To have got/to get* the job in the face of such stiff competition was a great achievement."_


----------



## johngiovanni

Yes.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you very much. I appreciate your help.


----------



## Unique.s

I'm not fully convinced with answers, If both present infinitive and perfect infinitive gives the same meaning and works the same.

Why there is the use of  ' To have got' instead of using 'To get?

Could you please help me to learn about it ?


----------



## Phoebe1200

Unique.s said:


> If both present infinitive and perfect infinitive gives the same meaning and works the same.
> 
> Why there is the use of ' To have got' instead of using 'To get?


I'm curious too now.


----------



## johngiovanni

Though strictly speaking infinitives have no tense, they take on a sense of time in relation to the main verb in the sentence.  A simple infinitive refers to an action that takes place at the same time as the main verb, whether that verb is in one of the present, past or future tenses.  That is why I preferred the simple infinitive in your first sentence.

The so-called "perfect infinitive" is appropriate when the timing of the action expressed by it is different from that of the main verb.
Example:  "He seems (now) to have revised thoroughly all his course notes" (then)".

However, when the perfect infinitive is the subject of the sentence and is a counterfactual conditional, the "timing" matches that of the main verb - as in your second sentence: "To have won the race would have been fantastic".
(He/She did not win the race).


----------



## Phoebe1200

PaulQ said:


> With an infinitive there is no tense. The "have" is merely emphatic.


Could you please explain this?
Do you mean that it's merely emphatic only in the case when there's no change in meaning?
e.g. _"*To have got/to get* the job in the face of such stiff competition was a great achievement."_


----------



## PaulQ

Yes, both versions of your sentence mean the same "*To have got/to get* the job in the face of such stiff competition was a great achievement."


----------



## Phoebe1200

And what about this case _"To *have* won the race would have been fantastic".?_
Is _"have"_ here just emphatic too?


----------



## PaulQ

Yes. Infinitives lack a subject and a tense.


----------



## Phoebe1200

PaulQ said:


> Yes. Infinitives lack a subject and a tense.


Are you saying that I can say this sentence like this as well, with no change in meaning?

_"*To win* the race would have been fantastic"_


----------



## johngiovanni

I don't know whether we are confusing things here.

"T*o get* the job in the face of such stiff competition was a great achievement" works because the action expressed by the simple infinitive takes place at the same time as the main verb.  (It is factual - he _did_ get the job).  We _understand_ the version "To have got the job", but that "perfect infinitive" version is not strictly required -the simple infinitive works.  I prefer the simple infinitive in this case, but understand the sense of the perfect infinitive, so don't lose sleep over it.

When the perfect infinitive is the subject of the sentence *and* is a counterfactual conditional, the "timing" also matches that of the main verb:
"To have won the race would have been fantastic".  It is counterfactual - he didn't win the race.


----------



## Phoebe1200

johngiovanni said:


> I don't know whether we are confusing things here.
> 
> "T*o get* the job in the face of such stiff competition was a great achievement" works because the action expressed by the simple infinitive takes place at the same time as the main verb.  (It is factual - he _did_ get the job).  We _understand_ the version "To have got the job", but that "perfect infinitive" version is not strictly required -the simple infinitive works.  I prefer the simple infinitive in this case, but understand the sense of the perfect infinitive, so don't lose sleep over it.
> 
> When the perfect infinitive is the subject of the sentence *and* is a counterfactual conditional, the "timing" also matches that of the main verb:
> "To have won the race would have been fantastic".  It is counterfactual - he didn't win the race.


I understand what you're saying here. 
But I just want to know if I can put it like this: _"*To win* the race would have been fantastic"_


----------



## johngiovanni

I prefer the "to have won the race" for the reasons given in post 22.  It is the subject of the sentence and a counterfactual conditional, and that is the construction I am used to.


----------



## Phoebe1200

It is the same as saying: _If I had won the race it would have been fantastic._
Is that correct?


----------



## johngiovanni

Yes, I think it is.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Please, tell me if I understand this correctly.

In cases when we need the perfect infinitive and it's important to use it as in the example:_
"*To have won *the race would have been fantastic" _the *"have*" here is not emphatic.

But in a case when it doesn't matter whether we use the simple infinitive or the perfect infinitive, as in the example: _"*To have got/to get* the job in the face of such stiff competition was a great achievement"_ here *"have" *is merely emphatic.


----------



## johngiovanni

I never talked about "emphatic".  Paul did in post 5.  I do not see the "have" in "To have won the race would have been fantastic" as emphatic.
Just to repeat: "It is the subject of the sentence and a counterfactual conditional, and that is the construction I am used to."


----------



## PaulQ

In "To have won the race would have been fantastic" *To have won the race* is a noun phrase.
In "He seems (now) to have revised thoroughly all his course notes" *seems to have revised* is one verb.

You have asked about "*To have got the job *in the face of such stiff competition *was* a great achievement" and "*To have won the race* *would have been* fantastic." 

*To have got the job *and* To have won the race *are both noun phrases.

I have marked the verbs in *red bold*. It is verbs that give tense to a sentence, not nouns.


----------



## siares

johngiovanni said:


> When the perfect infinitive is the subject of the sentence *and* is a counterfactual conditional, the "timing" also matches that of the main verb:
> "To have won the race would have been fantastic". It is counterfactual - he didn't win the race.


Thanks, JohnGiovanni, for posting this - I disbelieved it, and I never heard of this so googled and found this*:
The form of the infinitive in the phrase 
it would have been better for him _to have stayed outside_ *implies* (in the same Way as if he had stayed) that *he did not* stay outside, _which the simple 'to stay' _in 
it would have been better for him to stay outside does not...

I cannot feel this difference.
The 'it would have been' provides all the counterfactuality I can handle, the rest doesn't have an impact on me.
Can you think of a situation/dialogue where the difference is markedly obvious?

And what about if we have the same in negative?
It would have been better to not have stayed outside. - Does it also imply to you that he *did* stay outside more strongly than:
It would have been better to not stay outside.

In present tense, I think there is stylistic difference only:
Tennyson's
'Tis better to have loved and lost: Than never to have loved at all. = it is better to be a person with experience of love and loss, than it is to be a person without the experience of love.
It is better to love and lose than never to love at all. = it is better to engage in (both) love and loss, than not to engage in love at all.
Maybe the first one is more 'concluded'.



Phoebe1200 said:


> In cases when we need the perfect infinitive and it's important to use it as in the example:


I don't think the difference JohnGiovanni gave is observed mandatorily:
"To win would have been perfect but when you are losing in the first half and keep the same gap, it's positive." (Rafa Benitez about a match he didn't win 20 March 2016 BBC)

*Otto Jespersen, The Philosophy of Grammar


----------



## johngiovanni

I shy away from "mandatory" in usage terms.  (My signature is a quotation of Dr Johnson translated into slightly old Italian about the folly of seeking to enchain syllables).
People are people and do not always follow prescriptive grammatical rules, and the grammar evolves.  I will not quibble with Rapha's use of the English grammar.  I understand perfectly what he means.  "To have won would have been perfect." I know as well as he does that he lost.

As for the word order of your suggested sentences "It would have been better to not have stayed outside" and "It would have been better to not stay outside, do a search on "It would have been better *not to have*...".  (Avoid "to not have...").

The Tennyson quote begins with a present tense. The main verb is in the present tense - 'Tis. The perfect infinitive here refers to a different "timing", that is, the past.  It is a normal use of the perfect infinitive.
There is no counterfactuality here.
However, I think your alternative version of the Tennyson quote is food for thought.  And, without wanting to sound patronising, it is very impressive.
In the original, there is a looking back, as it were, from the point of view of the present.  It sounds perhaps more wistful.  In your revised version, it sounds more like advice, without the backward-looking wistfulness.
I may come back to this when I have given it more thought, or when others have given their views.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Hi,
It would have been better not *to have stayed* outside.
It would have been better not *to stay* outside.

Is there any difference between using those two forms in this sentence?


----------



## Phoebe1200

PaulQ said:


> In "To have won the race would have been fantastic" *To have won the race* is a noun phrase.
> 
> You have asked about "*To have got the job *in the face of such stiff competition *was* a great achievement" and "*To have won the race* *would have been* fantastic."
> 
> *To have got the job *and* To have won the race *are both noun phrases.


Do you mean that when an *"infinitive+past participle" *is used as a noun phrase, only in this case *"have"* is emphatic and it would not matter if we changed it to this _"*To win* the race would have been fantastic"/"*To get *the job in the face of such stiff competition was a great achievement" _since *"have" *is merely emphatic in your sentences?



PaulQ said:


> "He seems (now) to have revised thoroughly all his course notes" *seems to have revised* is one verb. It is verbs that give tense to a sentence, not nouns.


But when *"have" * is part of the verb that actually gives tense to it as in your example above, then in this case *"have*" it's not emphatic. Do I understand you correctly?


----------



## PaulQ

Phoebe1200 said:


> Do you mean that when an *"infinitive+past participle" *is used as a noun phrase, only in this case *"have"* is emphatic and it would not matter if we changed it to this _"*To win* the race would have been fantastic"/"*To get *the job in the face of such stiff competition was a great achievement" _since *"have" *is merely emphatic in your sentences?


Yes.





> But when *"have" * is part of the verb that actually gives tense to it as in your example above, then in this case *"have*" it's not emphatic. Do I understand you correctly?


Yes.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you PaulQ. 
Hopefully, last question that's been bugging me from the beginning. You first mentioned* "have" *being emphatic in your post 4, but you seemed to be talking about it used as an auxiliary verb in past perfect, since that what you quoted from the OP.


----------



## PaulQ

"To have <verbed> can be either 
(i) a noun phrase ("*To have won* would have been marvellous.")
(ii) part of the active verb (He *seems to have fallen* from the cliff.")

As a noun phrase, it has no tense.
As part of an active verb it does have a tense.

Your example is very complex, I am not sure that it will help you understand. In the sentences 

It would have been better not *to have stayed* outside.
It would have been better not *to stay* outside.

*It *is the "preparatory it". *It* is a dummy subject and means "not *to [have] stay[ed]* outside."

The sentences now become:

not *to stay* outside would have been better 
not *to have stayed* outside would have been better 

"not *to [have] stay[ed]* outside." is a noun phrase and has no tense.


----------



## Phoebe1200

johngiovanni said:


> When the perfect infinitive is the subject of the sentence *and* is a counterfactual conditional, the "timing" also matches that of the main verb:
> "To have won the race would have been fantastic". It is counterfactual - he didn't win the race.





siares said:


> The form of the infinitive in the phrase
> it would have been better for him _to have stayed outside_ *implies* (in the same Way as if he had stayed) that *he did not* stay outside, _which the simple 'to stay' _in
> it would have been better for him to stay outside does not...


I'm just confused a bit here. 

It would have been better *to have stayed* outside. (this as I see says that he didn't stay)
It would have been better *to stay* outside. ( but here, does it mean the same thing=that he didn't stay?)


----------



## PaulQ

Phoebe1200 said:


> but here, does it mean the same thing=that he didn't stay?


Yes. In both cases, the person is not outside but wishes he were.
It would have been better *to have stayed* (or "*staying*" = gerund/noun) outside. = Staying outside would have been better.
It would have been better *to stay* (or "*staying*" = gerund/noun) outside. = Staying outside would have been better.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thanks a lot. And what about their negative variants as Siares asked?



siares said:


> And what about if we have the same in negative?
> It would have been better not to have stayed outside. - Does it also imply to you that he *did* stay outside more strongly than:
> It would have been better not to stay outside.


Do they both equally mean that the person* did* stay outside?


----------



## PaulQ

Yes.


----------

