# would have had to have been



## losvedir

Hey all,

I'm really diving into learning Portuguese at the moment, and that's led to my closer examination of my own language, English! How exactly is the following tense (?) parsed:

In order for him to be here now, he *would have had to have been going* more than 80mph the whole time!

I'm a native English speaker; I understand the sentence just fine. However, _grammatically_ I don't really know what's going on. Is that all one crazy tense? There's a bunch of auxilliary verbs in there, it seems.

Also, for non-English speakers: is it intelligible? I can't imagine coming from a language without nearly identical tenses, and grasping everything that says.

Thanks!


----------



## Harry Batt

I wouldn't try to explain that one by rules of grammar. It is best to go out on the playground of an English language school where you hear it said, "You would have said I was safe if you would have had been wearing your glasses." Phrases like this and your 80 mph driver save face. Instead of calling the chap a crazy speed demon, all of that mixture of words saves face for him.  My example is to prevent a fight, by not saying, "You four-eyed idiot. Why did we pick you for umpire. You're as blind as a bat."


----------



## losvedir

Harry Batt said:


> I wouldn't try to explain that one by rules of grammar.



I don't really believe in _prescriptive_ (sp?) grammar, but I do think there is some sort of underlying _descriptive_ grammar that explains how the words work in our minds. It's that latter grammar that I'm trying to employ. So, indeed, it's _exactly_ the case that I'm trying to explain that one by the rules of grammar!



> It is best to go out on the playground of an English language school where you hear it said, "You would have said I was safe if you would have had been wearing your glasses."



I'd probably say "you would have said I was safe [if you would have been/had you been/ if you had been] wearing your glasses."



> Phrases like this and your 80 mph driver save face. Instead of calling the chap a crazy speed demon, all of that mixture of words saves face for him.  My example is to prevent a fight, by not saying, "You four-eyed idiot. Why did we pick you for umpire. You're as blind as a bat."



Hehe, what's the fun in that? 

Addendum to my question. Are all the following equivalent to everyone:


"He would've had to've been going"
"He would _have_ to've been going"
"He would've had to been going"

Ah, my head is exploding! I've kept repeating them enough that none of them really make sense anymore... (semantic satiation, I think?)


----------



## Dimcl

I don't know how to parse it, Losvedir, but the sentence indicates that he didn't make it.  We know that because of "would have".   If he had made it here, the sentence would be:

"In order for him to be here now, he *had to have been going* more than 80mph the whole time!"

Stick in "would have" and he didn't make it.


----------



## xqby

losvedir said:


> Ah, my head is exploding! I've kept repeating them enough that none of them really make sense anymore... (semantic satiation, I think?)



Jamais vu, perhaps. 

"Had been going" is the past perfect continuous tense, if that's the sort of parsing you're looking for. 
And, as Dimcl says, "would have" is a modifier used in constructions in the past to express unfulfilled intention.

In not particularly technical terms I'd say:
"He would have had to have been going."
- Conditional modifier meaning it didn't actually get completed
"He had to have been going."
- Phrase implying obligation or necessity of the next described... thingy
"He had been going."
- Ongoing past action before something else in the past


----------



## Forero

Instead of "would have had to have been going", I would just say "would *have* to have been going."  To my mind, only one _'ve_ is needed to place the requisite going before the hypothetical being here now.

I also wouldn't say "He would've had to been going", but "He would've had to be going."

These would be easier to translate. 

Besides, if he is here now, I'll say "He must have been going at least 80", not "He must have have been going 80", and not "He must have been having gone 80."


----------



## Kevman

losvedir said:


> In order for him to be here now, he *would have had to have been going* more than 80mph the whole time!
> 
> I'm a native English speaker; I understand the sentence just fine. However, _grammatically_ I don't really know what's going on. Is that all one crazy tense? There's a bunch of auxilliary verbs in there, it seems.


I'm no grammar expert, but based on my own study of foreign languages here's my attempt at deconstructing this mess.  In English all of these extra helping verbs serve to indicate things other than tense, such as aspect and mood.  What really complicates matters is when all of these aspect, mood and tense indicators are combined as you have here.

First identify the main verb: _*to go*_. It's in the _conditional perfect continuous_ (cf. here) because it describes a hypothetical ongoing event set in time previous to another event in the sentence (_he would have been going_). Then there's also the modal _*to have to*_, which brings a sense of obligation to bear.
So we've got:
*would* - conditional mood marker
*have* - conditional perfect auxiliary for the modal (the modal is also in the conditional perfect)
*had to* - modal of obligation in the past tense
*have* - conditional perfect auxiliary for the main verb
*been* - continuous aspect marker in the past tense
*going* - main verb, in the form of a present participle since it's in a progressive construction with "be"

So I see it as a fairly straightforward past continuous conjugation of _*to go*_, but it gets pretty complicated once you layer on the modal and the conditional.


_EDIT-_ Hey, me and xqby even used the same color-coding scheme!  I swear I hadn't seen his response yet when I posted mine.


----------



## losvedir

Thanks everyone, that's exactly the analysis I was hoping for. The word-by-word breakdown of *Kevnman* and *xqcb* were especially helpful.


----------



## Loob

Like Forero, I prefer either "would have had to be going" or "would have to have been going".

I think "would have had to have been going" is a conflation of the two. That's not to say I don't come out with it in speech sometimes: I probably do.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Hi guys, I bumped into this old but interesting thread  

After reading it now I'm wondering

Is it possible to use "_*would have had to have been going* more than 80mph the whole time"_ in the OP sentence to say that we still have a doubt about whether he made it or not?
In other words, *we still don't know* now if he's arrived or not and now we just want to suppose/imagine the average speed of his trip in order for him to arrive here now.

From what I take from all the contributions it seems that the only possible meaning is that "*he didn't make it*" so there's no more room for a supposition or for additional doubt on the part of the speaker.

What do you think friends? Do BE and AmE concur with this only possible meaning in this context?

Thanks


----------



## PaulQ

Yes,
A: Do you think he has reached Moscow by now?"
B: "I doubt it, he _*would have had to have been going* _*at*_ more than 80mph the whole time to be there by now, but I suppose it is possible."_

The certainty is the probability: If, say, his goal was 200 miles away and the question  "Do you think he is there yet" is asked,

If the question is asked after an hour, the answer is "no."
If it is asked after 3 hours, the answer is "possibly."
If it is asked after 4 hours, the answer is "probably."
If it is asked after 7 hours, the answer is "most likely."

and this depends on the vehicle and the road.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Thanks Paul so it doesn't *necessarily* mean that he surely didn't make it , Am I right? 

After reading your post, I understand that "would have had to...." in the sentence is comparable, in a context like this, to "must have arrived" or "will have arrived" or "had to have been going..." although by saying just " would have had to ..." we would be expressing a higher degree of doubt. I hope I've understood 

What do you think?

Thanks


----------



## PaulQ

I think you have understood. 

"In order for him to be here now, he *would have had to have been going* more than 80mph the whole time!" is a response to:

"Do you think he is here yet?"

If we look at the question in the cold light of logic, this is a question that asks for an opinion based on no solid data other than distance and time, something that the questioner could have worked out for themselves.

It is thus clear that


the real meaning of “Do you think he is here yet?” is something like, “I am anxious *about him/that he should arrive soon*. Can you reassure me?”
the person who answers, knows (i) but dismisses the idea of speculation and replaces it with a calculation.
 
More broadly, and from a personal example, I had an acquaintance who (in the early 1970s) told me that he had driven from Vienna to Rotterdam in 9 hours in a one-litre VW Polo. The distance is 1160 km.

I mentioned this to another friend and his response was:
“So he *would have had to have been going at 80mph (*129kph) for the whole journey?”

Note the question mark that asks for confirmation as the story seemed unbelievable: thus we see the unreality of the construction.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Thanks a lot Paul, your example with your old acquaintance is absolutely clear to me 

As a side note, I've just happened to see this usage of "would have" you've described to express doubt or supposition regarding a past event (or even incredulity)
source: http://www.khoisan.org/do.htm
It goes like this:
_*"It is probable that* the Khoikhoi were people derived  from the aboriginal hunters of southern Africa - most probably, on  linguistic grounds, those hunters who lived in northern Botswana. It was  in this area that they changed their economy and became herders.  In so  doing, *they would have had to make significant changes* to their social  organisation - initially as low-class members of a hierarchical  agricultural society, and later as independent herders in their own  right_._ Many questions still remain unanswered though.........._"

In this case, it doesn't mean that those events didn't happen but that now we're just supposing what probably used to happen at the time. To date still nobody knows the truth
Is this what you were talking about Paul?


----------



## PaulQ

Precisely. Merely reading only the words that you have purposely bolded demonstrates the idea.  Speculation, doubt, unreality, etc.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Thanks for confirming Paul


----------



## intolerandus

Hello everyone.
I came across this topic searching for the explanation of similar grammar construction.
There's a thing I can't understand and I hope somebody would help me with it.

I can't understand in specific, on what grounds do we consider such a construction "*would have had to*" as grammatically correct? As far as I know, it's _aux. would + perfect infinitive _(i.e. _conditional perfect + past participle_, if we use modern terms). Why can we insert _modal_ verb "*have to*" in the position of past participle of the main verb?
I would say, the only correct form would be "*would have to have been going*", i.e. modal "*will have to*" used in the reported speech + _perfect continuous infinitive_.

Am I wrong?


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Hi intolerandus, and welcome to the forum. I agree with Loob's post #9 above. I think you are right. 

In my view, "would have had to have been going" is grammatically incorrect. I would be interested to see what kind of tense this would be described as. I don't think it conveys any additional meaning than "would have had to be going" or "would have to have been going".


----------



## intolerandus

Enquiring Mind, thank you very much!
So we could use "*would have had to* be going"? What is it then, theoretically?


----------



## Enquiring Mind

In that case, intolerandus, I must congratulate you because on the strength of (= judging by) your two posts, your English is very good!  I see that I didn't address your query:


> I can't understand in specific, on what grounds do we consider such a construction "*would have had to*" as grammatically correct?


This construction is grammatically correct as an *unreal conditional in the past* (or "third conditional"), as explained about halfway down the page here (source: usefulenglish.ru) 

_If I had missed the last bus, I would have had to walk home._  It's unreal (or speculative), because in fact I didn't miss the last bus, it's a conditional (following an if clause), and it's in the past.



> So we could use "*would have had to* be going"? What is it then, theoretically?


Yes we could.  Here the sense is speculation, supposition, assumption about a situation in the past.
_He would have had to be going at 200 kph._ I estimate that he must have been going at 200 kph, but it's just a guess, a supposition, an assumption. I don't know for sure how fast he was actually going.


----------



## intolerandus

Thanks for the link.
Maybe I'm just stupid... but I can't realize the reason why the sentence '*I would have had to walk home*' is correct. How could we use that modal "had to" instead of the notional verb? This may be correct strictly speaking, but should we after all consider it as good English? 


If "*would have had to*" is correct, then I don't see any obstacles for "*would have had to have been going*" to be correct, for it's absolutely unimportant (in that case) what form of infinitive we use after "*had to*".

UPD.
I finally found that usage in my grammar book. It turned out that we really _can_ use modals in such position. That's interesting.
Inquiring Mind, thank you very much for your help!


----------



## Dear life

Hello all!


Enquiring Mind said:


> I don't think it conveys any additional meaning than "would have had to be going" or "would have to have been going"



Are the following two sentences synonymous?
1) In order for him to get here by now, he would have had to be driving faster from the beginning.
2)In order for him to get here by now, he would have to have been driving faster since the beginning.
Here, by 'beginning' I mean 'from the very start- i.e. it's not about speeding up or slowing down during driving, but keeping a speed (faster than he is actually driving at) from the very start.

Hope, you understand the situation.
Could you please help?



Dimcl said:


> "In order for him to be here now, he *had to have been going* more than 80mph the whole time!


Does it clarify totally that he had been going more than 80mph & he did make it? It seems to me that, he had to do it & nothing further...whereas 'would have had to' makes the supposition much less likely. Does'nt it?
Please help!


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Please tell us what the situation or context is.
Has the person arrived or not?

- Of course Tom's not here yet! It's only two o'clock! He only set off from London at eleven. To be here by now, he _would have had to have driven_ at an average speed of over 100 miles an hour.

If, however, Tom has/had already arrived, we might say "He _must _have driven at over 100 miles an hour!", using the modal 'must' instead of 'have to' with its complications.


----------



## PaulQ

Dear life said:


> Are the following two sentences synonymous?
> 1) In order for him to get here by now, he would have had to be driving faster from the beginning.
> 2)In order for him to get here by now, he would have to have been driving faster since the beginning.


Your sentences are not very idiomatic - what you are discussing is the "average speed for the journey."


Dear life said:


> It seems to me that, he had to do it & nothing further


Yes. You are stating the condition under which the statement would be true.


> ...whereas 'would have had to' makes the supposition much less likely. Doesn't it?


Yes, the use of the "would" is to express some disbelief, or seek confirmation in order to reduce the uncertainty of "would".

See #13 at would have had to have been


----------



## Dear life

Thank you Hermione & Paul 


Hermione Golightly said:


> Please tell us what the situation or context is.
> Has the person arrived or not?


He hasn't. 



PaulQ said:


> Your sentences are not very idiomatic - what you are discussing is the "average speed for the journey."


So, how should I write them? I mean to say that he would have(had) to have been driving faster from the very beginning.


----------



## PaulQ

Dear life said:


> 1) In order for him to get here by now, he would have had to be driving faster from the beginning.
> 2)In order for him to get here by now, he would have to have been driving faster since the beginning.
> Here, by 'beginning' I mean 'from the very start- i.e. it's not about speeding up or slowing down during driving, but keeping a speed (faster than he is actually driving at) from the very start.



For him to be here by now, he would have had to have had a higher average speed/a higher average/a higher speed.
For him to be here by now, he would have kept up/maintained a better speed.
For him to be here by now, he would have had to have driven faster from the start.


----------



## Dear life

Thanks again PaulQ 


PaulQ said:


> For him to be here by now, he would have had to have *had* a higher average speed/a higher average/a higher speed.


Can we omit 'had' here & write-
..., he would have had to *have a *higher average speed?

Another thing which is bothering me is


Harry Batt said:


> You would have said I was safe if you *would have had been* wearing your glasses.


Could you please tell me what tense is it ( the part I have bolded)? Couldn't it simply be* 'would have been wearing*...'?


----------



## london calling

'You would have said I was safe if you *would have had been* wearing your glasses'.

That sounds plain wrong to me. In BE that's '...if you had been wearing...'.

HB's an American - maybe another AE speaker can comment on this.

Edit: Actually, re-reading HB's post (which is pretty confusing) maybe he wasn't condoning this usage at all.


----------



## Dear life

Thank you LondonC. 
Could you please help me with the first part of #27?


PaulQ said:


> For him to be here by now, he would have had to have had a higher average speed/a higher average/a higher speed.





Dear life said:


> Can we omit 'had' here & write-
> ..., he would have had to *have a *higher average speed?



Can we??


----------



## london calling

No, we can't.


----------



## PaulQ

He is not here.


He has to travel -> He must travel
He has to have travelled -> There was a time in the past when he must have travelled and this is still relevant and/or he is there now.
He had to have travelled -> There was a time in the past when he must have travelled but that time has now ended. He may be anywhere.
He would have travelled -> It is probable that there was a time in the past when he has travelled and this is still relevant and/or he is there now.
He would have had to travel-> It is probable that there was a time in the past when he must have travelled, if what is said were true, and this is still relevant and/or he is there now.
He would have had to have travelled-> It is probable that there was a time in the past when he must have travelled, if what is said were true, but that time has now ended. He may be anywhere.


----------



## Dear life

Thanks a lot PaulQ
Thanks to LC too

In brief, probably, Paul's 6(have travelled) refers further back in past than 5 (travel). Am I right?


----------



## PaulQ

Yes.


----------



## Dear life

Thanks PaulQ


----------



## JJXR

Does the perfect infinitive work in the sentence below:

_For him to *have been* here by now, he would have had to have driven faster from the start. _


----------



## Forero

JJXR said:


> Does the perfect infinitive work in the sentence below:
> 
> _For him to *have been* here by now, he would have had to have driven faster from the start. _


There is just no reason I can see for "have had to have driven" in any sentence. What is it supposed to mean? Driving "prior to before" some event?


----------



## london calling

It works for me, in BE. The tense sequencing is fine.


----------



## Loob

JJXR said:


> Does the perfect infinitive work in the sentence below:
> 
> _For him to *have been* here by now, he would have had to have driven faster from the start. _


I don't have a problem with the part you are asking about ie "for him to have been here by now": it works in that sentence.

As regards the second part, "he would have had to have driven faster", my reaction is the same as in post 9. You'll hear this sort of double perfect in casual speech, but I wouldn't recommend it. I would advise you to say or write either  "he would have to have driven faster" or (better, here, I think) "he would have had to drive faster".


----------



## Dear life

Hi everyone  


JJXR said:


> Does the perfect infinitive work in the sentence below:
> 
> _For him to *have been* here by now, he would have had to have driven faster from the start. _


Would it be possible to say '*to be* here by now' in this same sentence with the same context, without changing the meaning? Does the use of 'to be' instead of 'to have been' change the meaning?


----------



## JJXR

JJXR said:


> Does the perfect infinitive work in the sentence below:
> 
> _For him to *have been* here by now, he would have had to have driven faster from the start._





Dear life said:


> Would it be possible to say '*to be* here by now' in this same sentence with the same context, without changing the meaning? Does the use of 'to be' instead of 'to have been' change the meaning?


I'm wondering about the same thing. Could anyone please comment on this? Thanks in advance.


----------



## kentix

> Would it be possible to say '*to be* here by now'



I think it's preferred.


----------



## Forero

Dear life said:


> Would it be possible to say '*to be* here by now' in this same sentence with the same context, without changing the meaning? Does the use of 'to be' instead of 'to have been' change the meaning?


Yes, possible and preferable if the meaning is the same.

But if you mean he should have been here and gone by now, then you have to stick with "to have been".

Note that "been here" may mean either "been at/in this place" or "been to this place", and the latter wording requires the past participle "been" and just does not work with the infinitive "be". Having been to a place usually includes either having gone to that place from somewhere else or having left that place for somewhere else as well as having been at or in it.


----------



## Dear life

Thanks a lot both of you


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for your responses, kentix and Forero.


----------



## Dear life

Hello! I'm sorry to upset the status quo of this thread 


Forero said:


> Instead of "would have had to have been going", I would just say "would *have* to have been going."  To my mind, only one _'ve_ is needed to place the requisite going before the hypothetical being here now.
> 
> I also wouldn't say "He would've had to been going", but "He would've had to be going."
> 
> These would be easier to translate.
> 
> Besides, if he is here now, I'll say "He must have been going at least 80", not "He must have have been going 80", and not "He must have been having gone 80."



Taking into account this disagreement between 'would have had to have been driving 80 mph' and 'would have had to be driving at 80 mph', I guess both could be right with two different meanings.
I gave it some thoughts and felt that the former might indicate that the person is still driving when the statement is said( he should/ needed to/ had to have been driving at 80 mph but he *hasn't been driving *at 80 mph, hence, hasn't arrived yet) while the latter says he needed to be driving at 80 mph to arrive by 10 in the morning ( it's already 12 pm) but he *was not driving* at 80 mph (maybe he is still on the way or he arrived at 11 am).So while the former specifically indicates a time when he is still on the way, driving, the latter is more about what he should have done (in order to have arrived by the time specified).

I'd be glad if any of you give it a read & correct me if I'm wrong.
Thank you in advance.


----------



## Forero

Dear life said:


> Hello! I'm sorry to upset the status quo of this thread
> 
> Taking into account this disagreement between 'would have had to have been driving 80 mph' and 'would have had to be driving at 80 mph', I guess both could be right with two different meanings.
> I gave it some thoughts and felt that the former might indicate that the person is still driving when the statement is said( he should/ needed to/ had to have been driving at 80 mph but he *hasn't been driving *at 80 mph, hence, hasn't arrived yet) while the latter says he needed to be driving at 80 mph to arrive by 10 in the morning ( it's already 12 pm) but he *was not driving* at 80 mph (maybe he is still on the way or he arrived at 11 am).So while the former specifically indicates a time when he is still on the way, driving, the latter is more about what he should have done (in order to have arrived by the time specified).
> 
> I'd be glad if any of you give it a read & correct me if I'm wrong.
> Thank you in advance.


None of these sentences says anything about whether the person is still driving when the statement is said.


----------



## Keith Bradford

I'm just lazy.  Why repeat _*have to*_ when there's no need? I agree with #18.


----------



## SevenDays

losvedir said:


> Hey all,
> 
> I'm really diving into learning Portuguese at the moment, and that's led to my closer examination of my own language, English! How exactly is the following tense (?) parsed:
> 
> In order for him to be here now, he *would have had to have been going* more than 80mph the whole time!
> 
> I'm a native English speaker; I understand the sentence just fine. However, _grammatically_ I don't really know what's going on. Is that all one crazy tense? There's a bunch of auxilliary verbs in there, it seems.
> 
> Also, for non-English speakers: is it intelligible? I can't imagine coming from a language without nearly identical tenses, and grasping everything that says.
> 
> Thanks!



Well, first, we need to set aside the idea of "tense." In _*would have had to have been going*_, there is no tense; with our syntactic magnifying glass, we see that _*would *_is a modal verb (which deals with "modality" not "tense"), _*have *_is an infinitive (required because it follows a modal verb), _*had *_is a participle, _*to have been *_is the perfect infinitive of "to be," and *going *is a participle. There is no "tense," but that's of no consequence. If you want to make a _temporal distinction_, then this comes into play:

If you want to refer to a time that extends from some indefinite point in the past, to the present, you'll say

(a) _he would have had to have been going more than 80 mph the whole time_

because that's the effect of perfect constructions (_have had, have been_). And if you want to refer to a time that is "concurrent" with the moment of speaking, you'll simply say

(b) _he would have to be going more than 80 mph the whole time_

Since both (a) and (b) cover the "present/moment of speaking," it makes no difference which one you use, though you might prefer (b) in that it gets the same message across with fewer words/syllables. 

And keep in mind that in,

_In order for him to be here now_

there is no "tense" either, so we can't tell if "he is here" or "he is not here." What "now" does (_...to be here now_) is to make the sentence concurrent with the moment of speaking.


----------



## Forero

SevenDays said:


> (a) _he would have had to have been going more than 80 mph the whole time_


This is the construction several of us are finding practically useless. Earlier than earlier? Before before?

Yes, I can think of situations in which a perfect infinitive phrase could make sense within a larger perfect infinitive phrase, but in such a situation, I would expect more time information within the sentence, or at least in the wider context, than just the verbal aspect.

If you mean "He would have to have been going ...", just say it. Ditto for "He would have had to be going ...."


----------



## SevenDays

Forero said:


> This is the construction several of us are finding practically useless. Earlier than earlier? Before before?
> 
> Yes, I can think of situations in which a perfect infinitive phrase could make sense within a larger perfect infinitive phrase, but in such a situation, I would expect more time information within the sentence, or at least in the wider context, than just the verbal aspect.
> 
> If you mean "He would have to have been going ...", just say it. Ditto for "He would have had to be going ...."



I hear you. We can only work with what we have, an isolated sentence with no context.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Loob said:


> You'll hear this sort of *double perfect* in casual speech, but I wouldn't recommend it.





Forero said:


> This is the construction several of us are finding practically useless. Earlier than earlier? Before before?



Speaking of the *double perfect*, how about this one:

Mr Obama yesterday responded with characteristic eloquence and modesty in announcing his acceptance. He _*would*_, however, _*have done*_ better _*to have let*_ it be known to those sounding out the White House beforehand that he saw the prize as premature, ill judged and embarrassing at a time when he is preoccupied with fighting a war in Afghanistan.

(1). He _*would have done*_ better _*to have let*_ it be known...
(2). He _*would have done*_ better _*to let*_ it be known...
(3). He _*would do*_ better _*to have let*_ it be known...

Do all the three work fine in the context above?


----------



## se16teddy

3 doesn't make sense because it suggests that he can do something now to alter the past.
I suppose that some people might write 1.
2 is best.


----------



## grammar-in-use

se16teddy said:


> 3 doesn't make sense because it suggests that he can do something now to alter the past.


Thank you for your explanation!
So, "*would have* to have been doing" (which works fine in its context) is _indeed different_ from "_*would do*_ better to have let", isn't it?

"Often it's claimed it's for economic reasons, but actually it's not really for that," says Furedi. "There is a loss of the aspiration for independence and striking out on your own. When I went to university it _*would have been*_ a social death _*to have been seen*_ with your parents, whereas now it's the norm.

I guess "it _*would have been*_ a social death _*to be seen*_ with your parents..." is fine, whereas "it _*would be*_ a social death _*to have been seen*_ with your parents..." is not, for the same reason. Am I right?


----------



## Dear life

It would be social death to be seen with your parents.
'Would be+ past participle form of verb' refers to a hypothetical present or future situation. Here, 'to have been seen' can't work at all.


----------



## se16teddy

grammar-in-use said:


> "it _*would have been*_ social death _*to be seen*_ with your parents..."


  Unlike Furedi, I think “social death” is uncountable.


----------

