# The problem <might have been solved> tomorrow



## JJXR

Hello to all,

Thanks for reading my post.


*Context:*

Bob is John's superior. John and Bob have a problem. It is clear from the circumstances that the problem is impossible to solve quickly. John's estimate is that in the worst case scenario it will be solved only in two months' time. Bob tells John that he needs an immediate solution and orders that the problem be solved tomorrow. John replies to Bob with one of the sentences below.

*Sample sentences:*

1. The problem *might have been solved* tomorrow if it *weren’t* for the fact that 7,200 business owners in New Jersey *have* already *spent* up to $1 million each to purchase a license...

2. The problem *might have been solved* tomorrow if it *weren’t* for the fact that 7,200 business owners in New Jersey *don't have* enough money after purching a license...

3. The problem *might have been solved* tomorrow if 7,200 business owners in New Jersey *had* enough money left after purchasing a license...

*Question:*

As I see it, all three sentences communicate the same thing: the problem won't be solved tomorrow because the owners do not have enough money. 

Sentence #1 is a correct sentence from my earlier thread. I wonder if the conditional perfect "might have been solved" still works in sentences #2 and #3, whose structure is a little different from sentence #1.


Thanks a lot for any comments, corrections or suggestions!

Regards,
JJXR


----------



## Edinburgher

I don't much like using "The problem might have been solved tomorrow" to mean "It might have been possible to solve the problem tomorrow", but let's not worry about that.

I'd say 2 and 1 both work equally well grammatically, because they both use "if it weren't for the fact that", which is fine.  In both cases it's a present fact. In 2, the fact is that they don't have enough money, in 1 it is that they are now in a state of having spent their money, which amounts to the same thing.

I'd say that 3 is also fine, because "had" has the same verb form as the "were" (subjunctive).


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the explanation, Edinburgher.

Let's consider this new context:

John and Bob have a problem. They don't know yet that it's actually a big problem. Bob tells John that he needs an immediate solution and orders that the problem be solved tomorrow. Then, the dialog below unfolds between John and Bob.

John to Bob: "Okay. Whatever you want, boss. Can I go now?"

Bob to John: "Wait, I've just received some new information. Eddie says that it's something serious. Could you check it right now?"

John to Bob: "Okay, I'll do it right away."

After about 10 minutes John says to Bob: "Okay, boss, so here's the story...", and then John says one of the sentences in post #1.

In this new scenario, John had expected to solve the problem quickly, but then realized that it would take about two months to do so. Does "might have been solved" sound more natural in this new context than it does in the context provided in post #1?


----------



## Edinburgher

No, not really.  Well, perhaps a little bit.
It would work with "might have been *solvable* tomorrow" in both scenarios.
But I think I'd say "*I* might have *been able to* solve it tomorrow".


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, Edinburgher.

If I replace "might" with "could" in the sentences in post #1, do they sound more natural then they do with "might"?

As I see it, "the problem could have been solved" is already stative and is equal to "it would have been possible to solve the problem."

The same goes for "I could have solved", which is also stative and is equal to either "it would have been possible for me to solve" or "I would have been able to solve."

In order to give the sense of "might", I could use either "I could probably have solved" or "It could probably have been solved", and that would solve the problem of "might" sounding unnatural.


----------



## Edinburgher

JJXR said:


> If I replace "might" with "could" in the sentences in post #1, do they sound more natural then they do with "might"?


I don't think so.  I think "could have" really works best for a hypothetical event in the past, not the future.  To a slightly lesser extent, the same is true of "might have".  That's why I prefer to phrase it differently in the various ways I've suggested.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, Edinburgher.


----------



## kentix

Might certainly doesn't sound natural there. And to me the whole concept sounds unnatural and wouldn't even be discussed like that.

"The problem can't be solved by tomorrow, boss, because 7,200 business owners in New Jersey *have* already *spent* up to $1 million each to purchase a license..."

You could say "might have only taken a day to fix if..." x hadn't already happened.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, kentix.

Here's a correct sentence suggested in my other thread:

_A. If I *had *a babysitter, I *could have gone* to the party with you tomorrow. But I don't have a babysitter. _

We can present it employing the pattern of the sentences in post #1:

_B. If it *weren't* for the fact that I *don't have* a babysitter, I *could have gone* to the party with you tomorrow. _

I think that someone who dislikes the conditional perfect "might have been solved" in the sentences in post #1 would also dislike the conditional perfect "could have gone" in sentences A and B, or is the underlying logic in the babysitter example different?


----------



## Edinburgher

The logic is slightly different because "having a babysitter" tends to mean having one now.  Babysitters have lives too, and might want to go to parties of their own tomorrow.  To be more realistic, you probably need to say:
_A1:  If I could get a babysitter,
B1:  ...for the fact that I can't get a babysitter,_
But then that would also be interpreted as hypothetical present, and there'd be a clash with the "could have gone" part, and we'd revert to the more natural _I could/would go to the party with you tomorrow._

The alternative is much less attractive:
_A2: If I had been able to get {or the ghastly could have gotten} a babysitter, I could have gone...
B2: If it hadn't been for the fact..._

The trouble with this conditional perfect is that, although it is *theoretically* possible to use it for future events, *in practice* the occasions on which we would choose to do so are few and far between.  We tend to restrict it to past events:
_A3: If I had had {or had been able to get} a babysitter, I could have gone to the party with you yesterday.
B3: {Less likely: too long-winded} If it weren't for the fact that I didn't have {or couldn't get} a babysitter, ..._


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, Edinburgher.


Edinburgher said:


> _A1: If I could get a babysitter,
> B1: ...for the fact that I can't get a babysitter,_
> But then that would also be interpreted as hypothetical present, and there'd be a clash with the "could have gone" part, and we'd revert to the more natural _I could/would go to the party with you tomorrow._


I think that is true in the case of sentence A1 because getting a babysitter in that case would most likely be interpreted as a remote future possibility. However, I still have my doubts about sentence B1, in which case "if it weren't for the fact..." is clearly a present counterfactual condition. Sentence B1 is similar in structure to the sentences below (which are from this thread):


lingobingo said:


> We *would have visited* the tiger enclosure during our trip to the zoo tomorrow, if it *were* *not *currently *closed* to the public.





lingobingo said:


> We *would have tried to see* the tigers tomorrow if their enclosure *wasn’t closed* at the moment.


Here's something else lingobingo said in another thread, which is relevant to what's being discussed in the present thread:


lingobingo said:


> The standard conditionals use *would*. And they say the following:
> 2nd conditional: If A were to happen, B would be the case (speculating about the future)
> 3rd conditional: If A had happened, B would have been the case (speculating about the past)
> 
> Anything else is probably best considered a mixed conditional.
> 
> *They could have turned in their homework by next Monday – if the schools weren’t about to close. *
> A = the schools are about to close / B = students are required to hand in their work by Monday
> Mixed conditional: If it weren’t for A (a fact, not just a possibility), B would have been possible (in the future)


My reasoning below is based on what lingobingo said:

_B1. If it* weren't *for the fact that I *can't [= am not able to] get* a babysitter, I *could go* to the party with you tomorrow.

B11. If I *were able to get* a babysitter, I *could go* to the party with you tomorrow._

Sentences B1 and B11 tell the listener the following: "If the state 'I can't get a babysitter' were not to persist, I would be able to go to the party with you tomorrow." In this case, the listener can't tell whether the speaker has given up the idea of getting a babysitter and going to the party tomorrow.

_B1a. If it* weren't* for the fact that I *can't [= am not able to] get* a babysitter, I *could have gone* to the party with you tomorrow.

B11a. If I *were able to get* a babysitter, I *could have gone *to the party with you tomorrow._

Sentences B1a and B11a tell the listener the following: "I can't get a babysitter, so I've decided not to go to the party with you tomorrow (i.e. I can't go now, and I won't be able to tomorrow)." In this case, the listener understands that the speaker has given up the idea of getting a babysitter and going to the party tomorrow.


----------



## Edinburgher

JJXR said:


> However, I still have my doubts about sentence B1, in which case "if it weren't for the fact..." is clearly a present counterfactual condition.


Actually, it's factual, not counterfactual.  The present true fact is that I *can't get* a babysitter for tomorrow.
The party is tomorrow, so that's when I need to *have* a babysitter.  But I have to plan ahead, so I have to *get* a sitter *today* (meaning I need to make arrangements today for the sitter to come tomorrow).

Despite the "if", the formula "if it weren't for X, I could Y" isn't really a condition at all, it's just a pseudo-conditional way of saying "because of X, I can't Y".

Yes, your B1a and B11a suggest the speaker has given up, and this implication comes mainly from the "could have gone" in the second halves, but also from the first half of B1a.  Although the first half of B11a almost suggests the same, I feel the tense is wrong.  I would instead say "If I *had been* able to get a babysitter", which makes clear that I have not been able to get one.

In B1, the pairing doesn't appeal to me.  With "I could go" there may still be a glimmer of hope, but the stated fact rules that out.  That's why I'd prefer B1a.
B11 is possible.  The first half suggests that getting a babysitter is highly unlikely but not necessarily totally impossible.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the explanation, Edinburgher.


Edinburgher said:


> It might have been possible to solve the problem tomorrow





Edinburgher said:


> might have been *solvable* tomorrow





Edinburgher said:


> *I* might have *been able to* solve it tomorrow


If I phrase sentence #1 (post #1) in one of the ways you've suggested but use the conditional simple instead of the conditional perfect, like this:

_I *might be able to solve* the problem tomorrow if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money...

It *might be possible to solve* the problem tomorrow if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money...

The problem *might be solvable* tomorrow if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money..._

Does this work in the context of post #1?


Edinburgher said:


> The trouble with this conditional perfect is that, although it is *theoretically* possible to use it for future events, *in practice* the occasions on which we would choose to do so are few and far between.


If I use the construction kentix suggested in post #8 with "if it weren't for the fact that", like this:

_The problem *might have *only* taken* a day to fix if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money..._

Does the conditional perfect work well in it in the context of post #1?


----------



## se16teddy

I am not clear why this thread got distracted from its original sentence so early.

_The problem may/might have been solved *by* tomorrow. _This means or can mean that a possibility exists that the problem will be solved at some time between now and some time tomorrow. Epistemic use of "might" indicating a possibility.

I think the original sentence works OK, but we feel lost unless we have some contextual clues helping us to interpret it.
_The problem might have been solved tomorrow, but Fred (the problem-solver) is not coming till the weekend now. _
The implied condition might be something like "if Fred had been coming tomorrow", but no doubt other implied conditions are possible.


----------



## Edinburgher

Part of my problem here is that I'm having difficulty understanding the context of post 1.  I can't get a feel for the causal connection between John's being able to solve the problem and other people having spent money.  The problem is that artificial scenarios are often insufficiently realistic to work with.

If it weren't for the fact that I can't think myself into your scenario, I might have been able to give you a better answer.

Is John saying that the other people having spent money is the only reason he can't solve the problem?
In the (hypothetical, impossible) situation where they had not spent the money, would John definitely be able to solve the problem, or might there still be other reasons why it may not be possible?

No matter what the answers to those questions, I can't help but feel that there would be more natural (and therefore better) ways of saying this.
Therefore, your question comes across as being theoretical almost to the point of pointlessness.  It asks us to choose between alternatives none of which would be our natural choice.


se16teddy said:


> *by* tomorrow


Yes, there is that too.  We don't know whether Bob wants the solution to be in place for tomorrow morning (so that John has to spend the rest of today solving it, and all night if necessary), or whether he wants John to begin work on it first thing tomorrow and finish by the end of the working day.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for your responses, se16teddy and Edinburgher.


Edinburgher said:


> If it weren't for the fact that I can't think myself into your scenario, I might have been able to give you a better answer.


This is different from the case in post #1. It refers to the past and means: "I haven't been able to give you a better answer because I can't think myself into your scenario."


Edinburgher said:


> Is John saying that the other people having spent money is the only reason he can't solve the problem?


Yes, he's saying that because of the fact that the other people have spent money it is impossible for him to solve the problem.


Edinburgher said:


> In the (hypothetical, impossible) situation where they had not spent the money, would John definitely be able to solve the problem, or might there still be other reasons why it may not be possible?


Yes, in that hypothetical situation John would definitely be able to solve the problem. In John's opinion, nothing would prevent him from doing so.


Edinburgher said:


> Yes, there is that too. We don't know whether Bob wants the solution to be in place for tomorrow morning (so that John has to spend the rest of today solving it, and all night if necessary), or whether he wants John to begin work on it first thing tomorrow and finish by the end of the working day.


It's the latter: "He wants John to begin work on it first thing tomorrow and finish by the end of the working day." I deliberately didn't include "by" in the sentences in post #1.


----------



## Edinburgher

JJXR said:


> Yes, in that hypothetical situation John would definitely be able to solve the problem. In John's opinion, nothing would prevent him from doing so.


Then I would probably use _would_ instead of _might_ everywhere.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, Edinburgher.


Edinburgher said:


> Then I would probably use _would_ instead of _might_ everywhere.


Sorry, I should have said he's not 100% sure that he would be able to solve it. I want to use the modal verb "might" in my examples.


JJXR said:


> I *might be able to solve* the problem tomorrow if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money...
> 
> It *might be possible to solve* the problem tomorrow if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money...
> 
> The problem *might be solvable* tomorrow if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money...


Does the conditional simple work in the quoted sentences?


----------



## Edinburgher

JJXR said:


> Does the conditional simple work in the quoted sentences?


I don't think so.  I'd use "might have been".


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, Edinburgher.


Edinburgher said:


> The trouble with this conditional perfect is that, although it is *theoretically* possible to use it for future events, *in practice* the occasions on which we would choose to do so are few and far between.


In this one of those few occasions:


JJXR said:


> If I use the construction kentix suggested in post #8 with "if it weren't for the fact that", like this:
> 
> _The problem *might have *only* taken* a day to fix if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money..._
> 
> Does the conditional perfect work well in it in the context of post #1?


----------



## Edinburgher

JJXR said:


> Is this one of those few occasions?


I think in that example the reference is basically timeless.  It's about how long it would take to fix in the absence of the money problem, be it in the past, present, or future.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, Edinburgher.


Edinburgher said:


> I think in that example the reference is basically timeless. It's about how long it would take to fix in the absence of the money problem, be it in the past, present, or future.


That's interesting. 


Edinburgher said:


> The trouble with this conditional perfect is that, although it is *theoretically* possible to use it for future events, *in practice* the occasions on which we would choose to do so are few and far between.


Below are a couple of occasions on which it was used correctly. In both these cases, the sentences are spoken by someone before 5:30pm.


> If the torpedo hadn't hit us and the ship weren't ablaze we *would have won* the battle by 5:30pm. Since the fire needs to be extinguished and the damaged parts need to be repaired, my estimate is that the battle will be won by 6:00pm. (this link)





> If we hadn't got a flat tyre we *would have been arriving* at 5:30. As it is, we will be arriving around 6:00. (this link)


If I make use of the above pattern and express the idea in post #1 in a similar fashion:

_If it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money, the problem *might have been solved* tomorrow. As it is, it will be solved in two months' time at the least._

Does the conditional perfect "might have been solved" work well here? Is it natural?


----------



## Edinburgher

JJXR said:


> Does the conditional perfect "might have been solved" work well here? Is it natural?


It works well enough, but as with all your other similar examples, the whole construction is unwieldy.  We would find simpler ways of saying it, using shorter sentences.
(Your second sentence is very unnatural.  We'd say "it will take at least two months to solve", but that's not really the main topic here)


----------



## Kacy.H

JJXR, you have been addicted to the conditional tense since 2017.  
Just joking！


----------



## kentix

I agree with Edinburgher. People simply don't talk in that manner. There is no natural way to speak convoluted sentences like that. If your interest is academic and you are studying grammar for its own sake then don't expect it to be natural. Be happy with grammatical.

If you have questions about real people speaking real sentences, throw all of that out. It doesn't happen that way.


Edinburgher said:


> No matter what the answers to those questions, I can't help but feel that there would be more natural (and therefore better) ways of saying this.
> Therefore, your question comes across as being theoretical almost to the point of pointlessness. It asks us to choose between alternatives none of which would be our natural choice.


If we hadn't got a flat tyre we *would have been arriving* at 5:30. As it is, we will be arriving around 6:00. (this link)

If we hadn't got a flat we would have been there at 5:30 but now it won't be until around 6.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for your responses, kentix, Kacy.H and Edinburgher.


Kacy.H said:


> JJXR, you have been addicted to the conditional tense since 2017.
> Just joking！


Well, it's been productive. I've learned a lot since then. Hopefully, some day I won't have to ask all these questions anymore.  


Edinburgher said:


> _I *might be able to solve* the problem tomorrow if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money...
> 
> It *might be possible to solve* the problem tomorrow if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money...
> 
> The problem *might be solvable* tomorrow if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money..._
> 
> 
> 
> Does the conditional simple work in the quoted sentences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think so. I'd use "might have been".
Click to expand...

This is the original version I found on this website:

_The problem *would be easier to solve* if it weren’t for the fact that 7,200 business owners in New Jersey have already spent up to $1 million each to purchase a license, and they don’t want to accept competition from new establishments that receive far easier and cheaper access._

This sentence is a little bit different from sentence #1 (post #1). I wonder if you would accept it with the conditional simple "would be." If so, does the conditional simple mean this to you: "I'm 100% sure that at the present moment the problem is not easier to solve, but I couldn't say whether or not it will be easier to solve in the future."?

On the other hand, if the conditional perfect was used instead:

_The problem *would have been easier to solve* if it weren’t for the fact that 7,200 business owners in New Jersey have already spent up to $1 million each to purchase a license, and they don’t want to accept competition from new establishments that receive far easier and cheaper access._

Would this be taken to mean that the speaker is sure that the problem will not be easier to solve in the future? I would interpret the reference here as timeless, as you say in post #21.


----------



## lentulax

JJXR said:


> This is the original version I found on this website:
> 
> _The problem *would be easier to solve* ..._
> 
> … does the conditional simple mean this to you: "I'm 100% sure that at the present moment the problem is not easier to solve, but I couldn't say whether or not it will be easier to solve in the future."?
> 
> On the other hand, if the conditional perfect was used instead:
> 
> _The problem *would have been easier to solve* if it weren’t for the fact that 7,200 business owners in New Jersey have already spent up to $1 million each to purchase a license, and they don’t want to accept competition from new establishments that receive far easier and cheaper access_
> 
> Would this be taken to mean that the speaker is sure that the problem will not be easier to solve in the future?



No and no. The conviction being expressed is that the problem would , in a given counter-factual situation, be easier to solve _than it actually is now _. To say '"I'm 100% sure that at the present moment the problem is not easier to solve _than it actually is now_' …" is simply pointless. No view whatsoever is expressed about whether future circumstances may make the problem more tractable. The problem, in context, is a current one ('What can be done?' asks the heading) and 'New Jersey lawmakers are poised to debate a bill'. Why do you want to use the conditional perfect?


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, lentulax.


lentulax said:


> No view whatsoever is expressed about whether future circumstances may make the problem more tractable.


Doesn't that in turn imply that they may make it more tractable? In the case of "would be", the speaker is only saying that it is not easier to solve it now, he/she is not saying anything about whether it was not easier to solve it in the past or whether it will not be easier to solve it in the future. The conditional perfect, however, expresses the speaker's belief that it was not easier to solve the problem not only in the past, but also in the present and the future. The reference is timeless.

Here's an example of that usage:


lingobingo said:


> If the team were training now, they might have stood a chance of winning tomorrow's game.


The quoted sentence, which is from this thread, can be phrased like this in order to match the pattern under discussion:

_If it weren't for the fact that the team isn't training now, they *might have stood a chance of winning* tomorrow's game._


lentulax said:


> The problem, in context, is a current one ('What can be done?' asks the heading) and 'New Jersey lawmakers are poised to debate a bill'. Why do you want to use the conditional perfect?


I just want to know how the meaning of the sentence would change if it were used instead of the conditional simple in that context.

In lingobingo's example, the problem is also a current one: "Do they stand a chance of winning tomorrow's game?". However, the conditional perfect is correct, and it's used there for a reason. I think the sentence would also be correct with the conditional simple: "might stand a chance of winning tomorrow's game.", but it wouldn't express the same thing as the conditional perfect does.


----------



## kentix

No disrespect to lingo, but that seems like a crazy sentence.

- If the team were training now, they might have stood a chance of winning tomorrow's game.

- If the team were training now, maybe they'd have some chance of winning tomorrow's game.


----------



## lingobingo

If you check that link, you’ll see that the sentence JJXR quotes above was an adaptation of his own original – illustrating the point that *would* should be changed to *might* to avoid the sweeping assumption that simply by training beforehand you’ll automatically win tomorrow’s match. 

For the record, I too find these contorted conditionals far from idiomatic, even when they can be justified grammatically. I look forward to the day when JJ finds something new to ask us endless questions about, because this subject has been done to death.


----------



## lentulax

[


JJXR said:


> n the case of "would be", the speaker is only saying that it is not easier to solve it now, he/she is not saying anything about whether it was not easier to solve it in the past or whether it will not be easier to solve it in the future. The conditional perfect, however, expresses the speaker's belief that it was not easier to solve the problem not only in the past, but also in the present and the future.



I'll confine myself to one point : can you explain why you think the conditional perfect (unlike the conditional) expresses the speaker's belief about the future? This is not a concept I recognise at all (or find in any way logical).


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for your responses, kentix, lingobingo and lentulax.


lentulax said:


> I'll confine myself to one point : can you explain why you think the conditional perfect (unlike the conditional) expresses the speaker's belief about the future?


Let's consider the context of post #1 again:


JJXR said:


> *Context:*
> 
> Bob is John's superior. John and Bob have a problem. It is clear from the circumstances that the problem is impossible to solve quickly. John's estimate is that in the worst case scenario it will be solved only in two months' time. Bob tells John that he needs an immediate solution and orders that the problem be solved tomorrow. John replies to Bob with one of the sentences below.


Let's consider these three sentences with which John replies to Bob (they are from post #13):


JJXR said:


> I *might be able to solve* the problem tomorrow if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money...
> 
> It *might be possible to solve* the problem tomorrow if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money...
> 
> The problem *might be solvable* tomorrow if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money...


Edinburgher says in post #19 that "might be" is wrong in the quoted sentences, and that "might have been" should be used instead. That's why I think that the conditional perfect is the tense to use to express the speaker's belief about the future and also the speaker's acceptance of the fact that solving the problem tomorrow is now a thing of the past.


----------



## Edinburgher

I think the use of "tomorrow" confuses things.  The fact mentioned in the second halves of all three sentences has closed the door on the possibility of solving the problem at any time.  It can't be fixed tomorrow, it can't be fixed now, and it couldn't be fixed in the past either, ever since the fact became true.  It is this past closing of the door that justifies "might have been", which itself acknowledges the impossibility, acknowledges that the door is closed.
"Might be" is less defeatist, has some hope, and is therefore not compatible with a firmly closed door.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, Edinburgher.


Edinburgher said:


> I think the use of "tomorrow" confuses things.


It seems to me that in the context of post #1 it's optional because it's clear from the context that John and Bob are referring to tomorrow, i.e. if "tomorrow" is omitted, the following is still clear:

In the past, it was impossible to fix the problem tomorrow.
Now, it is impossible to fix the problem tomorrow.
Some time from now (including tomorrow), it will be impossible to fix the problem tomorrow.

Without "tomorrow", the message the sentence communicates would be:

In the past, it was impossible to fix the problem.
Now, it is impossible to fix the problem.
In the future, it will be impossible to fix the problem.

So, without supporting context, and if "tomorrow" is not included, the meaning will be that it's impossible to solve the problem at all.


Edinburgher said:


> "Might be" is less defeatist, has some hope, and is therefore not compatible with a firmly closed door.


So is "would be" in the sentence below:


JJXR said:


> This is the original version I found on this website:
> 
> _The problem *would be easier to solve* if it weren’t for the fact that 7,200 business owners in New Jersey have already spent up to $1 million each to purchase a license, and they don’t want to accept competition from new establishments that receive far easier and cheaper access._


Because it only expresses this:


JJXR said:


> In the case of "would be", the speaker is only saying that it is not easier to solve it now, he/she is not saying anything about whether it was not easier to solve it in the past or whether it will not be easier to solve it in the future.


If the speaker wants to make it clear that the door is now firmly closed, then they should say:


JJXR said:


> _The problem *would have been easier to solve* if it weren’t for the fact that 7,200 business owners in New Jersey have already spent up to $1 million each to purchase a license, and they don’t want to accept competition from new establishments that receive far easier and cheaper access._





JJXR said:


> The conditional perfect, however, expresses the speaker's belief that it was not easier to solve the problem not only in the past, but also in the present and the future. The reference is timeless.


----------



## Edinburgher

JJXR said:


> It seems to me that in the context of post #1 it's optional because it's clear from the context that John and Bob are referring to tomorrow, i.e. if "tomorrow" is omitted, the following is still clear:


My point is that even though they have been talking about tomorrow, the second half of the sentence by itself already establishes that fixing the problem is totally impossible, and not just impossible tomorrow.  The context of "talking about tomorrow" does not restrict the impossibility, and so it is pointless to mention tomorrow.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, Edinburgher.


Edinburgher said:


> My point is that even though they have been talking about tomorrow, the second half of the sentence by itself already establishes that fixing the problem is totally impossible, and not just impossible tomorrow.


In the sentence below, the second part "if it weren't for the fact that..." doesn't make the conditional simple "would be" in the first part incorrect:


JJXR said:


> This is the original version I found on this website:
> 
> _The problem *would be easier to solve* if it weren’t for the fact that 7,200 business owners in New Jersey have already spent up to $1 million each to purchase a license, and they don’t want to accept competition from new establishments that receive far easier and cheaper access._


That leads me to the following conclusion:

The conditional simple "might be" is correct in all these three versions:


JJXR said:


> _I *might be able to solve* the problem tomorrow if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money...
> 
> It *might be possible to solve* the problem tomorrow if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money...
> 
> The problem *might be solvable* tomorrow if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money..._


But then John is talking about the problem being impossible to solve at the present moment (now as he speaks to Bob). He's not saying that the problem is totally impossible to solve.

Is my conclusion correct?


----------



## kentix

All those need might have been. It's not solvable.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, kentix.

Actually, it's solvable. The context of post #1 says that it's impossible to solve it tomorrow, but that in the worst case scenario it will take two months to solve.


----------



## Edinburgher

JJXR said:


> in the worst case scenario it will take two months to solve it.


Is that because in two months' time those 7200 owners will be able to find another million dollars each?  

Actually, it doesn't make any difference whether it's permanently unsolvable or temporarily unsolvable.  Constructions like "but for" or "if it weren't for" or "if it hadn't been for" all need "might have been", because that agrees with the impossibility.  They don't sound right with "might be", which admits possibility.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, Edinburgher.


Edinburgher said:


> Is that because in two months' time those 7200 owners will be able to find another million dollars each?


Yes. 


Edinburgher said:


> Constructions like "but for" or "if it weren't for" or "if it hadn't been for" all need "might have been", because that agrees with the impossibility. They don't sound right with "might be", which admits possibility.


Do those constructions work differently with "would"? Are these sentences correct in the context of post #1:

_I *would be able to solve* the problem tomorrow if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money...

It *would be possible to solve* the problem tomorrow if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money...

The problem *would be solvable* tomorrow if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money..._


----------



## Edinburgher

JJXR said:


> Do those constructions work differently with "would"?


No.  Same problem.  "If it weren't for" => impossible.  "Would be" => possible.
"Would have been" could work.  Haven't we been here before?

"Would" is more definite, "might" is more tentative.
"I would have been able" => But for this fact, I could definitely have solved the problem tomorrow.
"I might have been able" => But for this fact, I could possibly have solved the problem tomorrow.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, Edinburgher.


Edinburgher said:


> Haven't we been here before?


We have, but there's still something I don't understand. I am not clear about the following:


JJXR said:


> This is the original version I found on this website:
> 
> _The problem *would be easier to solve* if it weren’t for the fact that 7,200 business owners in New Jersey have already spent up to $1 million each to purchase a license, and they don’t want to accept competition from new establishments that receive far easier and cheaper access._


"Would be" is used in the quoted sentence. It also has "easier" next to it. Does "would be easier to solve" work for you here?

If so, then if I add something like "easier" (for example, "much faster") to the sentences below:

_I *would be able to solve* the problem much faster if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money...

It *would be possible to solve* the problem much faster if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money...

The problem *would be* *solvable* much faster if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money..._

Are they correct in the context of post #1?


----------



## Edinburgher

JJXR said:


> Does "would be easier to solve" work for you here?


Yes, I think so.  It's a much better fit to the context of the article.


> Are they correct in the context of post #1?


Almost, but ultimately not really.  The problem is that the context isn't quite right.  Your scenario is unrealistic in that you've taken half of it out of one particular context and invented a new other half that is not a good match.  That's really the main reason why you cannot get a clear and satisfactory answer to your questions.

There is no way Bob would be so stupid as to order John to fix it tomorrow if he already knows that this is impossible.
If John has just told Bob that he thinks it will take two months, then he could add one of these statements, but he would still be more likely to use "would have been" than "would be", unless the fact could be made to disappear or its effect reduced.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, Edinburgher.


Edinburgher said:


> There is no way Bob would be so stupid as to order John to fix it tomorrow if he already knows that this is impossible.


Suppose he's nuts in a way. He dislikes those who fail in their duties, and by ordering to fix the problem tomorrow he wants to make it clear to John that the answer "no" doesn't work with him no matter what the circumstances are.

I've thought more about it, and I've noticed the following difference between the two cases.

In the context of post #1, John has given up the idea of solving the problem tomorrow:

_The problem *might have been solvable* tomorrow if it weren't for the fact people have spent a lot of money.
=
I *have decided not to solve* the problem tomorrow because people have spent a lot of money, i.e. because of that fact, in my opinion, the problem is impossible to solve then._

In the article, they are determined to solve the problem:

_The problem *would be easier to solve* if it weren't for the fact people have spent a lot of money.
=
We *have decided to solve* the problem, but it's not as easy to solve as it would be if it weren't for the fact that people have spent a lot of money._

Is my observation correct? Is that what makes the difference?


----------



## kentix

No. Neither sentence says anything about them making a decision to try or not try. Both sentences only talk about the objective difficulty of solving the problem.

In other words:

_The problem *might have been solvable* tomorrow if it weren't for the fact people have spent a lot of money.
*≠*
I *have decided not to solve* the problem tomorrow because people have spent a lot of money, i.e. because of that fact, in my opinion, the problem is impossible to solve then._


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the explanation, kentix.


JJXR said:


> This is the original version I found on this website:
> 
> _The problem *would be easier to solve* if it weren’t for the fact that 7,200 business owners in New Jersey have already spent up to $1 million each to purchase a license, and they don’t want to accept competition from new establishments that receive far easier and cheaper access._


As far as the quoted sentence is concerned, the lawmakers have decided to solve the problem. This is what the article says:


> After decades of listening to restaurateurs gripe about the often prohibitively high cost of a liquor license, New Jersey lawmakers are poised to debate a bill that could dramatically lower their price and increase the quantity available.


If, instead of that, something like this was in the article: "Lawmakers are being pressured to solve the problem as quickly as possible, but they're not going to do it next week because they don't know how.", then the conditional perfect in the sentence below would be correct in reference to next week: 

_The problem *would have been easier to solve* if it weren’t for the fact that 7,200 business owners in New Jersey have already spent up to $1 million each to purchase a license, and they don’t want to accept competition from new establishments that receive far easier and cheaper access._

Am I right?


----------

