# He will have had to have done it



## gramster

I am trying to clarify for myself the use of the perfect infinitive such as "getan haben" with a modal such as "müssen", in particular as it would be used in future perfect constructions.

For example, I would like to translate "he will have had to have done it" into German as follows: 

Main clause: "Er wird es haben getan haben müssen."
Subordinate clause: "ich weiß, dass er es wird haben getan haben müssen."

But a native German speaker tells me there are too many "haben"s in the sentence and that it should be (main clause) "er wird es hatte getan haben müssen". But that seems like it must be wrong to me because it has two finite verbs.

Please confirm for both the main clause and the subordinate, as I am also trying to understand the shift in word order.


----------



## Fifty-Fifty

This is quite a convoluted construction. There are probably better ways to express that thought, depending on the context. 

The sentence you constructed definitely has too many "habens," but the one suggested by your German friend is also wrong. 

It should be "er wird es getan haben müssen," and, "ich weiss, dass er es getan haben müssen wird."

Ouch, that's a lot of verbs in a row. Not very good writing, but I think it's correct grammatically.


----------



## Gernot Back

gramster said:


> "Er wird es haben getan haben müssen."


If you translate this sentence back into English it would read as follows:


_There is no other reasonable explanation other than that he had already done this at(before) that time in the past. 
_​I don't think this is what you want to say, but anyway I think there is no real use for that kind of sentences, neither in German nor in English, except for some sadist grammar teachers, who might make them up in order to deliberately drive their students crazy.


----------



## Robocop

gramster said:


> I am trying to clarify for myself the use of the perfect infinitive such as "getan haben" with a modal such as "müssen", in particular as it would be used in future perfect constructions.


Beispiel:
Es ist mir absolut klar, dass ich diese Frage bis nächsten Freitag Abend werde geklärt haben müssen.


----------



## Gernot Back

Robocop said:


> Es ist mir absolut klar, dass ich diese Frage bis nächsten Freitag Abend werde geklärt haben müssen.


Wenn das absolut klar, also sicher ist, dann gibt es in Verbindung mit einer Zeitangabe in der Zukunft (_bis nächsten Freitag_), eigentlich keinen Grund mehr, den Satz auch noch im Futur (als Ausdruck einer gewissen Restunsicherheit) zu sagen und er sollte besser lauten:


_Es ist mir absolut klar, dass ich diese Frage bis nächsten Freitagabend geklärt haben muss._​


----------



## kengwilson

This is a chapter from Dr Streetmentioner's Time Travellers Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations, isn't it? One of the later chapters, I would think.

See http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/08/douglas-adams-on-time-travel.html

KGW


----------



## berndf

gramster said:


> Main clause: "Er wird es haben getan haben müssen."


I guess you could say
_Er wird es getan gemusst haben._
The use of two past participles suffices to express the double-perfect aspect of the modal verb and the main verb relative to the modal verb. Repetition of the auxiliary verb is unnecessary.
But as Gernot said, this is grammar masochism and not living language. I find it difficult to see a case where this double perfect contains relevant information.


----------



## Thomas W.

I am not sure if anyone who provided answers here really understood what the English sentence means. I certainly did'nt.
Maybe you could provide some context/example to illustrate the meaning of "he will have had to have done it".


----------



## gramster

First of all, thank you, everyone, who has responded to my post.  I wish I could say that I understand where I went wrong in my translation, but I'm not sure I do.  I understand that there must be something wrong with it -- mainly that it's too convoluted, and that whatever it is trying to say can most likely be said more simply.  But please keep in mind that I did not come up with that sentence by just randomly jumbling together a bunch of words.  Rather, I used rules and logic (or tried to) to construct it.  Perhaps if I re-create my "argument", someone can show me where I went wrong.

First off, I began by conjugating the (compound? complex?) infinitive "tun müssen" as follows (note: please don't gloss over the subordinate-clause word order -- as a relative new-comer to German, I really do need to be spoon-fed at this point):

1. Er muss es tun. (ich weiß, dass er es tun muss.)
2. Er musste es tun. (ich weiß, dass er es tun musste.)
3. Er hat es tun müssen. (ich weiß, dass er es hat tun müssen.)
4. Er hatte es tun müssen. (ich weiß, dass er es hatte tun müssen.)
5. Er wird es tun müssen. (ich weiß, dass er es wird tun müssen.)
6. Er wird es haben tun müssen. (ich weiß, dass er es wird haben tun müssen.)

I assume that the above is the correct conjugation of "tun müssen" in the 3rd person singular and through all indicative tenses, and that the word order is correct in both the main and subordinate clauses, but please correct me if I am wrong.

Now, the verb "tun" is so general that it can really be anything, at least as I understand it.  So we could, in principle, just swap with it any other infinitive, compound or otherwise, and be left with a grammatical sentence (for intransitive verbs we swap out the "es tun").  For example:

1. Er muss es lesen. (ich weiß, dass er es lesen muss.)
2. Er musste es essen. (ich weiß, dass er es essen musste.)
3. Er hat es bauen lassen müssen. (ich weiß, dass er es hat bauen lassen müssen.)
4. Er hatte fahren müssen. (ich weiß, dass er hatte fahren müssen.)
5. Er wird es getan haben müssen. (ich weiß, dass er es wird getan haben müssen.)
6. Er wird es haben getan haben müssen. (ich weiß, dass er es wird haben getan haben müssen.)

Now, given this "argument" (please point out any mistakes), how am I to understand why 6 is wrong?  Where did I blow it?  How?  And most importantly, what is the correct way?

I thank you in advance for your patience.


----------



## gramster

In order to construct an example we need a sequence of three events, each dependent on the prior.  For example,
1. He read a book by Hemingway.
2. He read a book by Faulkner.
3. He received his diploma.

The idea here is that if he now has his diploma, then he must have read Faulkner, which means he had to have read Hemingway as well.  Now, if we push all of that off into some point in the future, say next year sometime, then we can say,

"Next year, he will get his diploma, which means he will have to have read Faulkner.  But that means he will have had to have read Hemingway.

Yes, I know it's awkward, but I would be surprised to learn that it wasn't also correct.  And to be honest, I would be more likely to say "Next year, he will get his diploma, which means he will have to read Faulkner, and that means he will have to read Hemingway as well."  But I guess my goal here is to understand the rules so well that I know when they simply must be broken, and I am not there yet.


----------



## PaulQ

gramster said:


> But I guess my goal here is to understand the rules so well that I know when they simply must be broken, and I am not there yet.


... und wenn Sie eine Regel gebrochen haben, werden Sie eine neue Regel erstellt haben...


----------



## gramster

I thought of some better examples:

1. When he will open the door, he will have to have used the key and so will have had to have found the key.
2. When he will watch the game, he will have to have turned on the TV and so will have had to have plugged it in.

Again, yes, I know, a little awkward but I'm almost certain they are correct, grammatically.  And, again, to be honest about it, I would probably say the following "when he will open the door, he will have to have used the key and so will have to have found the key"; that is, in a regular conversation I would not try to use grammar to render the detail that finding the key must have occured prior to using it, and just leave it up to common sense that that was the case.

But aside from those considerations, I can still generate the correct sentences in English if I wanted to and I would like to be able to do it in German too.


----------



## Kurtchen

gramster said:


> But aside from those considerations, I can still generate the correct sentences in English if I wanted to and I would like to be able to do it in German too.




I sort of see your point, but I'd still say you can't. Just because  it works in English (or at least in theory, according to you) doesn't  mean it has to in German, too. I wouldn't even know what to call that  tense, future-plu-perfect? Nah, sorry, but that's one too many  regressions


----------



## Fifty-Fifty

gramster said:


> I thought of some better examples:
> 
> 1. When he will open the door, he will have to have used the key and so will have had to have found the key.
> 2. When he will watch the game, he will have to have turned on the TV and so will have had to have plugged it in.



Just for the heck of it, I'll take a stab at translating your sentences:
1. Wenn er die Tür öffnen wird, wird er den Schlüssel verwendet haben müssen, und daher wird er den Schlüssel gefunden gehabt haben müssen.
2. Wenn er das Spiel ansehen wird, wird er den Fernseher eingeschaltet haben müssen, und daher wird er ihn vorher angesteckt gehabt haben müssen. 

This exercise kind of made my brain hurt. The sentences sound correct to me, though, and they do express that the second action occurred before the first.

I wonder in what context you would ever use this kind of sentence. Possibly a hypothetical criminal investigation?


----------



## Robocop

Fifty-Fifty said:


> 1. Wenn er die Tür öffnen wird, wird er den Schlüssel verwendet haben müssen, und daher wird er den Schlüssel gefunden gehabt haben müssen.


I consider these deliberations a rather "academic exercise" without much *practical* use.
- Er wird die Tür geöffnet haben.
- Er wird den hinterlegten Schlüssel benutzt haben müssen.
- Er wird zuerst den hinterlegten Schlüssel gefunden haben müssen.
IMHO, the sentences above could be combined to:
Wenn er die Türe geöffnet haben wird, wird er (zum Öffnen) den hinterlegten Schlüssel benutzt haben müssen, den er zuvor/zuerst wird gefunden haben müssen.


----------



## gramster

I can understand that this thread might not seem worth the effort, but I do greatly appreciate your all taking the time to answer my questions.  I do feel that I have learned quite a bit.  Here's how I would summarize it:

If you have to express in German an idea like "he will have had to have done it", then,...
1. NEVER SAY ANYTHING LIKE, "er wird es haben getan haben müssen" (thanks everybody),
2. If you absolutely must, then you can probably get away with, "er wird es getan gehabt haben müssen" (thanks, Fifty-Fifty, in particular),
3. But really, you should probably just use "er wird es getan haben müssen" along with "zuvor" or "zuerst" to convey the real order of events (thanks, Robocop, in particular).

This means I can update my conjugation of "getan haben müssen" as follows:
1. Er muss es getan haben. (ich weiß, dass er es getan haben muss.)
2. Er musste es getan haben. (ich weiß, dass er es getan haben musste.)
3. Er hat es getan haben müssen. (ich weiß, dass er es hat getan haben müssen.)
4. Er hatte es getan haben müssen. (ich weiß, dass er es hatte getan haben müssen.)
5. Er wird es getan haben müssen. (ich weiß, dass er es wird getan haben müssen.)
6. FORGET IT!!!  Just use 5.

As a final request, I would appreciate an explicit confirmation that the above sentences (1-5) are correct and usable.

Thanks!


----------



## cal aggie

Thomas W. said:


> I am not sure if anyone who provided answers here really understood what the English sentence means. I certainly did'nt.
> Maybe you could provide some context/example to illustrate the meaning of "he will have had to have done it".



Since nobody seems to have answered this, I will give it a try. "He needs to fix his car before he can drive it. Since he is leaving next Friday, he will have had to have done it by then."


----------



## gramster

Yes, right, thank you!  Now, let me see if I can render that in German, with what I have learned from all of this:

Er muss sein Auto reparieren, bevor er es fahren kann.  Weil er nächsten Freitag abfährt, wird er es bis dann getan haben müssen.

Germanophones, does that sound about right?  The idea being that a single "...getan haben müssen" suffices to render the order of future events.

In any case, and above all, we should *not* say, "...,wird er es bis dann haben getan haben müssen", although we might, if we wanted to get fancy about it, go as far as saying, "...wird er es bis dan getan gehabt haben müssen."


----------



## kengwilson

gramster said:


> I thought of some better examples:
> 
> 1. When he will open the door, he will have to have used the key and so will have had to have found the key.
> 2. When he will watch the game, he will have to have turned on the TV and so will have had to have plugged it in.
> 
> ...



The use of the future tense in a time clause (introduced by "when") is incorrect here (British English, wohl bemerkt); is there a different sequence of tenses convention in the USA?

KGW


----------



## Robocop

gramster said:


> Er muss sein Auto reparieren, bevor er es fahren kann. Weil er nächsten Freitag abfährt, wird er es bis dann getan haben müssen.
> ... although we might ... go as far as saying, "... wird er es bis dann getan gehabt haben müssen." *(no way!)*


Weil er nächsten Freitag abfährt, wird er die Reparatur bis dann ausgeführt haben müssen.


----------



## gramster

Robocop - does that mean you disagree with Fifty-Fifty regarding the double past-participle (...gefunden gehabt..., ...angesteckt gehabt...)?  Or did I just use it wrong?

Kengwilson - unfortunately, at the moment I can only speak for myself.  The examples I gave above do sound a little funny to me, but I think it's just because the structure is a little unusual.  In any case, even if you drop the future ("when he will open the door..." --> "when he opens the door..."; "when he will watch the game" --> "when he watches the game...") I think you have to keep the part with the future-perfect and the future (anterior? plu-?) perfect.  Would you agree?


----------



## Robocop

gramster said:


> Robocop - does that mean you disagree with Fifty-Fifty regarding the double past-participle (...gefunden gehabt..., ...angesteckt gehabt...)?


I disagree totally on the validity of:
- "gefunden gehabt haben", "angesteckt gehabt haben", "getan gehabt haben", etc. and 
- "gefunden gehabt haben müssen", "angesteckt gehabt haben müssen", "getan gehabt haben müssen", etc. 

On the other hand, it is OK to say:
- "gefunden haben", "angesteckt haben", "getan haben", etc. and 
- "gefunden haben müssen", "angesteckt haben müssen", "getan haben müssen", etc.


----------



## gramster

Thanks, Robocop. I hereby revise my previous summary to the following:
If you have to express in German an idea like "he will have had to have done it", then,...
1. For the most part, just stick with "er wird es getan haben müssen" and use adverbs if you need more precision in detail regarding the precise sequence of events;
2. Above all, NEVER SAY ANYTHING LIKE, "er wird es haben getan haben müssen",
3. And if you absolutely must, then you *might* be able to get away with, "er wird es getan gehabt haben müssen", but wear safety goggles.


----------



## kengwilson

gramster said:


> ...  In any case, even if you drop the future ("when he will open the door..." --> "when he opens the door..."; "when he will watch the game" --> "when he watches the game...") I think you have to keep the part with the future-perfect and the future (anterior? plu-?) perfect.  Would you agree?



Not entirely, because although the complex tenses exist (nearly 36 million hits in Google), I don't think you _have_ to use them. They don't make the sense any clearer - on the contrary, they tend to confuse the issue - which I think is a good argument for avoiding them. 

KGW


----------



## ABBA Stanza

gramster said:


> If you have to express in German an idea like "he will have *had* to have done it", then,...


Are you sure that the "had" I've emphasized above indicates the pluperfect? The reason I'm asking is that this extra "had" is in my experience often used even if only two points in time are referenced (pluperfect needs three). For example:

_We plan to inspect the room next Friday, so he will have to have found the key by then._ 
_We plan to inspect the room next Friday, so he will have had to have found the key by then._ 

Both sentences are idiomatic. Even as a native speaker, I'm not even sure what the semantic difference (if any) between the two alternatives is. In view of this, the fact that German only has an equivalent for the first alternative is not really surprising.



gramster said:


> 1. For the most part, just stick with "er wird es getan haben müssen" and use adverbs if you need more precision in detail regarding the precise sequence of events;


That sounds like good advice to me. 



gramster said:


> 3. And if you absolutely must, then you *might* be able to get away with, "er wird es getan gehabt haben müssen", but wear safety goggles.


Don't even think about it! I assume that 50:50 just mentioned it as an academic exercise rather than intending it to be interpreted as a practical suggestion.

Cheers,
Abba


----------



## PaulQ

I would reduce, "_We plan to inspect the room next Friday, so he *will have had to have found* the key by then."_ further:

_We plan to inspect the room next Friday, so he will have *to find *the key by then._ I don't think the "_have found_" adds anything.
A further reduction can be made with, 
"_We plan to inspect the room next Friday, so he *must** find *the key by then._ - must = have to; must is in the present tense but indicating the future (cf. Ich fliege Montag nach Berlin - 'fliege' is present but indicating the future.)


----------



## Gernot Back

Im Deutschen gibt es einen Bedeutungsunterschied. Wenn wir das Modalverb _müssen_ in seinem objektiven Gebrauch zum Ausdruck einer zukünftigen Notwendigkeit benutzen, dann lautet der Text (im Präsens mit Zeitangabe zum Ausdruck der Zukunft!) wie folgt:


_Für kommenden Freitag habe ich einen Besichtigungstermin mit einem potenziellen Nachmieter für das Zimmer vereinbart. Bis dahin muss ich den Schlüssel gefunden haben.
_​Ansonsten gibt es zum Ausdruck von Unsicherheit über ein Ereignis, das in der Vergangenheit bereits stattgefunden hat, auch noch entweder das Futur 2 oder den subjektiven Gebrauch von Modalverben in Verbindung mit dem Infinitiv Perfekt. Dann lautet der Text beispielsweise wie folgt:


_Der Besichtigungstermin am letzten Freitag __hat__ wie geplant stattgefunden. Also wird/muss er wohl entweder den Schlüsseldienst bestellt oder den lange vermissten Schlüssel zwischenzeitlich doch noch gefunden haben. Anders kann ich mir das nicht erklären._​


----------



## gramster

Okay, what about this as a translation of "he will have had to have done it": "Es wird sein, dass er es hatte getan haben müssen".

Going back to Robocop's example, we would have then: Weil er nächsten Freitag abfährt, wird es bis dann sein, dass er die Reparatur hatte ausgeführt haben müssen. 

Let me clarify my question:

From a strictly grammatical standpoint, putting aside for now the admittedly very important practical usage considerations (in acknowledgement of the fact that I am a relative newcomer to German grammar and am trying to eat that cake one bite at a time), would the above construct be an acceptable rendering of "he will have had to have done it"?


----------



## Gernot Back

gramster said:


> Weil er nächsten Freitag abfährt, wird es bis dann sein, dass er die Reparatur hatte ausgeführt haben müssen.


Weil er nächsten Freitag in Urlaub fahren will, muss die Reparatur seines Autos bis dann erledigt sein.


gramster said:


> "he will have had to have done it"?


Is one of these  "_have_s" in the sense of "_having/letting/making so. else do sth._"?
Then the German translation would be:


_Er muss __die Reparatur __bis dahin erledigt haben  lassen._​ or
_Er muss __die Reparatur __bis dahin (haben) erledigen lassen_.
​ If you want to add uncertainty (after all he isn't using his own car for going on this vacation trip, so maybe there is no necessity to have his car fixed by that day), you can use the future tense in addition, but not in order to express the future (which is already expressed by the adverb "_bis nächsten Freitag_), but in order to express the uncertainty:


_Er wird die Reparatur bis nächsten Freitag (haben) erledigen lassen müssen._​


----------



## gramster

Gernot Back said:


> Is one of these  "_have_s" in the sense of "_having/letting/making so. else do sth._"?
> Then the German translation would be:



Actually, I'm using "müssen" = "to have to".  Let's back up and recall that my initial inspiration for this thread comes from my attempt to conjugate "getan haben müssen" through all of the indicative tenses.  As far as I can tell, it can be done fairly well in both English and German (see an earlier post in this thread) until you come to the future-perfect.  I don't mean the future-perfect of müssen, nor the future perfect of tun müssen, but the future perfect of getan haben müssen which generates, in English, "he will have had to have done it", which is (I think) perfectly usable, and in German, "er wird es haben getan haben müssen" which seems to have shocked (offended?) some, even though it seems (to me) to follow by analogy.

It occurred to me today that the logic behind "he will have had to have done it" can be paraphrased in English as "it will be that he had to have done it" which I tried to render in German with "es wird sein, dass er es hatte getan haben müssen".


----------



## Gernot Back

gramster said:


> I don't mean the future-perfect of müssen, nor the future perfect of tun müssen, but the future perfect of getan haben müssen


But there is no such thing as a future perfect of "_getan haben müssen_" and I doubt there is an equivalent in English (future perfect of "_to have to have done"_) either

There are only the base forms of verbs (i.e. in this case the plain infinitives in their present active forms of the verbs _"tun_", "haben"  and "_müssen_" (or "_to do_, _"to have_" and "_must/to have to_") from which you can construct the Futur 2 (or future perfect respectively).

The Futur 2 tense (future perfect) is constructed with the *finite auxiliary verb* "werden" and a perfect infinitive:

_
Ich *werde *es getan haben.
Er *wird *es gemusst haben.
Du *wirst *es gehabt haben._
​ Of course you can additionally combine these verbs with one another, but then there is no special name for those tenses


_Er *wird *es getan haben müssen. _
​ ... is the Futur 1 /plain future tense of müssen combined with a perfect infinitive of _haben_.


_*Er wird es haben getan haben müssen._
(with the _Ersatz_infinitives _haben _and _müssen_ instead of participles _gehabt _and _gemusst_ in German)
​ ... would be some kind of so-called *future ultra perfect* and this simply doesn't exist in German. Even the plain Ultraperfekt tense is debatable and considered bad style in German.


----------



## gramster

Okay, first off, there is a sense in which I can only agree with what you have just said.  But there is another sense in which, and with all due respect, I would like to disagree.  Before you get completely fed up with me and my persistence, please let me explain:

Maybe I'm being creative here, inventing "Gramster-Deutsch" or whatever, but I believe this is more than just a dry academic exercise.  When I say "the future perfect of getan haben müssen", even if I am the only one to do this (I doubt that), there is still an underlying logic to the process.  We can treat getan haben müssen as we would any other simple verb such as tun or haben or müssen and begin by conjugating it mechanically through the various tenses as follows:

1. (present) er muss es getan haben.
2. (simple past) er musste es getan haben.
3. (past perfect) er hat es getan haben müssen.
4. (pluperfect) er hatte es getan haben müssen.
5. (future) er wird es getan haben müssen.
6. (future perfect) er wird es haben getan haben müssen.

Now, granted, some of those sentences might never actually be used by any real German speaker or writer (e.g. the future ultra perfect), but as a newcomer to the language I have to understand a number of points about the process that I used to derive those sentences:
1. That there is such a process,
2. That it sometimes produces a usable sentence and sometimes doesn't,
3. How to tell the difference between the usable and unusable sentences,
4. What the usable sentences are actually used for.

Before opening this thread I had a firm grasp on only the first and second points.  I opened this thread so that I could get a better grasp on the third point.  I should probably open a separate thread for the 4th point, but for the moment I will just say that I am aware of an issue that arises when this process is applied to getan haben können, which is that "er kann es getan haben" is used to mean something more along the lines of "he may have done it" rather than "he can (is able to) have done it".


----------



## Kurtchen

gramster said:


> Now, granted, some of those sentences might never actually be used by any real German speaker or writer (e.g. the future ultra perfect), but as a newcomer to the language I have to understand a number of points about the process that I used to derive those sentences:
> 1. That there is such a process,
> 2. That it sometimes produces a usable sentence and sometimes doesn't,
> 3. How to tell the difference between the usable and unusable sentences,
> 4. What the usable sentences are actually used for.



I'm not quite sure I understand what exactly it is you are trying to achieve here. Deductive learning lends itself so much better to secondary language acquisition than your inductive 'throw a lot of stuff out and see what sticks approach. At least in the beginning. While I think it's commendable to try and wander off the trodden path a bit, it's also easy to get sidetracked and become less efficient in the process. What I mean is, there are oodles of grammar books outlining exactly what tenses exist in German and how they are formed, and perhaps most importantly, used in practice. You seem to be trying to re-invent the wheel. Sorry if I'm not helpful, just a bit worried for your sake, don't mean to discourage you by any means


----------



## gramster

Kurtchen said:


> I'm not quite sure I understand what exactly it is you are trying to achieve here. ...



Actually, I have various levels of goals, the most immediate of which is to understand how to use a perfect infinitive with a modal verb in both a main- as well as subordinate clause.  I suppose that discussion of the other levels should probably be saved for different threads.

I have my share of grammar books, and for the most part I have no problem understanding them, but every now and then they say something and it just seems like they don't say enough about it.   They give like 2 examples and I want to see twenty or thirty.  So then I try to come up with my own examples, but that always gives me the same feeling I get when I close my eyes and try to see how far I can walk without opening them again.  I want to show them to a real Deutscher and say "is this right?"  We don't have a lot of real Deutschers here in New Jersey, although it's a great place to learn Spanish.


----------



## Gernot Back

gramster said:


> We can treat getan haben müssen as we would any other simple verb such as tun or haben or müssen and begin by conjugating it mechanically through the various tenses as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.(present)Präsens
> _er muss es getan haben.
> _
> 2.(simple past)Präteritum/Imperfekt_ er musste es getan haben
> _
> 3.(past perfect)
> Isn't that tense called *present *perfect in English?Perfekt_er hat es getan haben müssen.
> _
> 4. (pluperfect)
> Isn't that tense called *past *perfect in English?Plusquamperfekt
> _er hatte es getan haben müssen.
> _
> 4b.
> "ultraperfect"
> Ultraperfekt
> _er hatte es getan gehabt haben müssen._
> 
> 5.(future)Futur 1_er wird es getan haben müssen.
> _But this would be the same as Futur 2 (future perfect) of _tun müssen_
> 6.(future perfect)Futur 2_er wird es haben getan haben müssen._There is no need for such a sentence, because it would mean the same
> as the previous one.


As you see I added some remarks in gray in quoting your "time conjugation" table.

I don't think it would be helpful, if we were to apply all these regular tenses that we have in German or English to infinitives that have already been modified in tense. You end up with useless tenses like _ultra perfect_ and _future ultra perfect_. But why would you even stop there? You might as well construct a future perfect of the ultraperfect infinitive "_haben getan haben müssen_" and start "conjugating" this through all tenses all over again, and so on and so forth. It won't be of any benefit for you, but why not as a sport? Good luck!

Never mind and kind regards

Gernot


----------



## gramster

Ha! Yes!  Exactly!  Now you get it!  I won't do it in this thread, but you can bet I am going to try conjugating "haben getan haben müssen"!

Seriously, though, thank you so much for your kind and patient help with this.  I really do feel like it's helped me a great deal.

Oh, yes, and you are right about my terminology confusion.  What I called the "past perfect" above is actually called the "present perfect" (haben/sein + past participle) and what I called the "pluperfect" is called the "past perfect" (simple past of haben/sein + past participle).

And thanks for adding the ultra-perfect to the table.  I did check out that link to the Zwiebelfisch article, but my vocabulary is not quite up to being able to read it and the Google translate version is going to need some work before I can actually read it.


----------



## PaulQ

gramster, do you think this basic guide is correct?
 English:
 Because [...] [verb], [subject]  [verb1]   [verb2]  [verb3]  [object]

 German,
 Weil[...] [verb], [verb1] [subject]  [object] [verb3]  [verb2]


----------



## gramster

PaulQ, I'd like to ask for an example, but do you think this belongs in a separate thread?


----------



## Dan2

> 1. When he will open the door, he will have to have used the key and so will have had to have found the key.
> 2. When he will watch the game, he will have to have turned on the TV and so will have had to have plugged it in.





kengwilson said:


> The use of the future tense in a time clause (introduced by "when") is incorrect here (British English, wohl bemerkt); is there a different sequence of tenses convention in the USA?



No.  In the US, "When he will ..." is neither considered correct nor commonly heard from native speakers, in my experience.  We say, for ex., "When he opens the door ..."


----------



## gramster

Yeah, actually, after thinking about it I agree.  I lived many years in Montreal and learned to speak French to the point where sometimes it leaks into my English.  In French it is correct to say "Quand'il fermera la porte...."

The hazards of bilinguilism!


----------

