# Would have thought vs thought



## G.Determinism

Greetings,

What's the difference between these two? 

1. Who would have thought Roberta Vinci could beat Serena Williams in the US Open semifinals?

2. Who thought Roberta Vinci could beat Serena Williams in the US Open semifinals?

Thanks


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

In 1. the speaker is expressing surprise at R.V.'s performance.
In 2. the speaker may be innocently asking a question.

GS


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks GS.
So you mean #2 can be perceived as #1 as well as it can be a sincere question?

How do you interpret this one? 
'Who could think Vinci beat Serena?'
(I put 'could' as the past form of 'can', not sure if it works)

Thanks


----------



## Glasguensis

_1. Who would have thought Roberta Vinci could beat Serena Williams in the US Open semifinals?_
We now know that Vinci beat Williams, but the speaker is implying that nobody expected this result.

_2. Who thought Roberta Vinci could beat Serena Williams in the US Open semifinals?_
This is a genuine question - the speaker wants to know who thought Vinci would win

_3. Who could think Vinci beat Serena?_
This would be used if Vinci has lost, and the speaker is either expressing surprise that someone could be misinformed about the result, or is genuinely trying to discover who it is who is misinformed about the result.


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks Glasguensis.
I suppose it would be different if I put them into statements.

1. I wouldn't have thought R could beat S.
2. I didn't think R could beat S.

Don't you think they are pretty much saying the same thing now?

Thanks


----------



## Glasguensis

No, they are different.
_1. I wouldn't have thought R could beat S._
I hadn't thought about it before but if I had been asked my opinion I would have said that S would win. Note that this can be used *whether or not* the result is now known.

_2. I didn't think R could beat S._
I was previously of the opinion that R could not beat S but I have changed my mind (either because I have been proved wrong or for some other reason).


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks a lot Glasguensis.
I noticed you didn't refer to the element of surprise in your interpretation of "_I wouldn't have thought R could beat S." _whereas you did so in analyzing "_Who would have thought Roberta Vinci could beat Serena Williams in the US Open semifinals?". _
Now assume the match is done and the result is known, I want to express my opinion about the match without concealing my surprise, what should I say? Both seem to work here, despite their difference in meaning, am I mistaken?

Thanks


----------



## Glasguensis

Yes, you are mistaken. You should say "Who would have thought..." or "I would never have thought...".


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks,
But we say "I didn't *expect* that R could beat S." in past simple tense. I can't really understand why "didn't think" cannot work here!

I really appreciate your help.


----------



## Glasguensis

G.Determinism said:


> But we say "I didn't *expect* that R could beat S." in past simple tense. I can't really understand why "didn't think" cannot work here!


That was not one of the suggestions you offered in post #7. You can of course use it in that situation, it simply doesn't on its own convey as much surprise as the options I gave. 
Note that we cannot give you a definitive list of *all *the possible things you could say in this situation. I am trying to point out the possibilities which are most common/idiomatic.


----------



## Dwishiren

Hello. So, "would" in the sentence "I wouldn't have thought R could beat S" expresses an implicit conditional?


----------



## G.Determinism

Glasguensis said:


> That was not one of the suggestions you offered in post #7. You can of course use it in that situation, it simply doesn't on its own convey as much surprise as the options I gave.
> Note that we cannot give you a definitive list of *all *the possible things you could say in this situation. I am trying to point out the possibilities which are most common/idiomatic.


Thank you very much.
Yes, it was not of my proposals, but used the same structure as the second example in post #5. I just subsititued 'think' for 'expect'.


----------



## Glasguensis

Dwishiren said:


> Hello. So, "would" in the sentence "I wouldn't have thought R could beat S" expresses an implicit conditional?


No.


----------



## G.Determinism

I need some serious help over this. Basically I cannot think of "would have" outside the concept of conditional sentences, I always thought there should be at least an implied if-clause if there's no explicit one. Can someone please shed some light on it? :-(


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, G.Det.

If you're thinking of cases like "I was so thirsty that _I'd have eaten_ a kilo of ice-cream", yes, we may imagine the implied if-clause "If only I'd had it." Is this what you mean? 

GS


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks GS, I'm afraid I'm not sure what you are saying, actually your example is more complicated than those discussed above!! 

Thanks


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

1. You say you can't think of "would have" outside the concept of conditional sentences;
2. You say you've always thought there should be at least an implied if-clause (if there's no explicit one);
My comment is that YES, we can practically _imagine_ an _if-clause_ which constitutes an explicit or implicit _protasis_ for the "would have"-portion (i.e. the _apodosis_) of the sentence.
In the case of "I wouldn't have thought R could beat S" maybe a possible candidate would be "IF someone had asked me my opinion" or something in this line of thought.

GS


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks once again GS,
Your statement actually contradicts what Glasguensis said earlier (post #13).

My problem is I can't distinguish between the two sentences I proposed in my first post. In Persian, we actually use the #2 structure to convey both meanings, this is just a matter of our tone that makes the difference. I mean if we are to add a touch of surprise to it, we just have to rely on our tone or use certain adverbs.
That's why I have had a hard time understanding this for the past few hours.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Maybe Glasguensis didn't understand your question, or maybe he and I have different opinions.

You say "_I can't distinguish between the two sentences I proposed in my first post._"

I'll repeat what I wrote in post #2:

In 1. the speaker is expressing surprise at R.V.'s performance. 

In 2. the speaker _may_ be innocently asking a question:

— Who thought R. V. could beat S. W.?
— I for one/Me!

or even

"Who thought R. V. could beat S.W. will be awarded a special prize offered by Roberta's sponsors..."

Mind you, in Italian, too, we often use the two structures interchangeably to express surprise, but if we want to ask a question—i.e. a request for information—we stick to the second.

GS


----------



## djmc

If I say "I think that SW will win" or "I thought that SW would have won", whether or not SW did win there is no doubt about what I think or thought. If I say "I would think . . . ." or "I would have thought . . ." this suggests a certain tentativeness which is perhaps not to be taken seriously, for example "I would have thought that everyone likes ice-cream". The implication is that one is hedging ones bets in making the statement. In some ways it is similar to the contrast between "what do you want" and "what would you like".


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks a lot GS and djmc.
Can you please clarify the difference between these two sentences?
1. I thought that SW would win.
2. I thought that SW would have won.

Thanks


----------



## djmc

1. I thought that SW would win. - There is nothing said about whether SW did win. She may have, she may have not. We don't know from this.
2. I thought that SW would have won. - This implies that SW did not in fact win. It was the case however that I thought she would.


----------



## Glasguensis

If we stick to the original phrase "I would have thought", I said that there was no implied condition - although we can invent one (if someone had asked my opinion), in reality this form is used simply to convey uncertainty or at least qualify the opinion as one which is not the result of hours of reflection. It has become a set formula which is used without regard to the grammar and logic of a conditional. Note that it is sometimes used even when the speaker is in fact certain, often to suggest politely to the listener that the listener hasn't thought the matter through


----------



## G.Determinism

Glasguensis said:


> _1. I wouldn't have thought R could beat S._
> I hadn't thought about it before but if I had been asked my opinion I would have said that S would win. Note that this can be used *whether or not* the result is now known.


Thanks guys for taking the time to help me.
Glasguensis, this part of your answer seems to be a bit confusing, because based on what disscussed above, this form is used when the result is already known and it actually comes to the aid of expressing our surprise. Am I again mistaken?

Much obliged to you guys.


----------



## cando

I don't want to further confuse you, but "would"in these constructions is really being used as a kind of subjunctive, expressing a hypothetical, which you could say does involve an implied "if" scenario.

Notice that in your latest example: "I wouldn't have thought R could beat S" you are using a further hypothetical:
A: "I wouldn't have thought ..." I had not thought about it, but if I did ...
B: " that R *could* beat S" This does not involve any knowledge about whether they have actually competed against each other. This just expresses an opinion about their respective capabilities.

This is different from saying "I wouldn't have thought that R would beat S" = If I had thought about it I would not have expected the result that actually happened.


----------



## Glasguensis

G.Determinism said:


> Thanks guys for taking the time to help me.
> Glasguensis, this part of your answer seems to be a bit confusing, because based on what disscussed above, this form is used when the result is already known and it actually comes to the aid of expressing our surprise. Am I again mistaken?
> 
> Much obliged to you guys.


You keep saying that this formula can be used when the result is known to express surprise, and I keep telling you that this is not the case. It's not surprising that you have difficulty reconciling my answers when there's a part of them you keep ignoring.


----------



## G.Determinism

Thank you all for helping me understand this.

Glasguensis, I'm so indebted to you for all the help you give me in this forum. I didn't mean to bother you. I'm afraid but I have to say that it was actually the first time that I said this structure is to express surprise when the the result is known. Before that, I was saying something rather opposite!
Mind you, in Persian we don't have such structures, so it's extremely hard for me to have a clear understanding of them.
I'm not here to ask absurd questions and annoy you.


----------



## G.Determinism

Glasguensis said:


> _1. Who would have thought Roberta Vinci could beat Serena Williams in the US Open semifinals?_
> * We now know that Vinci beat Williams, * but the speaker is implying that nobody expected this result.





Glasguensis said:


> _1. I wouldn't have thought R could beat S._
> I hadn't thought about it before but if I had been asked my opinion I would have said that S would win. Note that this can be used *whether or not* the result is now known.



Aren't these two explanations contradicting each other?

I still have a hard time understanding this, please help me.

Thanks a lot


----------



## Glasguensis

No, they don't contradict each other. The sentences are different, and therefore their meanings are also different.


----------



## G.Determinism

After days of reflection, I still have a hard time finding the thing that makes these sentences mean differently. The tense is the same in both sentences, the difference is in the subject and the form of sentence, Could you please pinpoint what exactly signals the change in the meaning?




> _1. Who would have thought Roberta Vinci could beat Serena Williams in the US Open semifinals?_
> * We now know that Vinci beat Williams, * but the speaker is implying that nobody expected this result.
> 
> _1. I wouldn't have thought R could beat S._
> I hadn't thought about it before but if I had been asked my opinion I would have said that S would win. Note that this can be used *whether or not* the result is now know


----------



## Glasguensis

"Who would have thought..." is a device called a rhetorical question. The choice to use such a device indicates that the result is known.


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks a lot Glasguensis,

When I was talking about something which I suppose sounded weird to my friend, he said:

"I'm not sure why you would have thought so."

Would you please tell me what it means? What would the complete sentence be like?

Thanks


----------



## Glasguensis

It means that he doesn't understand what could have led you to think that. This is already a complete sentence, so I don't understand what you're asking for.


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks a lot, Glasguensis.

How different would it be if he had told me: "I'm not sure why you would think so." considering we were in the middle of an ongoing conversation.
I sort of think if he had said: "I'm not sure why you would have thought so in the first place." it was more understandable for me, am I mistaken?

Thanks


----------



## Glasguensis

I don't know the rest of your conversation. Both forms are perfectly valid sentences and may fit the context, but I don't know what that was.


----------



## thetazuo

Hi, I have a question about what tense we should use after "who would have thought ..."
For example, what's the difference between the following two versions?
1. Who would have thought Roberta Vinci *could beat* Serena Williams in the US Open semifinals?
1a. Who would have thought Roberta Vinci *could have beaten* Serena Williams in the US Open semifinals?
Thank you.


----------



## Glasguensis

I would use form 1 here. I wouldn’t say that 1a is wrong, but I don’t see any reason to use it. There would be no difference in meaning


----------



## andrewg927

thetazuo said:


> Hi, I have a question about what tense we should use after "who would have thought ..."
> For example, what's the difference between the following two versions?
> 1. Who would have thought Roberta Vinci *could beat* Serena Williams in the US Open semifinals?
> 1a. Who would have thought Roberta Vinci *could have beaten* Serena Williams in the US Open semifinals?
> Thank you.



Both are correct but 1 is better.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you. I figure as much. Can I ask about another sentence?
He smiled as he poured. “As to Grand Maester Pycelle... if my sweet sister is so concerned for him, I would have thought* she’d come *herself. Instead she sends you. What am I to make of that?” (Game of Thrones)
Can I say "I would have thought* she would have come *herself" here without changing the meaning?


----------



## andrewg927

thetazuo said:


> Thank you. I figure as much. Can I ask about another sentence?
> He smiled as he poured. “As to Grand Maester Pycelle... if my sweet sister is so concerned for him, I would have thought* she’d come *herself. Instead she sends you. What am I to make of that?” (Game of Thrones)
> Can I say "I would have thought* she would have come *herself" here without changing the meaning?



Yes.


----------



## thetazuo

Thanks, andrewg927. But I don't think we can always use "would" and "would have" interchangeably after "would have thought". I think the two "would" and "would have" mean the same thing only when they refer to something that has recently happened, as in "RV beat SW" and "she'd come"; if the referred event happened longer time ago, we should stick to "would have" (or perhaps "could/might have") after "would have thought". Is my thinking right?


----------



## andrewg927

thetazuo said:


> Thanks, andrewg927. But I don't think we can always use "would" and "would have" interchangeably after "would have thought". I think the two "would" and "would have" mean the same thing only when they refer to something that has recently happened, as in "RV beat SW" and "she'd come"; if the referred event happened longer time ago, we should stick to "would have" (or perhaps "could/might have") after "would have thought". Is my thinking right?



Can you give an example?


----------



## thetazuo

andrewg927 said:


> Can you give an example?


Here is an example:
They spoke of a one-eyed man and another who wore a yellow cloak . . . and a woman, cloaked and hooded.”
“A woman?” He would have thought that the White Fawn *would have taught* Merrett to stay clear of outlaw wenches. (Game of Thrones)

I guess this "would have taught" can't be replaced by "would teach" without changing the meaning.
What do you think?


----------



## andrewg927

thetazuo said:


> Here is an example:
> They spoke of a one-eyed man and another who wore a yellow cloak . . . and a woman, cloaked and hooded.”
> “A woman?” He would have thought that the White Fawn *would have taught* Merrett to stay clear of outlaw wenches. (Game of Thrones)
> 
> I guess this "would have taught" can't be replaced by "would teach" without changing the meaning.
> What do you think?



How many people are involved in this conversation and who is saying what?


----------



## thetazuo

The conversation is between Jamie and Lady Mariya. They are talking about the outlaws who might have killed Lady Mariya's husband, Merrett. White Fawn is a former female head of the outlaws who has made Merrett suffer once. But now Merrett has got entangled with another woman who leads the outlaws.


----------



## andrewg927

I believe either way is fine and meaning is the same.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you. I see. So for the White Fawn example, do the following versions also work in the context?
1. He thought that the White Fawn would have taught ...
2. He had thought that the White Fawn would have taught ...
3. He thought that the White Fawn would teach ...
4. He had thought that the White Fawn would teach ...


----------



## andrewg927

He would have thought projects a certain uncertainty whereas he thought or he had thought is certain.


----------



## Glasguensis

They mean different things. I have found in answering other learners that it’s not usually very useful to keep adding variations of a sentence and asking if they can be used - the nuances are often explained in different posts and the learner ends up more confused than at the beginning. It’s better to find a good guide or teacher if you want to compare multiple possibilities, or list all the possibilities you want to compare in your original question.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you for your suggestion. But I couldn't have listed all the possibilities in my original question since I didn't think of them at the very beginning. And so far I'm not confused. Could you explain the difference since you think they mean different things?


----------



## Glasguensis

The original: he would have thought that x would have taught. He is surprised because he expected that the teaching would have occurred and that the situation would not therefore have arisen, but since the situation has arisen he now questions whether the teaching took place.

1. He thought that the White Fawn would have taught ...
He believed at the time in question (that is, just after « a woman? » that the teaching would have occurred. Despite the previous exchange his belief has not changed (which is somewhat  inconsistent with « a woman? »
2. He had thought that the White Fawn would have taught ..
He believed it up until a moment ago. He no longer believes it.
3. He thought that the White Fawn would teach ...
He believed at the moment in question that the White Fawn would teach this at a later time
4. He had thought that the White Fawn would teach 
He previously believed that the White Fawn would teach this at a later time but he no longer believes it.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, Glasguensis. Then do you think "he would have thought that x would have taught"="he would have thought that x would teach"?


----------



## Glasguensis

No, because he is expecting at the moment of his thought that the teaching would already have taken place. With « teach » the teaching could be either in the past or the future.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you. I get it. 
Could have a look at this thread? would have thought / would think / had thought / thought
In this thread, "would have thought" is used in direct speech so I think the case is different.


----------



## Glasguensis

No, it’s the same : « would have thought » doesn’t change between direct and indirect speech.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you. But I do think there is some difference.
For example, 


> "... I have heard of these dwarf’s pennies. No doubt collecting those is such a dreadful chore.”
> “I leave the collecting to others, my lady.”
> “Oh, do you? I would have thought you *might* want to tend to it yourself. We can’t have the crown being cheated of its dwarf’s pennies, now. Can we?” (Game of Thrones)


In this example we can say "I would have thought you *might* want to ..." and "I would have thought you *might have* wanted to" interchangeably without changing the meaning.
But in the White Fawn example, we can't do this since "White Fawn *would teach*" refers to future whereas "White Fawn *would have taught*" refers to past.

So I think in direct speech, the tense after "would have thought" can be either "modal+verb" or "modal+have+past participle"; in narrative, there is a difference.
Right?


----------

