# the conditional expressions with the perfect infinitive



## park sang joon

We occasionally use a subject or a to-infinitive in place of the 'if' clause to express an unreal situation.

See the below sentences; we can suppose the sentences express unreal situations with the phrase 'would have',
but we should select either a subject or a to-infinitive phrase as a substitute which execute the role of a conditional clause.

*1) A secretary would have been foolish to do it.*
*2) A secretary would have been foolish to have done it.*

Below is the my assumption.
I gave priority to the to-infinitive phrase to the subjects if only because I thought I have to do so without the reason.

1)-1) If a secretary had done it, she would have been foolish.
2)-1) If a secretary had had done it, she would have been foolish. <--- What is this??

For reference, I have excluded descriptive sentences so that we can induce various situations so there are a sentence a passage; No context.
I'd like to know your analyses of the two sentences '1), 2)'.

In advance, thank you for your help


----------



## sandpiperlily

To me, sentences 1 and 2 mean the exact same thing.  Your paraphrase 1)-1 is a good one.  The second one does not make sense -- we don't say "had had done it."


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you for your post, sandpierlily.
I know 2)-1) is the nonsense, but why are the both sentences '1),2)' which have quite different structures the same?


----------



## shorty1

Where did you find those two sentences, joon?

I don't think they sound natural.

"The secretary *must* have been foolish to do it."

The speaker believes that the secretary was foolish judging from what he or she did.


----------



## sandpiperlily

shorty1 said:


> "The secretary *must* have been foolish to do it."



Both of the original sentences sound natural to me.  So does this one, but yours has different meaning from park sang joon's example.

In the original post, the sentence says that a secretary did _not_ do it, or leaves some doubt as to whether a secretary did it or not (depending on context). Your example above, in contrast, assumes that a secretary _did_ it, and therefore judges him / her.

I agree that more context would be helpful.


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you both for your post.
I made two sentences for understanding the conditional expression with the perfect infinitive.
I was very curios of what 1),2) could be interpreted as because the tense of a perfect to-infinitive precede the tense of a subject clause.


----------



## shorty1

Thank you, sandpiperlily.

I know what you mean.

I also think the structure is possible.

I mean it's strange to use a counter-factual sentence about someone's foolish behavior.

I have no idea what situation I can use those two sentences in.


----------



## sandpiperlily

> I mean it's strange to use a counter-factual sentence about someone's foolish behavior.
> 
> I have no idea what situation I can use those two sentences in.




Here's a possible scenario where the original sentence would make sense:

Q: Who do you think left that gross rotting food in the office fridge?  Maybe one of the secretaries?
A: No, I don't think so. *A secretary would have been foolish to do it.*  They know they can be easily fired for a mistake like that so they're very conscientious in the kitchen.  I bet it was one of the managers.


----------



## park sang joon

How about the sentence "A secretary would be foolish to have done it."?


----------



## shorty1

sandpiperlily said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> Here's a possible scenario where the original sentence would make sense:
> 
> Q: Who do you think left that gross rotting food in the office fridge? Maybe one of the secretaries?
> A: No, I don't think so. *A secretary would have been foolish to do it.* They know they can be easily fired for a mistake like that so they're very conscientious in the kitchen. I bet it was one of the managers.



Thank you very much, sandpiperlily.

Now I understand it.


----------



## shorty1

park sang joon said:


> How about the sentence "A secretary would be foolish to have done it."?



Yes. I think this version is logically correct.


----------



## shorty1

#1. If a secretary had done it, she would have been foolish.
#2. If a secretary had done it, she would be foolish.

I think #2(mixed-tense conditional) is more apt because being foolish is not changeable easily from past to present.


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you shorty1.
"If a secretary had done it, she is would be foolish to." Is this correct?
What do you shrty1 think of 2) in my post?


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you shorty1.
You are saying the new 2); How about the old 2)


----------



## boozer

Out of context, the two original sentences mean the same, as Sindpiper says. Someone mentioned the word 'apt'.  The first one is more apt because 'to have done' is a useless complication - some people use the perfect infinitive led by the erroneous presumption that it agrees better with the past tense of 'would have'. It does not. Instead, it is more wordy and complicated. However, there probably are contexts in which the second example would be more suitable. I have not been trying to come up with one. I would have been a fool to have been.


----------



## boozer

A: When she appeared before the court to plead her case, had she acquainted herself with all the evidence against her? B: I do not know, but she would have been foolish not to have done so. --> I think this may be one situation in which sentence 2 is more suitable.


----------



## shorty1

Sorry for confusing you, Joon.

#1. If a secretary had done it, she would have been foolish. 
#2. If a secretary had done it, she would be foolish. 

#1 implies that the secretary would have been fired if she had done such a thing as sandpiperlily said.


*1) A secretary would have been foolish to do it. - awkward for me
2) A secretary would have been foolish to have done it. - awkward for me
3) A secretary would be foolish to have done it. - awkward for me*


That's because in this case, I don't think 'if-clause' can be interchangeable with 'to infinitive'.


----------



## boozer

Shorty, the 'to infinitive' is a perfectly legitimate option in certain cases. E.g. 'He is known to be a millionaire.', 'She would be silly not to marry him' and many, many similar cases. It does not have to be interchangeable with any if-clause. It simply exists and has its meaning. And, because this usage exists, it can take different tenses and forms.


----------



## shorty1

boozer said:


> Shorty, the 'to infinitive' is a perfectly legitimate option in certain cases. E.g. 'He is known to be a millionaire.', *'She would be silly not to marry him' *and many, many similar cases. It does not have to be interchangeable with any if-clause. It simply exists and has its meaning. And, because this usage exists, it can take different tenses and forms.



*'She would be silly not to marry him' *

Thannk you, boozer.

Now I understand what it means.


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you shorty1 for your post.


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you very much boozer.
*" I do not know, but she would have been foolish not to have done so."*
Your example is assumption, not counter-factual and It looks like yours has the same meaning as the sentence "She might have been foolish not to  do so." to me.

I know the phrase 'would have' is used to refer to things that actually not happened
and I heard say the phrase is used to refer to things that actually happened,
and I also heard say it can't be used to surmise possible situation in the past.

The third is the same case as your example.

I'm much confused; Would you please help me, boozer?


----------



## shorty1

Cobuild dictionary says:
You use would or would have with a past participle, to indicate that you are *assuming* or guessing that something is true, *because you have good reasons for thinking it*.
You wouldn't know him.
His fans would already be familiar with Caroline.
That would have been Della's car.
He made a promise to his great-grandfather? That would have been a long tim ago.
It was half seven; her mother would be annoyed because he was so late.


I was wrong.

"would have been foolish to ~" doesn't apply to this concept. Sorry to confuse you.


----------



## shorty1

You know what, joon-the title in this thread could confuse those who are going to answer your question and make them reluctant to do it.
What on earth does the conditional thing have to do with your questions? 
Do you really think your question is related to it?


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you shorty1 for your sincere concern
If I have you confused, I'm so sorry.
I have been taught from old school and I am accustomed to the grammar term consisting of Chinese, 
but I am not accustomed to term used in America. 
I thought the term 'counterfacual' is compatible with the term 'conditional', so I just picked up the term 'conditional'.

As to your prior post, I can't agree with you about your opinion.
Your examples don't have conditional clause or substitute for it and are quite different than my examples.
Unlike your examples, My examples are counterfactual.
Even though your post doesn't meet my question, your post is helpful for me just the same.
Thank you very much ^^


----------



## shorty1

You are welcome, joon. 

You think the original two sentences are counter-factual.

If so, what makes you think "she would be silly not to marry him." is not counter-factual?


----------



## park sang joon

I didn't say so. your example will be interpreted, same as the following sentence:
If she married him, she would be silly.


----------



## shorty1

park sang joon said:


> I didn't say so. your example will be interpreted, same as the following sentence:
> If she married him, she would be silly.



Yes. My interepretation was wrong. Sorry.
You said "My examples are counterfactual."

What does that mean?


----------



## park sang joon

I'm sorry, shorty1; I'm so much tired now.
I meant your post at 6:00pm6:00 PM.


----------



## shorty1

park sang joon said:


> I'm sorry, shorty1; I'm so much tired now.
> I meant your post at 6:00pm6:00 PM.




I'm really sorry to have caught you by late night.

Thank you.


----------



## boozer

shorty1 said:


> According to the definition of the dictionary:
> "The secretary would have been foolish to do it." would mean:
> The speaker assumes/thinks/guesses the secretary was foolish judging from the fact that the secretary did it. - a one-time action or repeated action in the past


Let us go back to square one. Shorty, you have checked the dictionary and I respect that. You obviously do it more often than me and that is really commendable  , but I disagree here. In my opinion the dictionary definition does not quite apply to our example or, if it does, it applies in a different way. In any case, in
_That would have been Della's car._ 
we really have an assumption based on knowledge, but in
_1. The secretary would have been foolish to do it._
we are not assuming her foolishness, so the dictionary definition does not apply. Nor could we talk about repeated action in the past under any circumstances. In this example we call into question her doing it in the first place, not whether she was foolish. Thus, depending on context the sentence could mean:
a)_ If she did it (and we are not sure she did it), the secretary was foolish._ or
b)_ She did not do it, but, if she had, she would have been foolish (implied 3rd conditional)_
Now, arguably, the sentence could have this other meaning:
c)_ I suppose the secretary did it and that was foolish of her._  
However, I do not see that meaning, especially out of context. In order to be able to see such a meaning, I would need the word 'enough' thrown somewhere into the sentence.  :
_The secretary would have been foolish enough to do it._ 
But even so, it would not be very likely for this meaning to be the intended one. At least not often.

Now, the other sentence:
_2. The secretary would have been foolish to have done it_.
Sandpiper mentioned this and I agree with him - this example could have the same meaning as the first one. And when it does, it is because people tend to believe (in my opinion erroneously) that 'to have done' agrees better with the past tense than 'to do'. 

However, in my earlier posts, I think I managed (until someone tells me it was rubbish  ) to come up with a context in which 2. is preferable. That would be a context in which a past-perfect-tense action is being called into question. In other words, example 2. has, for me, the additional meaning of:
_a) If she had done it, the secretary had been foolish or
b) She had not probably done it, but if she had, the secretary would have been foolish_.
_A: Had Jane read her professor's book when she sat the exam?
B: She would have been foolish not to have done it. _(meaning b) )


----------



## boozer

boozer said:


> Nor could we talk about repeated action in the past under any circumstances.


On reflection, a repeated past action is not out of the question.


----------



## shorty1

Thank you, boozer.

I would say, "It would have been foolish for a secretary to do it." to convey subjunctive mood.


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you for your post, boozer.
I'm sorry but I couldn't agree with you boozer about your opinion of my examples.
1. The secretary would have been foolish to do it.
a) If she did it (and we are not sure she did it), the secretary was foolish. 
The speaker assumed it soon after the situation, not assume at present. 
Why did you use the past tense without context? and even If there '1' was in a passage and the passage said with the past tense,
your interpretation might not be correct.
For example:
I saw the secretary ran out of the vice president's office, and I entered the room and saw documents stained with coffee on the table.
The secretary would have been foolish to do it.

The phrase 'would have' is prior to the tense of the passage; therefore, '1' is counterfactual. 

My interpretation is the below sentence, and speaker thought without a reason when he saw the documents that she didn't such a thing.
if secretary did it, the secretary would have been foolish.
I think the speaker's thought and the sentence structure are of more importance than the context.

In your continuous account, why do you continuously use 'would have' for possibility?

I want only the account of your opinion against my opinion.


----------



## boozer

park sang joon said:


> The phrase 'would have' is prior to the tense of the passage; therefore, '1' is counterfactual.
> .


I am not sure I understand the nature of your objection, Park. If I am not mistaken, you insist that your examples are by all means counterfactual. Is that it?


----------



## park sang joon

I'm sorry for my poor English ㅠㅠ
I think so, my examples are counterfactual.


----------



## shorty1

The coffee spilt over the papers-that happened in reality.


#1. The secretary will(or would) be a careless person if she did it. - We don't know who did it. (conditional)
(She is still working there.)

#2. The secretary would have been a careless person if she did it. - We don't know who did it. (conditional)
(She no longer works there.) 



If she has been fired, #2 is ok while if she is still working there, #1 is ok. 

I've found out that "would be foolish to~" and "would have been foolish to~" are used in a hypothetical situation when I googled. (*I was totally wrong*.)

By the way, may I ask you why you are insisting on "would have been foolish to~"?


----------



## park sang joon

Hi, shorty1
I think if the phrase 'would have' is used with a conditional clause or substitute of it, the sentence used with 'would have' must be counterfactual.
I have not heard the phrase 'would have' is used for possibility until now.


----------



## boozer

OK, Park. I have found this example. The article is written by someone called Tim Rogers, whose English I find excellent. It goes: "Even though he was dressed as a civilian among militiamen, some think Linder was "pushing the envelope" by packing heat. Others, however, say he would have been foolish to go into the mountains unarmed, given the threat of contra ambush." http://www.confidencial.com.ni/articulo/6499/slain-american-rsquos-legacy-shines-on-in-nicaragua Of course, I could have found many more examples but I wanted a structure very similar to your examples. As you see, those who say 'he would have been foolish' do not really know anything. They are just guessing. They strongly believe that he did not go unarmed. But they have no way of knowing what really happened, so this statement is not counterfactual. I agree, however, that in 99% of the cases your examples will probably be counterfactual.


----------



## park sang joon

No, The people interviewed knew the protagonist had a gun and some thought his pushing his luck, but some thought it was natural that he should have a gun.

Same as I already asked you, I have the below usages of the phrase 'would have'  in mind.
1) to refer to things that actually not happened. (O)
2) to refer to things that actually happened. (O)
3) to refer to things that might have happened. (X)

Your example is the same thing as '2)'


----------



## boozer

Maybe my example was not good. Here is another. It is from a book called "An Historical Geography of Europe" by JG Pounds, Cambridge University Press: "It is highly probable that they did occupy land which was already cleared. They would have been foolish not to do so, but..." I hope you do understand that 'it is highly probable' does not count as factual knowledge and, therefore, 'they would have been foolish' is an intelligent guess, not a counterfactual statement.


----------



## park sang joon

I couldn't agree with you about 'probability'. 
If we say something is highly probable, we think it will probably happen, so a historian thought they probably took the cleared land.
I think he said with conviction about his theory.
Anyway, Why would you stick to the usage 'possibility'?


----------



## boozer

His conviction is defined by the phrase 'highly probable'. There are highly probable things that are not facts, e.g. it is highly probable that the pyramids were built by aliens and the primitive people living back then would have been foolish not to try to stop them. Conterfactual, huh? You are, of course, free to disagree. You asked a question and I did my best to give an answer, which I still believe is correct irrespective of your agreement.


----------



## park sang joon

Why are angry with me?
I think you are a good and kind person and the reason is that you have continuously replied to my post having sincere concern, same as you said.
I don't hope you think of me likewise but I hope you don't think of me as a ungrateful person.

The high probability is not the fact.
If a situation is the fact, we will use the indicative mood.
Hypotheses have a wide range of probabilities but your second example has low possibility unlike your first example.
Anyway, You are maybe right and I might be wrong, and I will not argue with you anymore.
I hope you are still a good person to me. I'm so sorryㅠㅠ and thank you. ^^


----------



## boozer

No need to apologise, Park.  Actually, I told you repeatedly, that 'would have been' is mostly used in coutnerfactual situations. Just not always...


----------



## park sang joon

I hope you would help me now and for ever ^^


----------

