Level: intermediate
We can use a modal verb with have and a past participle:
Subject | Modal | have | Past participle | Adverbial, object or complement |
---|---|---|---|---|
They | will | have | arrived | by now. |
You | might | have | seen | the film. |
Jack and Jill | would | have | been | late. |
We use a modal verb with have:
- to refer back from the present:
It's nearly eight o'clock. They will have arrived by now.
- to refer back from a point of time in the past:
We were very worried. We thought someone might have taken the car.
- to refer back from a point of time in the future:
We won't eat until they arrive. They might not have had supper.
- to refer to past time:
You should have helped her when she asked.
They might have got lost. Nobody knows where they are.
- Modal verbs with have 1
- Modal verbs with have 2
Average
Hello Ahmed Imam
Both of those are correct and sound natural -- good work. The first sentence speaks about the past and the second one about the present.
All the best
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello alist123
We sometimes use the relative pronoun 'when' with words that express time (for example, 'day', 'week', 'hour', 'time', etc.), but often we do not. I would recommend 'time we spent' instead of 'time when we spent'.
You can read a little more about this in the last section on our Relative pronouns and relative clauses page.
All the best
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Aniyanmon
These replies don't sound correct to me. Perhaps there is some context in which it would make sense to reply with 'would have' here, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
All the best
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Aniyanmon
Yes, both of those sentences are grammatically correct.
All the best
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Aniyanmon
As is explained just before the first exercise above, a modal verb plus 'have' can be used to refer back from a time in the future. In the question and answer you cite from the book, that future time is 'by next year' (or 'by that time'). So it is correct here.
Note that in this case, 'should' is not giving advice -- it is used to talk about probability (see the Certainty section on that page for more examples).
Thanks for asking this question on a more appropriate page.
All the best
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Samavor,
No, you cannot use should have with that meaning. As a concept, should describes something desirable or advisable, not something contingent on a counter-factual past. You could use a phrase like ...it would have been a good idea to... or ...it would have been sensible to...
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi hadi.khorand,
'can have' + past participle is not used in affirmative verb phrases (e.g. 'She
can have gonehome') -- instead we use 'could have' + past participle (e.g. 'She could have gone home'). The latter refers to a past possibility.'can have' + past participle can be used in negative verb phrases (e.g. 'She can't have gone home -- her car keys are still here.'), where it expresses certainty about the past, and it can also be used in interrogative verb phrases (though it is a bit unusual): 'Where can she have gone?'
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Goktug123,
Your first interpretation of the first sentence is correct -- the speaker supposes that the car was John's. The second sentence is similar to the first -- the speaker makes a supposition about a past event.
As you suggest, 'would have' + v3 is also commonly used in third conditional structures, which can be used, for example, to speak about regrets. For example, 'If I hadn't taken that job, I would have finished my studies.'
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team