ORLAPUBS P. L67 : USING ENGLISH VERB FORMS

    Many people do not know how to use compound verb forms beginning with have (e.g. have done). These are not like the Greek perfect; they are more like the Romance “indefinite” pasts—where indefinite means not dictic, i.e. not explicitly located in time or space.
     Consuetudinary past (useta-pasts), characterizing-would-pasts (see the table at the end of this page) like “She would sit there like that during the time when I was learning to read,” and of course have pasts are un-dictic. Like the Romance languages, English cannot say “Troy was standing 600 years” or “Troy useta stand for 600 years”; either becomes acceptable if we add “there” (or perhaps “by then” to the "was standing" example, but not to the useta example--though the verb would normally be a had-compound (“Troy had been standing 600 years by then”).  Note that “for 100 years” does not make a use dictic; "during that time" does do so, as in "Troy was standing during that time" or "They didn't useta eat with forks during that primitive epoch."   (Always traditionally takes a have-form; but see below.)
     A simple past form like saw or a progressive past like was seeing can be used without a dixis being made explicit, as in "We saw them" "They were seeing what could be done," where the speaker (perhaps also a listener) has in mind a given past moment or SPAN OF TIME ENDING BEFORE NOW. But if the time-span is presumed not to end before now, i.e. to last up to or even include the present (e.g. "He has seen them before and still sees them on a weekly basis), a have-compound is to be used.   A non-exochronous have-compound is disallowed in a dictic expression like “She has arrived at 5 a.m.” because it would require what the French would call a “definite” past time in Classical French; the time is definite because of the specified temporal dixis--“5 a.m.”

The form had've in "If I'd've been there" is often heard; this is the double past-anterior (an over-marked formation that constitutes a differently originating parallel to the same phenomenon in French grammars and, as a variant found in some kinds of German, in German grammars). It results from certain phonetological effects that erase 'd--which assimilates to various following consonants in fast tempos (cf. "If I('b) been there, . . . ") and then simply disappears, leaving "If I been there, . . . " (The same thing happens in "You('b) better.") Another way of strengthening 'd to prevent its disappearing is to change it to would. This is being heard more often now, but is avoided in careful writing. What is really ungrammatical is to say "If she was there yesterday" when a counterfactual "If she had been there yesterday" is meant. The counter-error is to change correct realis "If she was there yesterday" to "If she were there yesterday." If she was/were there now" is correct; but note that was is excluded from the transformed "Were she there now."
Conditionals are obviously very poorly understood by many teachers of grammar, who do not know how to explain either the errors or the system of correct conditionals.

Some speakers are losing the have-forms and say "I didn't do it yet" where the cultivated usages would be "I haven't done it yet." Cf. equally acceptable "It's not done yet." In fact, today's educated and uneducated speakers treat "already" as dictic and say "I already did it." ("It's already done" is of course correct in any grammar.) Speakers are simply being logical in saying "I just did it" in place of former "I've just done it"--a proximal past. "I already did it" is perhaps by analogy with "I just did it." "I didn't do it yet" is avoided by cultivated speakers.

Aside from designating an act or state in a past period not ended before NOW (e.g. "She has known that ever since she was a child"), forms com- pounded with the auxiliary very have indicate a time that is prior relative to some other time than the past:
--posterior: "That will have happened by then."
--past: "That had already taken place by then."
--past-posterior: "That was (going) to have taken place by yesterday."
--exochronous (timeless): "Dessert has always ended our dinners."
--conditional: "That w/could/might have happened by then, if . . . "
Each of the modalities just mentioned is named with "anterior" following the name shown; e.g. past-posterior-anterior, conditional-anterior.

     Yet and not yet go with the present-anterior except in sloppy speech.
    Already likewise goes with the present-anterior in formal styles.
    Just, which alwaysused to go with the present-anterior, has now practically ceased to do so. This newer usage is the more logical, since an event that just took place or a state that just ceased to exist was not "in a time period not ended before now."

To explain further uses, it is necessary first to distinguish exochronous (timeless) have-compounds from other verb forms compounded with have. While English cannot say, “They have done it at ten o’clock” (a frequent error made by Germans), where dixis is explicit, exochronous examples like the following are acceptable:

“She has always arrived at 5 a.m., no matter what time I’ve been getting there.”
“If he has spoken before you have gotten there [or before you get there]
tomorrow at 7 p.m., try to get a copy of his talk.”

Note that exochronous forms are used for timeless events or states in unmarked contexts and also in the marked surrealis context (SEE NOTE 1 IN THE BOX FOLLOWING THIS; see also examples below in this box. These matters are discussed in Bailey, Essays on time-based linguistic analysis [Oxford University Press, 1996] and in various articles by Bailey, including booklets published by Orchid land Publications). Various kinds of information about verb uses and surrealis (especially hypothesis) clauses are found HERE and (very readily accessible in tables) ON THIS PAGE. The surrealis context is a clause subordinate to a posterior verb form (present-posterior, past-posterior, or posterior-posterior), including the imperative; see note 1 below for the different types:

--If she has done it by tomorrow, . . . [hypothesis clause]

--When she has arrived later this afternoon, . . . [temporal clause]

--Tell whoever has done that to cancel it. [whoeverclause]
--Keep doing it until they’ve arrived. [clause following infinitive]

--Although he may be tired tomorrow, . . . [surrealis concessive]

Another marked (but not surrealis) exochronous use is that of a posterior having the connotation of a routine or scheduled event or situation: "Her train arrives at 7 p.m." This is one of the nine posterior modalities in English, as elsewhere indicated on this website and in the OUP book referred to above. (The reversals of would and was going to [pronounced as was gonna] are also discussed there and on this site, along with those of passivizng be and get; the reversals of would and was gonna in the past are particularly complex.)

     NOTE 1: The surrealis context is a hypothesis, temporal, or relative subordinate clause depending on a posterior predicate--including an infinitive. Also included are whatever/whoever (noun) clauses.   Most hypothesis clauses are surrealis when posteriors; but see Note 2. Hypothesis clauses begin with "if, unless, lest, in case [that], on condition that, assuming that."; not all equivalent conjunctions can introduce hypothesis clauses other than those of the surrealis type. Temporal clauses begin with when, before, after, till/until, since, once, as soon as."   (On the assumption/premise that do not introduce surrealis hypotheses; they introduce the expectative type of posterior hypothesis discussed in Note 2.)   Concessive clauses--they begin with although-- can be surrealis when not factual; the factual kind often begin with even though. Causal clauses (beginning with because, since, seeing that, etc.) are never surrealis since they are never irrealis. (S is an overmarked subcategory of irrealis expressions; see ir and surrealis in the index to Bailey, Essays on time-based linguistic analysis [Oxford University Press], 1996).
     NOTE 2: Hypothesis clauses in (present-, past-, or posterior-posterior contexts other than the neutral ones just described) are not surrealis. There are two kinds if realis hypotheses--one that is neutral, and one that is expectative (if posterior; otherwise factual). Counterexpectative (if posterior: dubitative) hypotheses are simply irrealis:
   Irrealis:        "If he did that tomorrow, . . ."
                         "If she should do that tomorrow, . . ".
                         "If they were to do that tomorrow . . ."
   Expectative: "If she'll do it, . . ."
                          "If it's gonna be okay with them, . . ."
Note that hypothesis clauses (of any variety of reality) beginning with If can omit If if the verb is had, should, could, or a simple past. When If is omitted, the auxiliary verb begins the clause:
    "Had they been there, . . ."       "Could she be present tomorrow, . . ."
    "Should he arrive on time . . ." "Did he but realize it, . . ."
Note that did is used even where a past is formed without did; the full form of the last example would have been "If he but knew that, . . . Of the four examples just given, only the ones beginning would should and could are posteriors and irrealis. Had begins a past conterfactual (irrealis) hypothesis; did begins a present counterfactual (also irrealis). (Since the future has not taken place, there are no counterfactual or factual posterior hypotheses.) But while could = "was/were able" in negative and interrogative sentences, the following non-posteriors are possible as counterfactual hypotheses whether negated/interrogative or not:
Present: "Could she (not) hear that, it would be better."
Past: "Could she (not) have moved her arm at that moment, . . ."

A principal main error is the use a past for an exochronous have-form, "I usually like to know that (or: "when") it arrived" (for correct "has arrived') and "If the program fails, whoever finds out that it failed, . . ." The latter can be properly used when the event or situation is factually past--not when it is simply prior to some later time, which may be posterior to the time of the speaker or writer; e.g. "When they learn that their pet died this morning, . . . "

Note finally that have-forms are the only anterior forms that are used in marked modalities--i.e. in infinitives, participles, gerunds (and imperatives like "Have done with them!") Note too that have has causative and contracausative uses, respectively illustrated in "They're having their pool landscaped" and "The catcher had a bat strike him during that game." These are not auxiliary verbs like "have" in the have- modality. The other non-auxiliary use of have (also "'ve got"; British speakers have a past--"had got") is negated differently from auxiliary "have": The negated auxiliary is "haven't"; the negation of possessive have is "don't have" in contemporary usage. ("Have not" is taught to foreigners; but it is on a level with prohibitive "Fail not!")

THREE NON-POSTERIOR USES OF WOULD

1. “She would sit there like that during the noon hour in those days.” The use of "be" as a consuetudinary present (e.g. "I always just be myself in those situations" and "If you'll just be yourself, . . .") is discussed in earlier Orchid Land Publications booklets.
2. Volitional ('be willing, insist on, persist in"): "He would keep on doing that despite everyone else's objections."

See further on these matters in Bailey,
Essays on time-based linguistic analysis
(OUP, 1996), p. 203, n.7.

FOUR USES IN PAST COUNTERFACTUAL HYPOTHESES

Historically, a past counterfactual hypothesis uses past-anterior verbs compounded with have, as in "If they had been on time, this would not've happened" (with a quasi-posterior use of would). Had gets reduced to 'd in ordinary speech, and this normally assimilates to certain consonants following, as in "If they'b been on time." To avoid the loss of the first "b" in fast tempos, the double past-anterior is heard: "If they had've been on time." But in conversational English this "hadda" or simply "'da" is heard; cf. "If they'da been on time."

One frequently hears "would've" or--with normal deletion of "v" in "'ve" (and unstressed "of"): "woulda." This "would've" (by analogy with "would've" in the contingency clauses of a conditional like "If it'd been done, we would've arrived on time") has not been considered "correct," though it is quickly being established among radio commentators, etc. What is almost equally frequent among the less-educated is the use of a past for a past-anterior, as in "If he came [for: "had come"] on the preceding day, things would have been in order before now." The use of "were" for "had been" sounds even more ungrammatical, as in "If it were possible two weeks ago, . . ." For were (or, if the subject is I or a singular noun or pronoun, were or was) is what the form of be used in present (not past) counterfactuals like "If she were (was) here NOW, . . ." Note that, while many say "was" for "were" in present-time hypotheses beginning with "If," "was" cannot replace "were" in the format omitting "If" with altered word order: "Were he ready, we could leave now"--not; "Was he readY, . . ."