Level: intermediate

We can use a modal verb with have and a past participle:

Subject Modal have Past participle  
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

Grouping_MTY0MDY=

Modal verbs with have 2

GapFillTyping_MTY0MDc=

 

Comments

Hello! I wonder which one is correct
1. It should have voided.
2. It should be voided.
I want to say that a transaction has done and it can't be voided anymore.
Please help me thank you.

Hello jarljudele,

A voided transaction is one which is cancelled before completion, so if the transaction has been completed (as I understand from what you wrote) then you can only give advice about what should have been. In that case you would say:

It should have been voided (but was not, and so the transaction was completed)

 

Best wishes,

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

Thank you so much!
That was very helpful.

Is there a timeline for should have+pp?
Is it a tense? Can we draw a timeline for it?

Hello tnikdana,

'Should' is used for present and future meaning but it is not a tense. It is a modal verb and its meaning is not time-related but rather provides information on the speaker's perspective or attitude.

'Should have' is used for past meaning, but other than that the same comments apply to it.

 

Best wishes,

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

okay, I read the advice. Form what I understood, we use "could + infinitive when we talk about a general possibility in the past and could + have + past participle when referring to specific possibilities in the past.
Any other secret meanings?

Hi,

If I'm talking about an event in the future that is sort of 50/50 might or might not happen, should I use Conditional one or two?

(1) if low-lying nations are to be wiped off the map due to rising sea levels, it will have repercussions
(2) if low-lying nations were wiped off the map due to rising sea levels, it would have repercussions
(3) if low-lying nations are to be wiped off the map due to rising sea levels, it would have repercussions – this makes the most sense to me, as the first part in the present tense indicates probability, and the second part in the past tense indicated a conservative approach to it, but I guess it's not grammatically correct...

Many thanks

Hi deliciriouswombat,

Either (1) or (2) is possible. We don't mix real and unreal meanings in hypothetical sentences, so (3) in not standard English. Which of the first two options you choose is up to you. If you wish to emphasise that you see the condition (the first clause) as a real possibility then you choose (1); if you wish to emphasise that it is unlikely, impossible or purely hypothetical then you choose (2). It is not a question of probability per se, but rather the speaker's intention, and how they wish to express it.

Best wishes,

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

Could you please explain to me, when to use the construction of modal verb + infinitive, to express past action
and when nodal verb + have + past participle again for past actions and events?
Thanks

Hello Antara111,

Please read through our different modals pages (e.g. can, could and could have) for more explanations and for examples of how modals + have + past participle are used. After you've done this, feel free to ask us again, but please make your question as specific as possible.

Best wishes,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team

Pages