EconomicHitman
Can you use "must" to replace the following cumbersome phrase?
E.g. Can this sentence:
"The IT company that is hired to run OPTN's computer systems _would have had to have_ worked on an organ transplant network in the past"
be shortened to:
"The IT company that is hired to run OPTN's computer systems _must have_ worked on an organ transplant network in the past"
and still retain its meaning?
Sir² Morgan
@Economic_Hitman I would say no, depending on the original context. in some cases it could be equivalent, but your shortened form is slightly different. it implies that they had to have done X to do Y, while the other says if they were to have done Y then they would've had to have previously done X, without implying that they DID do X. its subtle, I admit, but different IMO
EconomicHitman
@mh Yes! That's what I thought when I asked the question. I still feel like "must have" is an improvement, but I think Warren's intent was similar to what you meant in the second case, like a hypothetical scenario. The former case could be interpreted as deductive reasoning.
Sir² Morgan
@Economic_Hitman these forms of chains of could/should/would and had/have get into very complicated forms of subtle changes to the meaning. even though I instinctively knew the slight difference in implied meaning, I still struggled a bit in my attempt to make the comparison using other words. I'm glad it seems to have come through :)
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.