0

For example

"The installation should have finished by tomorrow."

I think in this sentence 'should have p.p' could express future meaning, but it is used rarely that only using 'should' can express fully future meaning, so that using the 'should have p.p' has been used rarely.

1

I'm not quite sure what your question is; but indeed, the so-called "present" in English (including of auxiliaries) can often have future meaning, if there are other indicators of futurity. Eg:

We leave tomorrow.

I'm going tomorrow.

I need to see him tomorrow.

I can't do it tomorrow.

I get vaccinated tomorrow.

Perfect constructions with "have" are more restricted: I can't think of an example with a simple temporal adverb like "tomorrow", but with a temporal clause they might be possible:

? If you can't see him when you get there, he's missed the train.

But perfect constructions with modal auxiliaries (like your example) work fine.

I believe the English "present" would be better called "non-past".

2
  • 1
    There is no future tense in the question. The idea of future comes from /by tomorrow/. Just because you have tomorrow doesn't mean there is a future tense. There is, however, a future idea. I need to see him tomorrow: I need [this is what I need now, today] to see him tomorrow.
    – Lambie
    Dec 28 '16 at 18:42
  • @Lambie: as far as I can see, you are agreeing with me. I did not once use the word "tense" in my answer. In fact, I believe that there is no such thing as a "future tense" in English - the only tenses are past and non-past.
    – Colin Fine
    Dec 28 '16 at 21:09
0

The installation should have finished by tomorrow = not grammatical

The installation should have been finished by yesterday=grammatical

The installation should be finished by tomorrow = grammatical

These are passive verb forms. But none of them is in a future tense. However, in the third one, since there is by tomorrow, the idea is in the future but not the verb.

8
  • But in this link ell.stackexchange.com/questions/43312/… stoneyB explain that that could express future tense.
    – GKK
    Dec 28 '16 at 18:24
  • No, it does not "express a future tense". There either is or isn't a future tense. The BY tomorrow tells us it is in the future.
    – Lambie
    Dec 28 '16 at 18:28
  • 1
    I find the first sentence perfectly grammatical. "Finish" can be intransitive as well as transitive. In fact, if it is software that is being installed rather than a kitchen, so the installation runs itself, I find that meaning more natural, and I don't read your second and third sentences as passive, but as including the adjective "finished".
    – Colin Fine
    Dec 28 '16 at 18:29
  • OK: Let's substitute ART SHOW: The art show should have finished by tomorrow. In that sense, fair enough. (You can no longer view the art show). That is grammatical. But there is no future tense. The installation [the fact of software being installed] should have been finished by yesterday versus should be finished by tomorrow.
    – Lambie
    Dec 28 '16 at 18:30
  • 1
    I didn't say "have finished" was an adjectival form. I said "be finished" was. "The installation has finished" and "The installation is finished" are both grammatical, but have different grammar. The first makes sense if you are regarding the installation as a self-activating operation, the can be used whether it is self-activating or not.
    – Colin Fine
    Dec 28 '16 at 21:15
-1

Just like Lambie said, "Have", when used after a modal verb, implies to say something that has already been done, something that has already been finished, so, how could the installation have been finished TOMORROW, once tomorrow hasn't yet come? "Be" would be the proper answer for that sentence. However, as you are talking about expectation, I suggest that you use: Supposed to be: The installation was supposed to be finished tomorrow. Supposed to is used when referring to something that was expected, something expected to be finished, done, conclued in a specific period of time.

Take a look at these examples:

The doors were supposed to be installed last week, but they haven't yet been installed.

The package was supposed to arrive one hour ago.

The new playstation was supposed to arrive at stores last month.

Barack Obama is supposed to leave the presidency in 2017

Trump is supposed to move into White House next month.

5
  • This is both factually wrong (the so called "present" and a fortiori the so called "present perfect" can have future reference in English, with suitable expressions locating the action in the future)., and not an answer (the question, I think was about the use of the form "should have finished" with future meaning: suggesting a completely different construction is irrelevant). -1.
    – Colin Fine
    Dec 28 '16 at 21:20
  • Actually, I only got 50% of all you said, your explaination doesn't make much sense to me, I will keep my answer, I'm 100% sure my answer is correct, but just in case you want to check some trustful sources, I will be leaving some below: 5minuteenglish.com/jul14.htm - Supposed to perfect-english-grammar.com/… - Could have/ Should have/ Might have.
    – Davyd
    Dec 28 '16 at 21:52
  • "Supposed to" is perfectly good, but the OP was not asking for alternative ways of expressing it, they were just asking about the grammaticality of the given form. That's why I said your suggestion was irrelevant. As for the "should have" in the future, you appear to be claiming that I do not know my own native language, but that the fact that an elementary teaching resource does not mention a possibility means that that possibility cannot occur.
    – Colin Fine
    Dec 28 '16 at 22:25
  • If it wasn't what the OP meant, then what did he mean? He is asking about the usage of "should" in a future action, so, it seems to be impossible to me, pay attention to this sentence: The installation should have finished by tomorrow it sounds to me that he is talking about one expectation, i.e, he was expecting the installation to be finished by tomorrow? If it was what he meant, then "supposed to" would be the proper word for that sentence, since we are talking about an expectation.
    – Davyd
    Dec 28 '16 at 22:32
  • @Colin Fine The OP's question is slightly ambiguous. Because we don't know whether installation is an event or an activity. That's what makes the difference here. For me, only if installation is an event does it work (should have finished). It doesn't work if installation means the activity of installing software.
    – Lambie
    Dec 29 '16 at 15:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .