0

The context is as below:

A: Yesterday I visited Jim's home at 4 pm. But He wasn't at home.

B: He would have been out to the gym. I know that he often goes to the gym at that time.

I now that I can use:

(1)I think he was out to the gym....

(2)He must have been out to the gym...

(3)He would have been out to the gym...

(4)He could have been out to the gym...

What is the difference between these sentences above?

The most thing I want to know is if it is correct to use (3)"would have been" to make a speculation.

Improve this question
9
  • 3
    (2) and (3) mean that you are fairly confident that he was at the gym - (1) and (4) that you think he was possibly there.
    – Kate Bunting
    Nov 10, 2022 at 8:57
  • @KateBunting any difference between (2) and (3)?
    – LE HANH
    Nov 10, 2022 at 8:59
  • Well, must have sounds more confident than would have to me.
    – Kate Bunting
    Nov 10, 2022 at 10:06
  • 1
    Wrong. If you read my comment again, you will see that I said that I think he was and he could have been express less certainty. Might have and may have also express less certainty.
    – Kate Bunting
    Nov 10, 2022 at 13:20
  • 1
    In this context, yes (not normally).
    – Kate Bunting
    Nov 12, 2022 at 13:17

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

"He would have been at the gym" suggests that is what you would expect. For example, if it was someone's usual habit to be at the gym at a certain time you would reasonably expect them to be there.

"He must have been at the gym" demonstrates a different kind of surety. It suggests that you have reached the conclusion, perhaps by considering some evidence or eliminating other possibilities, that he must have been there.

Neither mean 100% certainty.

By contrast, "he could have been at the gym" only suggests a possibility. This speculation could be given alongside others, for example "he could have been at the gym, or at his home".

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    “He would have been at the gym” can be used to show my opinion based on what I know about his habit, not a inference. Right? And this have the same meaning as “ I think he was at the gym” Right?
    – LE HANH
    Nov 10, 2022 at 10:11
  • 2
    @LEHANH Yes and no. Yes, "he would have been at the gym" is pretty much as you describe. But "I think he was at the gym" suggests you have more specific information than just an awareness of their routine. That would suggest more that you had specific knowledge and are recalling it as best you can. For example, if I said "I think that's correct" it means you are recalling a memory but are not completely sure about it.
    – Astralbee
    Nov 10, 2022 at 10:32
1

The structure "must have" indicates a conclusion arrived at by a process of deduction. In other words, Sentence (2) means something like, "The only place he could reasonably have been was at the gym".

The structure "would have" indicates a conclusion arrived at through by reference to other information, like in this case, knowing his schedule. So in this case, Sentence (3) means something like, "He goes to the gym every Saturday afternoon, so that's almost certainly where he was."

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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