10 ms·

> She would have had to have been being watched. OK, now I feel like I don't know English. Is this proper English? What does it mean? How is it different from

> She would have had to have been being watched. OK, now I feel like I don't know English. Is this proper English? What does it mean? How is it different from "She would have had to have been watched"? Is the meaning clear to people? I'm scratching my head... Did you mean "She would have had to have felt like she's being watched"?

sfblah 5y ago
I’m a native English speaker here and it’s clear to me. I also think it’s somewhat tricky to express it more succinctly without changing the sentence a fair bit. Essentially it means “it must have been the case that, at the moment we’re speaking of, someone was watching her.” Your sentence is slightly different, in that it implies that, in general, someone was watching her during the timeframe we’re talking about, but not necessarily in the exact instant we’re talking about. Also, like the example above, your version could mean she’s someone who in general is watched (like the person who generally lives in Berlin), as opposed to someone being watched right during the instant we’re talking about. Complicated!
- dataflow 5y ago
  AH! Ok, I think I distilled it down to something simpler: It seems to be similar to the difference between "I would've been spoken to" vs. "I would've been being spoken to". Is that correct? Ugh, I have to admit it seems technically "correct" after all :-) but with such a painful (and uncommon) sentence structure that it makes you question if it's right...
  - reshlo 5y ago
    The former is past perfect[1], and the latter is past perfect progressive.[2] There are subtleties involved, but the most basic use case is that the former refers to an action that took place before some point in the past (to which the sentence refers), while the latter refers to an action that was still happening at that past point. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_English_verb_forms#Past_perfect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_English_verb_forms#Pas... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_English_verb_forms#Past_perfect_progressive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_English_verb_forms#Pas...
- shawxe 5y ago
  > Essentially it means “it must have been the case that, at the moment we’re speaking of, someone was watching her.” Another native English speaker here. This would be how I would parse "She had to have been being watched," but I think it's not quite the full picture in this sentence's case. It's important to note that the "would" adds the implication that this conclusion is being drawn based upon some other (possibly unspoken) observation or proposition. I would say the meaning is probably closer to "In order for some unspoken condition to be true, it must also be true that, during the moment of time in the past about which we are speaking, someone was watching her."
  - sfblah 5y ago
    You’re right. I was doing it on my phone and forgot that word was even there.
lmm 5y ago
That's perfectly normal English yes. "She would have had to have been watched" means she would have had to have been watched at that moment (e.g. because someone was watching the area where she did whatever it was), whereas "being watched" implies that the watching was ongoing and therefore that someone was continuously watching her at the time.
- sharken 5y ago
  Admittedly English is not my primary language, but "She would have had to have been being watched" seems to be a construct used in a class, but not something you would hear in day-to-day English.
  - lmm 5y ago
    Obviously the situation is fairly rare, but it sounds like a perfectly natural thing to say when it's true. I don't think it's an artificial example at all (whereas e.g. no-one actually says "buffalo" as a verb).
    - dataflow 5y ago
      > it sounds like a perfectly natural thing to say when it's true It doesn't sound natural to me at all; it sounds incredibly awkward to me. In a situation like that, I think people would say something like "someone would've been watching her at that moment".
      - lmm 5y ago
        "someone would've had have been" doesn't sound remotely natural. "someone must've been watching her" would be legitimate, but doesn't have the same connotations; it humanises the watcher, whereas "she must've had been being watched" suggests it could have been an organization rather than an individual, and so feels more sinister.
        dataflow 5y ago

sfblah 5y ago

I’m a native English speaker here and it’s clear to me. I also think it’s somewhat tricky to express it more succinctly without changing the sentence a fair bit. Essentially it means “it must have been the case that, at the moment we’re speaking of, someone was watching her.” Your sentence is slightly different, in that it implies that, in general, someone was watching her during the timeframe we’re talking about, but not necessarily in the exact instant we’re talking about. Also, like the example above, your version could mean she’s someone who in general is watched (like the person who generally lives in Berlin), as opposed to someone being watched right during the instant we’re talking about. Complicated!

dataflow 5y ago
AH! Ok, I think I distilled it down to something simpler: It seems to be similar to the difference between "I would've been spoken to" vs. "I would've been being spoken to". Is that correct? Ugh, I have to admit it seems technically "correct" after all :-) but with such a painful (and uncommon) sentence structure that it makes you question if it's right...
- reshlo 5y ago
  The former is past perfect[1], and the latter is past perfect progressive.[2] There are subtleties involved, but the most basic use case is that the former refers to an action that took place before some point in the past (to which the sentence refers), while the latter refers to an action that was still happening at that past point. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_English_verb_forms#Past_perfect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_English_verb_forms#Pas... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_English_verb_forms#Past_perfect_progressive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_English_verb_forms#Pas...
shawxe 5y ago
> Essentially it means “it must have been the case that, at the moment we’re speaking of, someone was watching her.” Another native English speaker here. This would be how I would parse "She had to have been being watched," but I think it's not quite the full picture in this sentence's case. It's important to note that the "would" adds the implication that this conclusion is being drawn based upon some other (possibly unspoken) observation or proposition. I would say the meaning is probably closer to "In order for some unspoken condition to be true, it must also be true that, during the moment of time in the past about which we are speaking, someone was watching her."
- sfblah 5y ago
  You’re right. I was doing it on my phone and forgot that word was even there.

lmm 5y ago

That's perfectly normal English yes. "She would have had to have been watched" means she would have had to have been watched at that moment (e.g. because someone was watching the area where she did whatever it was), whereas "being watched" implies that the watching was ongoing and therefore that someone was continuously watching her at the time.

sharken 5y ago
Admittedly English is not my primary language, but "She would have had to have been being watched" seems to be a construct used in a class, but not something you would hear in day-to-day English.
- lmm 5y ago
  Obviously the situation is fairly rare, but it sounds like a perfectly natural thing to say when it's true. I don't think it's an artificial example at all (whereas e.g. no-one actually says "buffalo" as a verb).
  - dataflow 5y ago
    > it sounds like a perfectly natural thing to say when it's true It doesn't sound natural to me at all; it sounds incredibly awkward to me. In a situation like that, I think people would say something like "someone would've been watching her at that moment".
    - lmm 5y ago
      "someone would've had have been" doesn't sound remotely natural. "someone must've been watching her" would be legitimate, but doesn't have the same connotations; it humanises the watcher, whereas "she must've had been being watched" suggests it could have been an organization rather than an individual, and so feels more sinister.
      - dataflow 5y ago