"when we've got there"
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
"when we've got there"
Does this sentence work, IYO?
They should be waiting for us when we've got there.
They should be waiting for us when we've got there.
-
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
"When I get there we'll have supper" vs "When I've got there we'll have supper"
Doesn't the second sound like there can be a breathing space, however brief, between the two actions? Which maybe makes that already-in-process "waiting" in
They should be waiting for us when we've got there.
the thing that jars.
Or does it make it sound like getting there is in itself a drawn out process with an end to it, which is odd...... unless it's true? :
Going through immigration and security will take a while. But when we've got there (arrivals) they should be waiting for us.
Doesn't the second sound like there can be a breathing space, however brief, between the two actions? Which maybe makes that already-in-process "waiting" in
They should be waiting for us when we've got there.
the thing that jars.
Or does it make it sound like getting there is in itself a drawn out process with an end to it, which is odd...... unless it's true? :
Going through immigration and security will take a while. But when we've got there (arrivals) they should be waiting for us.
Yes, normally the perfect form would express a gap in such sentences, but the verb arrive doesn't seem to allow it if not followed by a sequence of connected actions, as shown in the extended sentence I posted. I dunno, maybe it's just me. I see "arrive" as a punctual, and not extended, action in such sentences. The waiting is the background (longer action) to the arrival, IMO.Doesn't the second sound like there can be a breathing space, however brief, between the two actions? Which maybe makes that already-in-process "waiting" in
-
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
-
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
How about here?Stephen Jones wrote:
They should be waiting for us when we've arrived.The second is obviously a bizarre order of events.
- a) We arrive
b) They start waiting.
"They should be waiting for us when we've eaten." Couldn't the waiting have started before our completion of dinner?
Last edited by metal56 on Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hmmm. I think Stephen is right - the "problem" here isn't the present perfect as such, but a sematic mismatch between the two parts.
They should be waiting for us appears to describe an ongoing situation that begins before the arrival (hence the continuous aspect) - sematically it's the same as I expect them to be waiting for us
The perfect aspect in when we have arrived implies that once this action is completed, something else can happen. But the waiting has already begun...
The two don't appear to go together very well, though I'd desribe the construction as clumsy rather than totally wrong. Hats off to JTT for giving a context where it might make sense.
They should be waiting for us appears to describe an ongoing situation that begins before the arrival (hence the continuous aspect) - sematically it's the same as I expect them to be waiting for us
The perfect aspect in when we have arrived implies that once this action is completed, something else can happen. But the waiting has already begun...
The two don't appear to go together very well, though I'd desribe the construction as clumsy rather than totally wrong. Hats off to JTT for giving a context where it might make sense.
I agree. Of course, we don't know whether that "should" is obligation or not, but it's all the same anyway.lolwhites wrote: They should be waiting for us appears to describe an ongoing situation that begins before the arrival (hence the continuous aspect) - sematically it's the same as I expect them to be waiting for us
Yes, but it's not the same in "they'll be waiting for us in the pub when we've arrived, dumped our bags and had a quick shower". There, we don't know if the waiting will begin before or even during or after those events. Why? Because it takes time to go down to the pub, and that action is implied, but not explicit in the sentence. With the original sentence, there's no logical time gap between arriving and a next event. So "when we've arrived", alone, sounds odd, even though the speaker could be using shorthand for "arrived, dumped bags, showered". If the speaker considers "we've arrived" to include the above events, then I guess the sentence is OK, but I'd say too much is left to implication in that case.The perfect aspect in when we have arrived implies that once this action is completed, something else can happen. But the waiting has already begun...
It all sounds strange and unnatural to me. I don't think I could even imagine a scenario for this. It's like trying to fit a circle peg in a square hole. Or maybe this is British use of perfect that Americans have shunned? Could the future perfect, though rarely used, be missing here? I would rephrase them thus:
They should (already) be waiting for us by the time we get there.
Or
They should (already) have been waiting for us by the time we get there.
Or with future perfect:
They will have been waiting for us by the time we get there.
They should (already) be waiting for us by the time we get there.
Or
They should (already) have been waiting for us by the time we get there.
Or with future perfect:
They will have been waiting for us by the time we get there.