What's new

Why are these "should" not possible as epistemic "should"?

nekocat

先輩
3 Apr 2007
264
11
28
What is the reason for the following "should" being anomalous?

(1) -- George just bought a Lexus.
-- That [*should / must] have cost a lot.
(2) -- I banged my knee on the corner of the desk.
-- That [*should / must] have hurt.​
窶堋「窶堙や?堙?ツ債ァツ静倪?卩。窶扣窶堙俄?堋イナスw窶慊ア窶堋「窶堋ス窶堋セ窶堋「窶堙?、ナ?'ナステ凪?堋オ窶堙??堋ィ窶堙ィ窶堙懌?堋キツ!:)
Ich bedanke mich Ihnen für Ihre Hilfbereitshaft.
 
Well, "should" is less definite than "must". 😌
For example, the other day my colleague got injured. I said to her, "You should go to the doctor". I could also have said, "You must go to the doctor". The two sentences have slightly different meanings. The first one, using should, is me giving my opinion. Of course, this can also be used in giving a definite order as well - if my manager says to me, "You should do such-and-such", it would look bad for me if I refused outright! (Although of course I could always debate it! ;-)) But in general, "should" is more often used in the kind of sentence like, "Ahh, you should go to the doctor / buy one / give 'em hell / whatever" - in other words, someone telling you what they think you should do. Whereas if they say "must", they are telling you to do something (regardless of whether they are your manager or what!). For instance, if someone says to you, "You must move your chair from where it's obstructing the walkway", or "You must keep your desk top tidy", they are telling you that you have to do it (no doubt you could disobey, but you could expect consequences / implications later).

With that in mind, it can be seen that "must" is a very definite word. Therefore it fits and makes sense in the sentences you gave in your example, where "should" does not. For instance, "That must have hurt", meaning something like "There is no way that could have not hurt!" (<-- we would use that form only rarely, for special emphasis, because it is rather awkward-sounding). In other words, it's imperative that it did hurt - it must have hurt!

If we said "That should have hurt", it means something different - it means that whatever it was should have hurt, but in fact it didn't!

I hope that makes some sense! :p
 
A: "George just bought a Lexus."

B: "That should have cost him a lot" (because I'm pretty sure a Lexus is expensive)

A: "Yes, it did."

B: "That must have cost him a lot." ( because I know a Lexus is expensive and I'm sure it did.)

A: "Yes, it did."



A: "I banged my knee on the corner of the desk."

B: "That should have hurt." (because I'm sure banging one's knee on the corner of desk would hurt.)

A: "It did, but it was not that bad."

B: "That must have hurt." (because I know for sure how painful it could be because I experienced it.)

A: "It did, but it was not that bad."

Both cases are quite acceptable imo depending on how much information/experience one has with the subject when answering.
 
To me, it's a difference of emotional involvement. With "must have," the person is showing interest in what the other person said, and with "should have," the speaker is emotionally detached and just stating a judgment.

Since the second case isn't as likely to come up much, "must have" is the more common one.
 
Nekocat san, you have stated that you know 'should' and 'must,' as possible choices in the sentences given, are anomaous in nature. How is it that you know that to be true? (in that particular setting and usage, I mean)

If, actually, you could firstly answer--or expound, rather--on this matter, it would be a lot easier to answer you question, and at the same time prove to be more efficient.

Whether you believe that to be true or not, I ask that you please do take the time to expound on it. I ask that you trust me on this.

Thanks, Nekocat san !! 👍
 
FWIW, Pachipro,
I can see we are both Americans, but I would never, ever use should that way, and I've never heard of it done that way. It sounds just too unnatural.

Must, in this case, is used in making a deduction based on known information.
As Kinsao wrote, should is often used when the opposite has actually happened. Your examples don't fit that concept, not in American English, anyway.
 
It seems to me that the only way "should" would be used in those sentences is if whatever it is didn't happen and the speaker thought it should have.

"George just bought a Lexus" (but it didn't cost very much)

"It should have cost a lot" (maybe the speaker is a little jealous)

"I banged my knee on the corner of the desk" (but it didn't hurt)

"It should have hurt" (the speaker holds a grudge and wishes it had hurt)

Saying "must have hurt" and "must have cost a lot" is being sympathetic in a way.
 
Kinsao said:
If we said "That should have hurt", it means something different - it means that whatever it was should have hurt, but in fact it didn't!
I guess you mean "should have" can only mean in the deontic (しなければならない) sense in "That should have hurt." Right?

This epistemic/deontic distinction of must/should is one of the most hard grammars for me. I sometimes stop to think which usage I should interpret.

Thanks to all who responded to me kindly, I confirmed that epistemic/deontic aspects are inseperable. Sarapva's sentences in parentheses illustrate that.:)
 
What is the reason for the following "should" being anomalous?

(1) -- George just bought a Lexus.
-- That [*should / must] have cost a lot.
(2) -- I banged my knee on the corner of the desk.
-- That [*should / must] have hurt.​
窶堋「窶堙や?堙?ツ債ァツ静倪?卩。窶扣窶堙俄?堋イナスw窶慊ア窶堋「窶堋ス窶堋セ窶堋「窶堙?、ナ?'ナステ凪?堋オ窶堙??堋ィ窶堙ィ窶堙懌?堋キツ!:)
Ich bedanke mich Ihnen f&uuml;r Ihre Hilfbereitshaft.

"Should have" in that context means "this is/was my expectation", which can be based on fact or opinion. It's possible or even understood that the expectation was not realized, that something didn't happen.

"Must have" usually communicates more confidence or a stronger belief in something, like a conclusion.
 
Nekocat san, will you please give me more information about your level of grammatical study in school, and where you are at the moment? This will help in overcoming anything preventing further growth in English--which you are surely interested in doing, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom