0

As far as I know these are tenses that you do not often use. Am I right?

Will have been + verb+ing

Would have been + verb+ing

  • I do not use them often; I try not to abuse tenses. I've been wrong before, I will have been wrong again. – Elliott Frisch Jan 23 '14 at 19:25
  • Verb+ing = gerund ?"I would have been playing soccer if my work was complete" – Argot Jan 23 '14 at 19:25
  • 5
    @argot: This is a present participle; using 'gerund' here is at best highly disputable. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 23 '14 at 19:29
  • 2
    Thank you all so much. but, would you please kindly answer my original question? – nima Jan 23 '14 at 19:31
  • possible duplicate of Who knows which tenses of English are not used or used merely? – Mitch Jan 23 '14 at 22:54
5

You are right that the two constructions are not often used. This is because they express uncommon ideas. Both are grammatical, however, and could be used as follows:

By the time I retire I will have been working here for 45 years.

If you had called me 10 minutes ago, I would have been sleeping.

  • 2
    +1 "This is because they express uncommon ideas." It's not that these tenses are avoided, it's simply that they are not often needed. – zombiebeethoven Jan 23 '14 at 20:55
  • It's just that these aren't tenses. They're just a couple of the many thousands of possible English auxiliary verb constructions, most of which are used infrequently because there are so many of them. – John Lawler Jan 23 '14 at 21:06
  • @JohnLawler So do linguisticians not consider the future-perfect a tense? – WS2 Jan 23 '14 at 21:38
  • No more than they consider the Past Usitative Necessitive a tense. What you call "future-perfect" is a combination of the modal auxiliary will with a perfect construction. One can do the same with the other modal auxiliaries may, might, must, can, could, shall, should, and would. And one can do the same with all kinds of other constructions, like the "Past Usitative Necessitive Tense" of go, I used to have to go. – John Lawler Jan 23 '14 at 23:48
  • Oh, and it's linguist, by the way. As you are surely aware, nobody ever uses linguistician. – John Lawler Jan 23 '14 at 23:49

protected by tchrist Jul 11 '14 at 12:47

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.