0

We know that [Should have + past participle] can mean something that would have been a good idea, but that you didn't do it. As in the following example-
Example: I should have studied harder but I didn't.

.....They will be eligible to claim the allowance for three months during the period from start of lockdown on March 24 to December 31. They should have been part of the scheme for two years during the period from April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2020, and should have contributed at least for 78 days from October 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020 and also in one of the other three six monthly contribution periods from April 1, 2018. TNN

enter image description here

But in this paper cutting "should have" seems to have been used in different sense. Please clarify it.

5
  • The past participle of "be" is "been". Is that what you're asking?
    – user392935
    Aug 22, 2020 at 16:49
  • I know it .... I mean to say In which sence "should have been" and" should have contributed " is used???Pls see the sentence marked with red line ...@Stockfish Aug 22, 2020 at 17:05
  • Sir u didn't get my point ....or i am unable to make u understand... Pls see comment of GEdgar sir...Hope u will get what I mean to say... Aug 22, 2020 at 17:13
  • 2
    This is the 'must have' sense. A very official register. Aug 22, 2020 at 18:34
  • Thank you Edwin sir Aug 23, 2020 at 6:59

2 Answers 2

1

"Should have" can also refer to something you were assumed to do, without specifying whether you did it or not.

How much did I spend on movies last year? Well, a movie costs about $10, and I went to a movie about once a month, so I should have spent about $120.

In this example, it does not mean spending money was a good idea, and it does not mean I didn't do it.

5
  • Thanks sir....Now I got it... Could u pls give some other example?? @GEdgar Aug 22, 2020 at 17:16
  • But the use of "should have been" and "should have contributed" in the newspaper clipping suggests that these things, while they should have happened earlier, didn't. The paragraph highlights the plight of the labour force and says that these things should have taken place earlier, but they didn't. The "movie" example of GEdgar, while correct, could be misleading here.
    – user392935
    Aug 22, 2020 at 17:31
  • @Stockfish No, these are the conditions the workers need to have met to claim the benefits. Nothing says they have failed to meet the conditions. Nothing.
    – Xanne
    Aug 22, 2020 at 22:32
  • Well, either of these versions could be true. What pumps so much force into your "nothings" ? They seem to be leaping out from the screen.
    – user392935
    Aug 23, 2020 at 5:30
  • Thank you sir @Xanne Aug 23, 2020 at 6:24
1

The following is the sense of should that's being used in the article:

[Merriam-Webster]
4 —used in auxiliary function to express what is probable or expected
    // with an early start, they should be here by noon

The following is a paraphrase of this sense, as used in the article:

It is likely [they were] part of the scheme for two years during the period from April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2020, and it is likely [they] contributed at least for 78 days from October 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020 and also in one of the other three six monthly contribution periods from April 1, 2018.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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