"Would have had to have been" vs "would have had to be" for past event conditions

Question

I instinctively said

I would have had to have been over 180 lbs for that to have happened.

I thought that seemed overly wordy. Too many "have"s and "had"s. So I tried:

I would have had to be over 180 lbs for that to happen.

That didn't feel right, though.

My brother and I were talking of a past event. He suggested something that could have happened. (Something like, You could have hung from the chandelier to get it out). I tried the first of the above statements. I want to speak about something that would need to occur for something else to occur in that past situation.

What would be the proper way of saying what I was trying to say up there‽

Barrie England · Accepted Answer

I would have had to have been and I would have had to be are alternatives, but have had already sets up the time reference, so the infinitive to be, rather than the perfect infinitive to have been is enough. Usage seems to confirm this. The British National Corpus has 15 records of would have had to have been and 45 of would have had to be. The figures for the Corpus of Contemporary American English are 38 and 67.

Tim Lymington · Answer

I would say "I would have to have been. . .".  "I would have had to be..." would be grammatical, but as you say sounds odd here, possibly because it's not the tense your brother used.

Mr.Wizard · Answer

Speaking casually:

"I'd have to have been over 180lbs . . ."

user265372 · Answer

I say "I would have to have been" but I hear it said differently usually. This is the only site I have found just now, so I don't know how to verify this. I wonder if my form is British?

dp hx · Answer

this is actually right because it framing a double conditional in which the meta conditional is something that has already concluded and is in the past and is a hypothetical condtion which was not achieved, thereby making the first conditional a statement of another conditional statement under what circumstances would have allow the post conditional to be achieved. it is sandwiching part conditional perfect progressive "i would have_ been" tense-- which needs an if and then portion--with a filling of conditional past imperfect (an incompleted action): "had to have (been) [180 lbs]" which was not completed/achieved.... setting up for the 'then' statement "for so and so to happen" thusly it completes the thought on continuity and conditional statements.

Answered by dp hx on February 27, 2021

Ross O'Cottawalla · Answer

I just wrote this same phrase in a document and Googled it for sanity. This discussion was interesting and so here's my own deconstruction:
"I would" (me and some possibility)
"have" (possess)
"had" (possessed in the past)
"to have" (possess in the future)
"been" (in the past)
"over 180lbs." (something)
It does seem that there are too many words ("had" and "been") that make the connection with the past. Is that why the alternative:
"I would have to have been over 180lbs."
also sounds right and may actually be better English?
The third alternative:
"I would have been over 180lbs."
feels more certain although "would" still implies some uncertainty. Doubling up on the "have"s seems to emphasise uncertainty. But is that really necessary?

"Would have had to have been" vs "would have had to be" for past event conditions

6 Answers

Add your own answers!

Ask a Question