Would have been doing.

[peterking]

This sentence is perfectly natural and grammatical. What's your problem with it exactly

I don't recall ever seeing people write something like this. So, I thought it was mistaken when my friend asked me to check it out.

 

[peterking]

I have to fess up that I have never used would have been+ing. Actually, I remember someone telling me that we'd be hard-pressed to use this form in reality.

I just just pored over the pages of a grammar book published by a Chinese publishing house. and didn't find anything concerning would have been doing form. The grammar book only has would have, might have, and could have forms. It doesn't even have will have been doing+ing form.

 

[jutfrank]

I don't recall ever seeing people write something like this. So, I thought it was mistaken when my friend asked me to check it out.

No, it's not mistaken—in fact, it's good English.

I have to fess up that I have never used would have been+ing. Actually, I remember someone telling me that we'd be hard-pressed to use this form in reality.

It's relatively complex grammar so you don't need to confess anything. Although complex, it's quite common for people to use this structure. It has essentially three grammatical parts to it and two different aspects, which I'd describe like this.

would (modal auxiliary verb)
have been (perfect infinitive)
doing (continuous)

The whole thing I would probably call a 'modal perfect-continuous'. I'm not sure what other teachers here would call such a construction.

 

[peterking]

No, it's not mistaken—in fact, it's good English.



It's relatively complex grammar so you don't need to confess anything. Although complex, it's quite common for people to use this structure. It has essentially three grammatical parts to it and two different aspects, which I'd describe like this.

would (modal auxiliary verb)
have been (perfect infinitive)
doing (continuous)

The whole thing I would probably call a 'modal perfect-continuous'. I'm not sure what other teachers here would call such a construction.

Thanks for your input. I still think I'm the one to blame. I should have been reading such grammar books like some indefatigable students in China. They would prefer to spend a great deal of time swotting up on grammar. Their teachers even make a point of telling their students to learn it by rote, allowing for the fact that rote-learning plays a key role in China's education system. Yet you wouldn't catch me doing this; I simply balk at reading boring stuff. Instead, I'm gagging to learn English from business publications. I have become accustomed to reading it to boot.

I also have to do justice to grammar books published in China. I shouldn't have said "such grammar books don't have will have been doing form." That's not true. I just skated over several related pages yesterday. Should have read it slowly.

Thanks , again.

 

[jutfrank]

Thanks for your input. I still think I'm the one to blame. I should have been reading such grammar books like some indefatigable students in China.

I disagree. You should have been reading a variety of authentic, natural texts, written by proficient users of the English language. That's a much better way to learn grammar than by reading grammar books.

They would prefer to spend a great deal of time swotting up on grammar. Their teachers even make a point of telling their students to learn it by rote, allowing for the fact that rote-learning plays a key role in China's education system.

You're right in that China has what is in my view an awful approach to educating people, generally speaking, especially when it comes to language learning. Before you learn anything, you need to learn how to learn.

Instead, I'm gagging to learn English from business publications. I have become accustomed to reading it to boot.

Okay, but don't limit yourself to business publications only. Don't limit yourself to a particular register. That's how you miss noticing important things.