Because of heave snow, my car should have got stuck in the snow.

Hi,

Let's pay attention to your example again:

Because of heavy snow, my car should have got/gotten stuck in the snow.

There are many rules that one must follow regarding English grammar. Your example, however, is one of those scenarios where you need to pay attention and see if it actually makes sense or not. Therefore, it is both meaning and form.

"Should have" means that it was expected to happen that way, but it didn't. "Must have" is used when you want to guess what's happened.

Turning to your example, do you mean that you expected your car to get "stuck"? or are you trying to guess what's happened to your car? If it is the former, I think your sentence can be considered correct. Pay attention to this, "There was heavy snow, right? ...and my car should've got/gotten stuck, but it didn't! We drove on!"

If it is the latter you mean, however, well, it is better to use "must have"!

Hope this helps! 

Hi, TaeBbongE,

@TaeBbongE posted:

Hi

Because of heave snow, my car should have got stuck in the snow.

In the above sentence, should have P.P has the following usage?

Oxford: should definition

https://www.oxfordlearnersdict...lish/should?q=should

Practical English USE

2 Past: ~~~.

Actually 'should' and 'ought to' can be used to express possibility. This usage applies to your example:

- Because of heavy snow, my car could / might / should have got stuck in the snow.

• From Longman English Grammar, L. G. Alexander:

"Should be and ought to be to express possibility:

We can also express possibility with 'should be' and 'ought to be':

- John should be/ought to be at home.

- John should be working/ought to be working.

- John should have left/ought to have left by tomorrow etc.

However, because should and ought to also express obligation [> 11.46] they can be ambiguous, so are not used as much as may/might/could to express possibility. For example, He should have arrived (ought to have arrived) yesterday could mean 'I think he probably has arrived' or 'He failed in his duty to arrive yesterday'

Hello, @ahmed_btm @Farid

Thanks for your replies.

You mean, "should have Past Participle" has two usages.

It may cause ambiguity.

According to your feedback,

1) Because of heavy snow, my car should have got stuck in the snow.

: A reader expects that a speaker's car was probably stuck in snow while expressing possibility.

2) Because of heavy snow, my car should have got stuck in the snow. (But it didn't! We drove on!)

It is a little awkward, because this "should have p.p" expresses someone's regret or something

So, maybe a reader thought as follows.

"What? Did  the speaker anticipate his car had to be stuck in the snow? so he is now regretful that the car didn't get stuck.???"

That's why you suggested to me another forms with a modal verb "must have".

→ 3) Because of heavy snow, my car must have stuck in the snow. But luckily it didn't! We drove on!

Then 3) sentence has similar nuance to 1) usage of "should have p.p" expressing possibility.

Am I correct?

Hi, TaeBbongE,

@TaeBbongE posted:

You mean, "should have Past perfect" ( + Past participle) has two usages.

It may cause ambiguity.

According to your feedback,

1) Because of heavy snow, my car should have got stuck in the snow.

: A reader expects that a speaker anticipated speaker's car was probably stuck in snow while expressing possibility.

2) Because of heavy snow, my car should have got stuck in the snow. (But it didn't! We drove on!)

It is a little awkward, because this "should have p.p" expresses someone's regret or something

So, maybe a reader thought as follows.

"What? Did  the speaker anticipated his car had to be stuck in the snow. so he is now regretful that the care didn't get stuck.???"

That's why you suggested me another forms with a modal verb "must have".

→ 3) Because of heavy snow, my car must have stuck in the snow. But luckily it didn't! We drove on!

Then 3) sentence has similar nuance to 1) usage of "should have p.p" expressing possibility.

Am I correct?

Your sentence has no ambiguity or regret. The subject of your sentence is inanimate. An inanimate subject can't express regret. The owner of the car is just expressing a possibility.

@ahmed_btm

Ah ha, I see!

Depending on the thing that the subject is animate or inanimate,  "should have Past Participle" construction has two meanings or not.

However as for my case, it is only used in one way - that is, expressing possibilities.

Thanks~!!!!!!