I have a question regarding the order of tenses. Even after looking at many graphs and questions, I couldn't quite figure out the place of present perfects.
I thought the order went from past perfect-> past simple-> present perfect-> present-> future.
Then I saw this example on a website:
The fans would like to have seen some improvement this year. ["Would like" describes a present condition; "to have seen" describes something prior to that time.]
Is would not past tense? How can the present perfect happen before the past tense?
If that is true, is one of these more correct than the other? I thought that the second one would be better since "present perfect" happened after "simple past", but now I'm not quite sure.
I did it as you've requested.
vs
I've done it as you requested.
Best Answer
Forget the "order of tenses". There is a natural sequence past → present → future. Perfect forms, however, do not designate past events but current states brought about by the past events. A present perfect designates a state which is current 'now', and the events which brought about the state may have happened at any time before that, before or after some other event designated with a simple past.
Would, as you rightly observe, is a past form used with present reference to signify that the action represented by the verb sequence it heads is 'counterfactual' (or irrealis, or impossible). Would like consequently designates its object as something now wished for which now, in the present, has not happened.
The phrase to have seen is not, strictly, a present perfect — it is, rather, a perfect infinitive, the marked infinitive of HAVE + the past participle of SEE. It has no tense, and therefore can be employed in a complement to a verb with any tense.
Accordingly, "The fans would like to have seen some improvement this year" may be paraphrased as