Is this sentence correct?

english.stackexchange.com/questions/192998/could-not-have-been-vs-must-not-have-been

Modal auxiliary verbs ("modals") are very irregular and have extremely complex grammar.
Every modal has two kinds of meaning: its Epistemic sense and its Deontic sense.

Epistemic meanings are abstract and refer to logical predictions and conclusions:
This might/must/could/should/may/will/would be the place.
Deontic meanings are social and have to do with obligations, permissions, and prohibitions:
She may/can/should/must go to the ball.
Negation works differently with modals in their epistemic and deontic senses.

This may not be the place ≠ This can't be the place. (epistemic)
You may not leave yet. = You can't leave yet. (deontic)

>WHAT THE FUCK IS EVEN HAPPENING

You're already using a past tense.
>couldn't
I don't think you're supposed to use two past tenses simultaneously.

Fuck me

How stupid of me
I can't believe I still don't grasp some of these concepts and I've been writing for years.

Thanks Veeky Forums

>It could not had been a complete lie.

but does "It couldn't have had been a complete lie." work as a sentence?

Yes, but kind of awkward.
I mean, I've never quite seen that composition, but it makes sense and it'll be understood. But I'd avoid it.

What? No. The "had" ends up doing two things, both incorrectly.

First, you can't have two "haves" that are both helping verbs in the same clause; one must necessarily become the main/full verb. Here, the "have" applies to the "had" -- "it couldn't have had". An example would be "the fishbowl couldn't have had more than two fish inside."

But then, trying to apply "couldn't have had" to "been" makes no sense. Since the "had" is forced to be the main/full verb, it shouldn't be helping out another verb.

Wrong.

James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher

have (past stuff)= something happened, has effect on present still

had (past stuff) = happened, but was isolated event in the past which does not affect the future.

Ah yes, the "couldn't had". Reminds me of the "and but so"

i study languages so i'm relatively familiar with this, if im wrong let me know, but i think "Have" here is an auxiliary verb, if you've studied any french, kind of like "de"

i think if you wanted to express this you could use "could not have had (done it, gone, blah blah).

he could not have >>>> done something

he could not have HAD (something in the past, not impacting the present right now)

yeah, just thought about it, saying something like

"i couldn't have had a better time!" doesn't sound awkward, so use "i couldnt have had," OP

English doesn't work that way.
>I have been sick for a month.
"I had been sick for a month" also works as past-perfect.

As in, one has at one point been sick for a week straight but is not being counted (versus "I had once been sick for a month [straight]")

>It couldn't of been a complete lie

ESLs be like:
>English is such easy it's the most easiest honestly being
>except when it's hard and complexicated when it's the retardest

>This may not be the place ≠ This can't be the place.
is this always true? Can't the first be used as equal to the latter?

Well... if you're trying to say
>"It couldn't" had been a complete lie.
as if someone lied by saying "it couldn't" then it could technically work

yeah dude you fixed it bro!

Well, as far as I know, a non-native speaker, >had is incorrect.

>It couldn't have been a complete lie

Damn, you sure showed him. How dare he be irreverent on purpose on Veeky Forums.

Fuck you! Your joke was very inappropriate and I didn't laugh! Go to hell!