Can we use as an axiliary verb , following clause ...

Question

like , we must have to go. Is that correct??thanks !!

BillJ · Accepted Answer

No, We must go or We have to go are correct.

BillJ

CalifJim · Answer

Mina wahidiwe must have to go

It would take a rare context to make this a sensible thing to say. More likely it would be said of someone else.
He must have to go or He must have had to go. That is, The only logical conclusion is that [he has (an obligation) to go / had (an obligation) to go].

Suppose you are having a conversation with a group of friends. One of your friends suddenly gets up and begins to leave. You conclude that he has an obligation to leave so he can be at an appointment he scheduled earlier. In this case you might say to the person next to you, He must have to go. If he has already left, you can say He must have had to go (He must have had an appointment).

CJ

Mina wahidi · Answer

it means that we can say that sentence I thought that cann't use at all,
first of all thanks to let me know that but now want to ask the grammarian name of that clause ' must have to'
Is that modal helping verb or what??
Regards!!

BillJ · Answer

Mina wahidiit means that we can say that sentence I thought that cann't use at all,first of all thanks to let me know that but now want to ask the grammarian name of that clause ' must have to'Is that modal helping verb or what??Regards!!

I've given this some more thought and come up with another instance where it would be natural, even in the 1st person plural:

I think we must have to go via the old village church.

At first glance, it seems that either must or have to is redundant because they both imply necessity or obligation. But there is a sense in which both can combine: have to implies obligation or necessity - perhaps we're driving and we discover that going via the old village church is the only route, or the only alternative in the case of a road closure, so it's necessary to take it. Adding the modal must implies, in this instance, that we believe it's the correct choice based on our current knowledge. Combine the two into must have to go, and the implication now is that based on our current knowledge, we believe it's necessary to take the route via the old village church.

I'd call the clause a perfect infinitival (or infinitival perfect). Must is a modal auxiliary verb (or "helping verb" if you like).

BillJ

Mina wahidi · Answer

Thanks to explain briefly !!
now I want to know that,
'What's the 'PAST' form of that clause/ sentence??'
I think soo that would be----> " you must had to go yesterday''
Is that correct ??
Regards!!

BillJ · Answer

Mina wahidi'What's the 'PAST' form of that clause/ sentence??'I think soo that would be----> " you must had to go yesterday'' Is that correct ??

No, because "had" is not an infinitive. "Must" is a modal auxiliary verb, and modals can only be followed by the infinitive form of the verb, in this case "have". CJ gave you the past tense version in the last line of his post:

"He/You must have had to go yesterday".

and in my example:

"I think we must have had to go via the old village church".

BillJ

CalifJim · Answer

Mina wahidiI think ~~soo~~ that would be----> " you must had to go yesterday''

No. It's as BillJ explained above.

With modal verbs you can't form the past by adding -ed like you do with regular verbs.
Modals are generally followed by the infinitive (without to) when you're talking about the present or future (non-past time).
They are followed by the word 'have' and the past participle when you're talking about past time.

Examples:

Non-past time / Past time

must go / must have gone
might see / might have seen
may take / may have taken
must have / must have had

CJ

Mina wahidi · Answer

wow , what an eloquence !!
I got my answer and understood very well .
thanks alot both of you

Can we use as an axiliary verb , following clause ...

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions