Correct or not?
This screenshot is part of what we learn in our country. Is the use of "mustn't have been " in the first column correct and the use of "can't have been" in the second column wrong? I think the reverse is true? Am I right?
Top answer
That book is splitting hairs. They both mean the same thing to me. However, in that specific example, "can't have been" sounds like the stronger opinion.
- That book is splitting hairs.
- They both mean the same thing to me.
- However, in that specific example, "can't have been" sounds like the stronger opinion.
- Generally, "can't have been" is advised as the opposite of "must have been", but "mustn't have been" is also used and considered a regionalism by some.
- Personally, I grew up in a region where "mustn't have been" was accepted as the opposite of "must have been", so it sounds fine to me.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
That book is splitting hairs. They both mean the same thing to me.
However, in that specific example, "can't have been" sounds like the stronger opinion.
Generally, "can't have been" is advised as the opposite of "must have been", but "mustn't have been" is also used and considered a regionalism by some. Personally, I grew up in a region where "mustn't have been" was accepted as
0
Related Questions