Details of ''had to ''

Question

Hi, I have a question about the modals.There was a quesiton that it was link with modals, in the class today .And we had a disagreement about modals. It was:Mean diferences of  Have to - Had to- be supposed to...I looked for sentence/modal that it express obligation/necessity.. and but  doesn't have this mean that the action din't happend. it was not actualized by the Subj./Person/...Because the second sentence expressed this mean. ( it did not happend). Written this: '' ... but he did not.... ''(Like Should  have + v3)Logically; I selected the ''was supposed to '' through of options. Because other options was not meaning. And yes it was true.But Said.if  there was not '' was supposed to'', we could select the ''had to'' .And i said '' We can't select it because if we select it, the mean will different how  it happened. But in the second sentence said '' but he did not... '' The teacher and others said '' This rule is not absolute'' ''May be the action happened or not happened...''I would like to say that ;If we use '' had to '', the mean of sentences will this signification that  the action happened.Summarize;I think / know that;He had to work..... ( He had a obligation, and he did it )He had to leave early from the party because he had a lot of homeworks.... ( He was in the obligation, and He did it... )( i know detail/meaning of the should have v3) Ex.He should have work ( He had a obligaiton. it was a good thing for him but he did not it ) Now; Is it true/ valid/absolute ?He had to make this... ( He had a obligation, and he did it ( absolute* (likely ))Is true ?or is not it absolute wheter the action happened or not happened ? Please answer this .And Sorry.I/we not English or American... We from Turkey, and i may have writen wrongly most of sentences

Dave_anon · Accepted Answer

Hi

I think I understand

As a modal, 'had' almost always implies that the action did happen:

- Why isn't Bob with you today?
- He had to work

... and 'supposed to' implies that the action did not happen:

- You must be pleased that Bob's home today
- Well, he was supposed to be at work

Dave

Fivejedjon · Answer

Although 'have to' often has a very similar meaning to 'must', it is not a modal; nor is 'be supposed to'. These verbs are sometimes referred to as semi-modals or quasi-modals,

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousThe teacher and others said '' This rule is not absolute'' ''May be the action happened or not happened...''I would like to say that ;If we use '' had to '', the mean of sentences will this signification that the action happened.

It's true that the rule is not absolute. "had to" indicates only the obligation that faced someone, not whether they acted on it. Context is needed to determine whether the obligation was acted upon. For example, in telling a story, you may come to the part where a group of men must cross a desert to reach a fortress where they are needed as reinforcements. At that point in your story you might say, "They had to cross the desert to get to the fortress". Your reader doesn't know yet whether they crossed the desert. Maybe the story goes on to say that they were attacked by a gang of thieves and they were all killed in the desert before they crossed it. Even though they did not cross the desert, there was a point when "They had to cross the desert".

I'm not sure what you're saying about "supposed to", but here's an example. In the U.S. people have to pay their income taxes, but there a lot of people who don't. So, speaking of them in the past, you can say they were supposed to pay their taxes even if they didn't.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

Thanks to answer.

Yes, i understand it , but my sentiments also like true. ( And also another friend the ''dave_anon'' said that As a modal, 'had' almost always implied that the action had did happen ) (''As a modal, 'had' almost always implies that the action did happen'')
I think; the rule in that .They(the subj.) faced with a obligation, and this obligation was no / is not optional. They had a obligation to do it... ( Is wrong?)

In the your example;
They got rid of necessity because they died and this was not their choice. They did not get intentionally rid of necessity.
The death was a valid reason for this example and It was excused logically.

May there another examples that they are like your examples and don't contain death and such like ?

Can we say that ''The had to sentences express a obligation and mean that it acted on, the action happened, unless there was not a stuaiton that it invalidated to the obligation'' ?
(%90..)And generaly,Almost always... The sentences of had to express pretty much always mean that there was a obligation, and the obligation was acted on( was did..) .. Can we ?

i would add the photo of the question, but i forgot taking photo of the question.
The question is likely and shortly that '' The doctor ................. risks of the operaiton. But he did not tell anything before the operation''
Options:
*had to tell
*was supposed to tell
*must have tell
*have got to tell
...
The true options is was supposed to tell
If we use ''had to '', the doctor would have a obligation and do it that telling the risks. But he had not did it.
If we fix with your informing;
Likely, we can say: If we use ''had to '', the doctor would have a obligation and do it that telling the risks. But he had not did it. Moreover there is not a stuaiton that it invalidated to the obligation.

Shortly:
He had to make/do/get/have smth. He did/made/got/had mostlikely it (if there was not any exception that it invalidated to the obligation)
Ok

O:)

Anonymous · Answer

Thanks friend for answer.

Yes,So do I think/though

. I tried to say that'' they [generaly, pretty much..] express mean that the action was did ''
The macig word was almost always

%90.... if there was not any exception or cause that removed to the obligation

But i need a explained sentence/photo/quotation from formal source, book for/to showing/show the friend.

Dave_anon · Answer

Hi

Even if you hate me for this, I have to say it: if you are walking through dessert, you are walking through custard. I think there's only one 's'

Dave :-)

CalifJim · Answer

dave_anonif you are walking through dessert, you are walking through custard.

Actually, they were walking through custard at the time. My desert was covered with custard.

(changed it)

CJ

Dave_anon · Answer

Lol - hope you are well :-)

Dave

CalifJim · Answer

dave_anonLol - hope you are well :-)

Very well, thanks. And you too, I hope.

CJ

Details of ''had to ''

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions