0
JungKim Posted 11 years ago
Grammar
had to be vs. must have been
In order to express certainty in the past, 'must' is used as follows:
"There must have been at least a hundred people there."
Is it possible to express the same kind of certainty with 'had to'?
"There had to be at least a hundred people there."
In other words, is it possible for the two to mean the same thing?
"There must have been at least a hundred people there."
Is it possible to express the same kind of certainty with 'had to'?
"There had to be at least a hundred people there."
In other words, is it possible for the two to mean the same thing?
Top answer
It would be understood by most people as the same thing, given the proper context. '.
- It would be understood by most people as the same thing, given the proper context.
- '.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
3 Answers
0
It would be understood by most people as the same thing, given the proper context. I would express it as 'there had to have been' to avoid any possible confusion with 'there was a need for at least 100 people...'.
00
PhilipIt would be understood by most people as the same thing, given the proper context. I would express it as 'there had to have been' to avoid any possible confusion with 'there was a need for at least 100 people...'.I'm not sure about the reasoning behind the "double-past", if you will, in 'had to have been' (once by the past tense of 'had' and then once b
00
JungKimWhat do you think about "There have to have been at least a hundred people there."?I don't like it. There has to have been...
0
Related Questions