Had to have...

Question

Hi EveryoneA student of mine read the expression "..he had to have it..." from a local newspaper.  He wanted to know what tense this was in, as the implication that "he might STILL have it" refers to the present.  I told him that had to was the past tense of must, and that although the form is in the simple past, it still holds relevance in the future.  Am I correct? Or is this some kind of present perfect simple exception which I am not aware of? Thank you in advance.

Icephrys · Accepted Answer

Sorry...it still holds relevance in the present, not future.

Awesomelyawesome · Answer

Hi,

I told him that had to was the past tense of must.

This kind of structures show necessity or obligation and had to isn't the past tens of must, rather it is the paste tense of has/had to. If we were to show necessity or obligation in future, we would then use will have to.

I hope this helps.

CalifJim · Answer

icephrys"..he had to have it..." He wanted to know what tense this was in

The main verb is had. had is the past tense of have. End of story.

All your other concerns center on the meaning in terms of its implications in terms of time, not the grammatical tense, which was the original question. The only thing we know for sure is that

either:
the speaker felt "he" must have possessed "it" (i.e., the only logical deduction one could make at the time was that "he" possessed "it") at some point in time before the speaker made his statement.

or (second meaning):
the speaker felt "he" was required to have "it" in his possession at some point in time before the speaker made his statement.

or (third meaning):
the speaker felt "he" was desperately in need of "it" at some point in time before the speaker made his statement.
_________

The observation that "he might still have it" is completely irrelevant. Anyone can observe just as easily that "he might not still have it". There is nothing in the statement itself that tells us whether he still has it or whether he doesn't. You can speculate all you want. Maybe he lost it. Maybe he threw it away. Maybe it slipped out of his hand and fell down a sewer. Maybe a flying elephant snatched it away from him with its trunk. And yes, maybe he still has it. But what exactly in the sentence says any of this?

_________

It truly amazes me the number of absurd claims that are made about the past tense.
"He was alive yesterday" is supposed to mean, according to some students, that today he's dead, for example. "He was ill with a life-threatening disease last week" is supposed to mean that this week he is enjoying remarkable health and will soon be running a marathon. "He won a million dollars last month. He was rich!" is supposed to mean that today he's penniless and living in a miserable hut on the edge of the city dump. Such over-active imaginations! Where do people get these crazy ideas?!

CJ

Awesomelyawesome · Answer

Sorry I want to make it clear that I made a mistake in my reply. Since it won't let me edit my post, I want to write a new one.

Hi,
I told him that had to was the past tense of must.

This kind of structures show necessity or obligation and had to isn't the past tens of must, rather it is the paste tense of has/have* to. If we were to show necessity or obligation in future, we would then use will have to.

I hope this helps.

Had to have...

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions