0
Anonymous Posted 15 years ago
Grammar
Is 'got' the past form of 'have go' in this example?
I've got to catch the train at half past 7. (simple present tense)
Yesterday, I got to catch the train at half past 7. (simple past tense)
1. Is "got" in the second sentence the correct past form of the verb "have got"?
1. If not, what is the correct past form?
3. Is "have got" in the first sentence considered simple present like "have to"? Or is it still simple present perfect?
Please advise. Thank you.
Yesterday, I got to catch the train at half past 7. (simple past tense)
1. Is "got" in the second sentence the correct past form of the verb "have got"?
1. If not, what is the correct past form?
3. Is "have got" in the first sentence considered simple present like "have to"? Or is it still simple present perfect?
Please advise. Thank you.
Top answer
I've got to catch means I must catch. Must isn't used in the past tense in main clauses. You need to say: Yesterday I had to catch the train at half past 7.
- I've got to catch means I must catch.
- Must isn't used in the past tense in main clauses.
- You need to say: Yesterday I had to catch the train at half past 7.
- Theoretically, you could say: Yesterday I had got to catch....
- but that sounds funny to my ear and I don't think native speakers would use it in this case even though it is perfectly grammatical.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
6 Answers
0
I've got to catch means I must catch. Must isn't used in the past tense in main clauses. You need to say: Yesterday I had to catch the train at half past 7. Theoretically, you could say: Yesterday I had got to catch.... but that sounds funny to my ear and I don't think native speakers would use it in this case even though it is perfectly grammatical.
00
Thank you, CB.
I see the correct past form of "have got" is "had to".
I wonder if "have got" in my sentence is considered in the simple present since it is the equivalent of "must". Is "have got" in the simple present as used in my example?
I undestand, though, that the form, as it is, is in the present perfect tense.
I see the correct past form of "have got" is "had to".
I wonder if "have got" in my sentence is considered in the simple present since it is the equivalent of "must". Is "have got" in the simple present as used in my example?
I undestand, though, that the form, as it is, is in the present perfect tense.
00
AnonymousI wonder if "have got" in my sentence is considered in the simple present since it is the equivalent of "must".That's how I see it even though structurally it's a present perfect. All kinds of similar oddities abound in English! That's what makes it interesting! Some poor souls think that there are rules for all situations and they can master
00
Cool BreezeAll kinds of similar oddities abound in English!I completely agree with you on this.
Cool BreezeI'm happy you're not one of them.
00
You might want to refer to this chart, which shows that for all practical purposes the only way to express obligation in the past is with had to.
Obligation
in the present: have to have got to must
in the past: had to (had got to) [none]
had got to is in parentheses because it is rarel
Obligation
in the present: have to have got to must
in the past: had to (had got to) [none]
had got to is in parentheses because it is rarel
00
Thank you, CJ, for the explanation and helpful chart you provided. I believe this is clear to me now. 
0
Related Questions