Is/was bound to have done
However rare these constructions may be, ...
He is bound to have seen them.
1. How different is it from He must've seen them?
2. What is the difference between:
He is bound to have seen them and He was bound to have seen them (apart from the fact that the latter should probably be used in past narratives or with the sequence of tenses)?
In other words, can both He is bound to have seen them and He was bound to have seen them be used for present deductions (bordering on assurance) about the past events?
I'd be infinitely obliged if you could enlighten me on that.
I'd appreciate any other additional information you might consider appropriate to include here.
Thank you in advance,
YETY
(//Copy for repeated post//) Hi I'd say they are the same: - He's bound to have seen them - He must have seen them I can't think of a difference between the two and, yes, in both cases I would be asserting something that I might rely on in a present discussion. If he's bound to have seen them - or must have seen them - then he knows they were together on Sunday night Hope this helps, Dave
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
(//Copy for repeated post//)
Hi
I'd say they are the same:
- He's bound to have seen them
- He must have seen them
I can't think of a difference between the two and, yes, in both cases I would be asserting something that I might rely on in a present discussion. If he's bound to have seen them - or must have seen them - then he knows they were together on Sunday ni