'must have ~' vs 'had to ~'

Question

Could you tell me whehther both of the following sentences are right and convey the same idea? Thank you.1. It must have rained here yesterday.2. It had to rain here yesterday.

GPY · Accepted Answer

The second one doesn't work well. You may be thinking of "It had to have rained here yesterday".

CalifJim · Answer

lucas21cboth of the following sentences ... convey the same idea?

No. There is a big difference between 'had to' and 'must have'.

had to indicates an obligation in the past. Yesterday I had to take an umbrella because it was raining.
must have indicates a logical deduction about the past based on the current situation. It must have rained because the ground is wet.

If you want to use a form of had to that is equivalent to must have, you need has to have. It has to have rained because the ground is wet. Of the two, must have is a less complicated construction, so you'll probably hear must have a lot more than has to have.

CJ

GPY · Answer

CalifJimhad to indicates an obligation in the past. Yesterday I had to take an umbrella because it was raining.must have indicates a logical deduction about the past based on the current situation. It must have rained because the ground is wet.

In the usage I'm familiar with, "had to" can also be used conversationally to indicate deduction about the past. Thus you may hear "It had to have rained" meaning "It must have rained". I would not recommend it for formal English.

'must have ~' vs 'had to ~'

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions