0
Anonymous Posted 16 years ago
Grammar
Must in past tense
Hello,
Can we use must in past tense in this manner: Society had reached a stage where it must respect workers.
I know must is normally used in present and future tenses, but here in past perfect, it seems to be the only option. 'Must have' won't work here nor will simple past such as ... it respected workers.
Am I right?
Can we use must in past tense in this manner: Society had reached a stage where it must respect workers.
I know must is normally used in present and future tenses, but here in past perfect, it seems to be the only option. 'Must have' won't work here nor will simple past such as ... it respected workers.
Am I right?
Top answer
"
- "
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
20 Answers
0
0
Thanks, GG. What about should or ought to? Can they be used, then?
00
It doesn't have the same sense of requirement that "must" or "have to" or "are required to" all share.
00
Thank, GG, but I am asking generally whether 'should' and 'ought to' are okay in past tense or whether they too, like must, should be used in another manner? I mean, if must becomes 'had to' in past, does should/ought to become something else too? Or, can we keep it the same way?
00
Do you mean?
1) It should have been done long time ago.
2) It ought to have been done long time ago.
As far as I know you can use them with PERFECT INFINITIVE without changing their meaning (except the tense)
1) It should have been done long time ago.
2) It ought to have been done long time ago.
As far as I know you can use them with PERFECT INFINITIVE without changing their meaning (except the tense)
00
No, Ticce, I don't mean that at all. See the first example: Society reached a stage where it must respect workers.
Suppose you change this to simple past, it becomes: Society ... where it respected workers. (this is not appropriate because simple past implies something has already happened).
Suppose we ignore simple past and use your method: Society ... where it must have respec
Suppose you change this to simple past, it becomes: Society ... where it respected workers. (this is not appropriate because simple past implies something has already happened).
Suppose we ignore simple past and use your method: Society ... where it must have respec
00
AnonymousOnly 'must' is appropriate here but unfortunately, I do not know if it is used in past tense. That's why I wondered whether should/ought to (not in this example but generally speaking) can be used in past tense (as future in the past), or do they also meet the restrictions.Anon,
If I understand your post, I think the context should be kept i
00
Thanks, Dim, but if it is present tense, it would be pretty straightforward and I wouldn't have posted this in the first place. I am trying to understand how to frame it in past tense and in past tense only. So changing tense won't help.
00
In the past, "must" becomes "had to."
Excuse me, but I dont think so. I think "must" has no form used in the past tense. In my opinion there is a little bit but very important difference between "must" and "have to". When you say: "I must do something" it means that doing that act is your duty, but you can simply not to do that job. Ex: "I must go to school". Yeah u must, but if
Excuse me, but I dont think so. I think "must" has no form used in the past tense. In my opinion there is a little bit but very important difference between "must" and "have to". When you say: "I must do something" it means that doing that act is your duty, but you can simply not to do that job. Ex: "I must go to school". Yeah u must, but if
00
Hi,
Very eloquently said. The only thing that bothers me is the " U's".
Very eloquently said. The only thing that bothers me is the " U's".
abbosI think that's the difference between both adverbs.Adverbs ?
0
Related Questions