0
Paul Evdokimov Posted 10 years ago
Grammar

'must' in the past


Hi there,

Can anybody justify the usage of 'must' in the following sentence:

"As she drove home, she decided that she MUST invite Val and Tom for a meal at her house very soon" (Hewings M. Advanced grammar in use)?

Thanks for your comments and answers.
  

Top answer

Paul Evdokimov Can anybody justify the usage of 'must' in the following sentence: There's nothing wrong about this usage. "Must invite" refers to a future action relative to the time frame of the main clause.. It is more of an obligation than a future action that might happen.

— AlpheccaStars

  • Paul Evdokimov Can anybody justify the usage of 'must' in the following sentence: There's nothing wrong about this usage.
  • "Must invite" refers to a future action relative to the time frame of the main clause..
  • It is more of an obligation than a future action that might happen.
  • She decided that she would invite Val and Tom for a meal at her house very soon.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

7 Answers
0
Paul EvdokimovCan anybody justify the usage of 'must' in the following sentence:
There's nothing wrong about this usage. "Must invite" refers to a future action relative to the time frame of the main clause..
It is more of an obligation than a future action that might happen.

She decided that she would invite Val and Tom for a meal at her
0
0
AlpheccaStars "Must invite" refers to a future action
It is a reference to a past obligation anyway. We use 'had to' as a past form of 'must'...
(The meaning is clear, it's why the author swapped 'had to' for 'must' is puzzling me...)
0
0
In my opinion it is similar to reported speech where" must" doesn´t need to change either.
"I must go home."
She said she must go home.
She said she had to go home. (both are correct)
Unless I am completely wrong
0
0
Paul EvdokimovThe meaning is clear, it's why the author swapped 'had to' for 'must' is puzzling me...
I thought the author used "must" in the sentence, not "had to."

Either one is correct.
"Must" seems more British English; "have to" is more American English.

Modal auxiliary verbs are quite irregular.
0
0
radovan: In my opinion it is similar to reported speech where" must" doesn´t need to change either.

It's just a narrative in the past simple. Every textbook on this subject will state that there is NO past form of 'must' to denote past obligation in the narrative.
I'm quite aware of the rules of reporting 'must' in indirect speech, but that's a diferren
0
0
Paul EvdokimovIt's just a narrative in the past simple. Every textbook on this subject will state that there is NO past form of 'must' to denote past obligation in the narrative.
If it's in every textbook, then why did you ask us to justify it?

Can anybody justify the usage of 'must'
0
0
Hi Paul.

I still think it works on the principle of reported speech as reporting verbs are not only "say, tell, ask" but also "add, admit, know, decide" and many others.
So it doesn´t matter if it was only in my mind, or if actually said the words out loud.
"I must go home."
I said/decided/knew that I must/had to go home.
So in my opinion the narrative is nothing mo
0

Related Questions