To be

Question

Hi,Please help correct these sentences for me.  The ticket has to be an IMAX ticket to be that expensive.  AndThe food had to be good to be that expensive.  Are both these sentences okay?

Johner · Accepted Answer

In my opinion,

The ticket must be an IMAX ticket to be that expensive.

The food must have been very good to (have been) be that expensive.

I have doubts about the tense in yellow. but for the first sentence I can say it sounds perfect to me.

Let's just wait for a professional help.

Dimsumexpress · Answer

No need to mention "ticket" twice.

It must be an IMAX ticket to be that expensive.

The food must be very good to be that expensive.

or, the food had to be good to cost that much.

Same meaning.

Johner · Answer

Hi,

dimsumexpress
The food must be very good to be that expensive.

or, the food had to be good to cost that much.

Same meaning.

Between these two sentences, the first one is present, the second one is past, am I wrong? But you said both had the same meaning. how come do past and present have the same meaning?

And I have one more question regarding the same subject:

Generally the form is: main part of the sentence + to + V1. but sometimes it goes: main part of the sentence + to have + V3.

The food had to be good to cost that much. (main part + to+V1)

I've done it to get out of work immediately. (main part + to+V1)

So when should we prefer (to have + V3) form rather than (to+V1) form?

Thanks..

Dimsumexpress · Answer

johner
dimsumexpressThe food must be very good to be that expensive.

or, the food had to be good to cost that much.

Same meaning.

Scenario: you told me you paid $15 dollars for a movie yesterday. Without so much infomation about the movie, I made an assumptive comment: " it must/ should be very good ..." or "it had to be good to be this expensive. I am equating the 15 dollar ticket for the movie to how well the move must be made. Both, In this voice, are not tense sensitive.

johnerBetween these two sentences, the first one is present, the second one is past, am I wrong?

I don't think you can call the first sentence "present". If it were "the food is very good.." then it's present. You are right though about the second sentence.

The only difference I can explain is, "had" referred to the moive you saw. "Must" referred to an assumption that it was good. I am not sure if I answered your querries.

johnerGenerally the form is: main part of the sentence + to + V1. but sometimes it goes: main part of the sentence + to have + V3.

I don't believe there is a formula or guideline to go by regarding when and how to use the " to infitive + have + past participle " construction. The author is the only one who know what he wants to express. I think I kind of know your question though.

If I say: John is the only one in his family to have graduated with a BS degree. - this is speaking of a deed John has already accompleished.

Compare: John will be only one in his family to graduate college with a BS degree. This says John hasn't graduated just yet.

I don't know if I have answered your quesitons.

The food had to be good to cost that much. (main part + to+V1)

I've done it to get out of work immediately. (main part + to+V1)

Sorry, this is the first time I encounter the V1, V2 and V3 labeling. Are you suggesting V1 is bare infinitve and V3 is past participle? The above sentences do contain a " to " structure, but that is about the only commonality. OTher than that, I don't see them as paralell in forms.

Johner · Answer

Hi dimsumexpress,

Thank you very much for your detailed explanations.

I'm sorry I didn't know this type of labeling isn't common, we use it all the time. and yes your guess is true.

dimsumexpressI don't think you can call the first sentence "present". If it were "the food is very good.." then it's present.

As I learned in school, must is present and its past form is must have + past participle, which has a big potential to be wrong. eg: You must have shouted at her, otherwise she would never be that quiet.

But I really would love to use had to instead. moreover, if we can say has to instead of must in the present based sentences this would make my job easier.

dimsumexpress
If I say: John is the only one in his family to have graduated with a BS degree. - this is speaking of a deed John has already accompleished.

Compare: John will be only one in his family to graduate college with a BS degree. This says John hasn't graduated just yet.

I got the main idea here. but something has stucked in my mind. what about;

John was the only one in his family ...... (john has already accomplished)

How to express this thought?

Many thanks...

Dimsumexpress · Answer

johnerAs I learned in school, must is present and its past form is must have + past participle, which has a big potential to be wrong. eg: You must have shouted at her, otherwise she would never be that quiet.

I guess I had a different teacher

who didn't teach me that (or he could have but I forgot ).
Nonetheless, " must " by itself is tenseless in my opinion. If it is ever tense-suggestive, it may be of the future. " Everyone must score 70 or higher to pass the driving test ".

The " must + have + past participle " form does not appear to be a past tense in my interpretation, but a speculative statement.

e.g. A: "My computer isn't working anymore after I opened the emials from my Outlook"
B: " You must have opened an email infected with viruses ".

johnerJohn was the only one in his family ...... (john has already accomplished)

So if you say "John was....", it suggested that it's no long a fact.

So the context must reflect the change in the meaning, so I would say " John was the only one in his family at the time to have gradutaed with a BS degree" suggesting someone else became the second.

That's my interpretation.

Johner · Answer

Thank you so much I understand the distinction.

To be

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions