| Author |
Message |
Walsky
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:15 am
Post subject: Must have been (?) |
|
|
Hello there,
I am watching one of the "Monk" episodes. Mr Monk says something that sounds
to me as "this had to have been" whereas I would expect him say: "must have
been".
Could anybody help me on that?
--
Regards
Walsky |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pat Durkin
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:51 am
Post subject: Re: Must have been (?) |
|
|
"Walsky" <walsky=NOSPAM=@konto.pl> wrote in message
news:dimil1$ghp$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl...
| Quote: | Hello there,
I am watching one of the "Monk" episodes. Mr Monk says something that
sounds
to me as "this had to have been" whereas I would expect him say: "must
have
been".
Could anybody help me on that?
|
I accept that "have to" is a stronger statement than "must".
Both usages are correct, but with more words one can emphasize "_had_ to
have gone". Of course, "_must_ have gone is also strong". One just chooses
which version best expresses the thought.
I have to go to the toilet.
I must go to the toilet.
In the above examples, "have to" is more urgent, and, what's more, gives an
inkling (short of jumping up and down, crossing legs, etc.) of what I need
to go there for.
(US usage.)
The "must" seems more to be reminding oneself to use the toilet before
leaving the house. One of a number of things on a "must do (or "to do")"
list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Other Fran
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:06 am
Post subject: Re: Must have been (?) |
|
|
Pat Durkin wrote:
| Quote: | "Walsky" <walsky=NOSPAM=@konto.pl> wrote in message
news:dimil1$ghp$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl...
Hello there,
I am watching one of the "Monk" episodes. Mr Monk says something that
sounds
to me as "this had to have been" whereas I would expect him say: "must
have
been".
Could anybody help me on that?
I accept that "have to" is a stronger statement than "must".
Both usages are correct, but with more words one can emphasize "_had_ to
have gone". Of course, "_must_ have gone is also strong". One just chooses
which version best expresses the thought.
|
I beleive that "had to have been" implies more certainty than "must
have been".
Compare:
Jane's not here yet. She must have been held up at work. (That's a
theory fitting the facts which the speaker thinks to be probably true).
Did you see what that woman woman on the motorcycle was wearing?
Nothing at all!!
Oh, that had to have been Jane. She's working on a contemporary
interpretation of the Lady Godiva story for a short film.(That's an
inference fitting the facts which the speaker thinks compelling).
"Must have been" would also work here, but it would be more
speculative.
TOF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walsky
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:32 am
Post subject: Re: Must have been (?) |
|
|
Thanks a lot. Now I get it. It's just that never has it occured to me that
you could actually say stuff like that. I used to think that "must have
been" is almost fact related as opposed to "may/might have been" being more
of a speculation...
--
Regards
Walsky |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in