1.I had to have it done by tomorrow
2.I got to have it done by tomorrow
3.I have to get it done by tomorrow
Are all grammatically correct? And could be used interchangeably?. Thanks
- is incorrect. That would be:
I have got to get it done by tomorrow, which would be interchangeable with (3) (You haven’t had it done yet)
In (1) the implication is that you have already had it done or you know you will not get it done.
But Beeesneees, please read the following; I had to have a boat that could handle turbulent seas[but, this means he hasnt had it yet but know yearning to have].whereas you also said [had to have] suggest that he has had it done. Please confirm.
I had to have a boat…’ does not give any indication that he hasn’t had it. It indicates that he now has it or he has given up on the idea.
‘I have to have a boat…’ indicates that he hasn’t had it.
So Beeesneees if I am really getting you know, then ‘had’ could be used in place of ‘had to have’ as the following:
So Beeesneees if I am really getting you , then ‘had’ could be used in place of ‘had to have’ as the following:
I had to have a boat that could handle turbulent seas(meaning he has it already).
I had a boat that could handle turbulent seas(meaning he has it already). And can I use “had to have” in place of “had” always? Please confirm them. Thanks
No.
‘Had to have’ expresses necessity.
‘Had’ just expresses completion.
You cannot replace one with the other and expect the meaning to remain unchanged.
I had to have a boat… = it was necessary for me to have a boat…
So then am I correct here: when we went to the classroom I realised I had lost my pen and I had to have one so I bought one . Is it okay?
Yes.
You should bear in mind that the ‘necessity’ I referred to earlier may be a true necessity or may be a deep desire by the person who wants it.
‘I saw a fantastic pair of shoes in the window and I had to have them’ - in this context the person is indicating a deep desire akin to needing the shoes (though this particular pair are obviously not a true necessity).
‘He had to have a pair of shoes as he would not have been allowed to go to school barefoot.’ - in this context we are speaking of a more accurate need.
So then my first instance I made, that is: I had to have a boat that could handle turbulent seas. Does this instance indicate that I had wished in the past to have had that boat but not necessarally having it?
Use of ‘had’ in '‘I had to have…’ is past tense and indicates that he now has it or no longer wants it.
We don’t know from this alone whether he had a deep longing/desire for the boat or whether he had an actual need of the boat.
So as you pointed out(true necessity) so, here do mean that he has had but not yearning for? But I had thought you mean things of necessity, but doesnt mean we have it. So now can I use it to indicate(a necessity/desire and as well having possesed the thing but depending on the context used?)
‘Had to’ (past) ‘have to’ (present} both refer to necessity and usually that necessity comes from an outside source. We say: I have to/I had to have a licence before I can/could drive the car - in other words the law (outside source) tells /told me to get one. Whether you then got a licence is nothing to do with the grammar of this construction but depends on what happens next within the context of that statement.
If you want to express the idea that you want to have something very much as in: I had to have the car as soon as I saw it/I have to have the car now that I have seen it, you are referring to a necessity within yourself. Again whether you buy the car or you bought the car has nothing to do with the grammar of the sentence but is entirely to do with the context.
It isn’t a good idea to conjecture possible meanings of a sentence based on grammar. A sentence has to exist within a setting/context and that is what will tell you the real meaning.
Big thanks to both Beeesneees and Mr.Alan