Many scientists are still hoping

English as a Second Language English Vocabulary, Grammar and Idioms
41

Semantically, has got imports ‘must’, but syntactically it should be present perfect, I think.

42

Well I guess it has the apparent form of a present perfect, but I don’t think it functions as a present perfect. The present perfect of the verb “get” gets very mixed up with “have got” idioms…

43

Thanks Dozy and T.H

-HAD TO have been told. Is HAD TO the past perfect of TO HAVE TO(DO SOMETHING?)

Please confirm.

44

Thanks Dozy and T.H

-HAD TO have been told, or He has HAD TO be told. Is HAD TO the past perfect of TO HAVE TO(DO SOMETHING?)

Please confirm.

45

No, it is the simple past, just as “had” is the simple past of the ordinary verb “have”. The past perfect would be “had had to (do something)”.

46

HI, Dozy check my final understanding for me:

  1. I have to clean the table < Is this, simple present of 'to have to (do something?)’
  2. She has to be killed! < Is this, present tense passive of to have to (do something?).
    3…and the men had to be told and so we told them < Is this, past simple of ‘to have to(do somethi
    ng?)’
    4…it was deep in the night when mark realised he had had to go, so he went away. < Is this the past perfect of ‘to have to(do something?)’.

Thanks, Dozy.

47

By the way is HAVE TO a modal verb?

48

The traditional grammar of the English language has recognized these eight verbs as modal auxiliaries: shall/should, will/would, can/could, may/might, must, need, dare & ought to. Some modern grammarians tend to call ‘used to’ also a modal. Since ‘have to’ seems to behave in a similar way, you may be justiied in calling it a modal, but I have not seen it termed so, yet.

49

1/2. Correct.
3. Yes, but it is also passive.
4. “he had had to go” is past perfect, but the sentence in which it is embedded does not seem to call for the past perfect. A better example: “Earlier he had had to abandon his rucksack.”

50

Thanks, Dozy I have learned it.
I chanced upon the following, the author says it is a past form:

  • That has to have been the restaurant. There is no other restaurant on the street. (the author asserted its a past form).

  • That had to have been the restaurant. There is no other restaurant on the street. (I implicitly, believe this is the past form, not that of the author’s assertion).

am I right with my assertion?

Thanks.

51

“has to …” is present tense. “… to have been” is a perfect infinitive. The sentence asserts a present truth about a past event.

“had to …” is past tense. “… to have been” is again a perfect infinitive. The sentence asserts a past truth about a past event. (In this case the past truth is normally assumed to still be true, so normally there is little practical difference in meaning between the sentences.)