We use 'had to' not 'must' to express obligation and necessity in the past

English as a Second Language
1

Hi

We use had to not must to express obligation and necessity in the past:

I can understand what the sentence says to me, but how can I understand construction of it?
Is anything omitted because of redundancy?

I mean;
→ We use had to (and) not (use) must to express obligation and necessity in the past:

Original sentence is from here.
image

2 Likes
2

I agree, the sentence would look better with ‘and’ as a conjunction.

2 Likes
3

Thank you Torsten~! :grinning:

1 Like
4

Sorry for Intrusion, but I’m a bit confused by the piece ‘omitted because of redundancy’. For me ‘omitted’ means ‘missed’ while ‘redundancy’ means ‘more than plenty’. Isn’t it somewhat controversial?

1 Like
5

Sorry come to think of it again, I should have said “repetition”. Is it okay with you?

2 Likes
6

Yes, you can omit the repetition in order to avoid redundancy.

2 Likes