# The past tense form of "must"



## unpelerin

_<< See also * "Must go" used in  past tense? * >>_

I'd like some educated opinion or direction on this, please.

At some point in the last couple of years I've suddenly become focused on the use of "must" as the only past tense to express the idea of having had to do something or other.

I imagine, but cannot prove, that it used to be the case that one would normally and usually have said something like:

>>>>   "Given their tenuous situation, Alexander's troops would have had to raid local villages to get supplies"  <<<<<<<

But I am noticing that no one says that anymore; they all say:

>>>>>>  "Given their tenuous situation, Alexander's troops must raid local villages to get supplies"<<<<<<<

which to me is present tense.  But obviously, given the usage, I am wrong.

Again, my question is not so much whether "must" can properly be a past tense, all by itself, as it is whether it has always been used that way and for how long.

Any comment greatly appreciated, however.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hello  unpelerin.  

I read the sample sentence with _must_ as present tense.  I don't see how it can be past tense.
I don't share your assumption that "would have had to" has fallen out of use.


----------



## Loob

Hi unpelerin

I'd actually say things are the other way round. In the past, people happily used "must" as a past tense; I think we're much less likely to do that now.


----------



## unpelerin

OK, I'll  have to dig up some published examples.  I tend to believe just from what I observe in all my reading that Loob is correct here, but am looking for specific guidance.  Fowler is silent on it, so it may not be an issue at all, except for me.     

Back anon with a few examples.

Thank you both for replying.


----------



## unpelerin

I also think I may have gone too far in saying that "would have had to" is what gets replaced --- let's just say it's "had to."

So, "the troops had to get supplies . . ." is replaced by "the troops must get supplies."

I'll be digging on it.


----------



## Loob

Again, I think it's the other way round.

Past tense "The troops must get supplies" is likely to be replaced today by "The troops had to get supplies".


----------



## panjandrum

I wonder if the cause of the phenomenon that unpelerin has noticed is really the tendency to report past events using present tense.
_Alexander's troops suddenly realise that they are hungry and the supplies they expected from home have been held up in the post.  In this tenuous situation they must raid local villages to get supplies.

_


----------



## unpelerin

Excellent observation, but I'm not talking about the historical present tense.

Of course, after having noticed this dozens of times in the last few months, I'm not coming up with one as yet.  I need a "search" function in my brain that can scan pages and pages of any text and come up with what I want.  I have one, of course, but it's slow; it can search only one page at a time!

So I'll let you all know when I see it again.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I observed this phenomenon, or something very like it, reading Maria McCann's novel The Wilding, yesterday.

There's a moment where, telling the story in the simple past - this really is not a case of the historic present - she writes:

_...everything was playing into my hand._

_I must not go just yet. A few days more and I might win Tamar's trust: I was now convinced that, if she chose, she could point to the injured party._

Loob has pointed out that _"in the past, people happily used must in the past tense_". McCann's novel is set around 1675 and is told in the first person by someone brought up in the countryside. The writing is not, however, completely archaic - it's not a faithful reproduction of seventeenth-century writing - just a little antique in feel, in the occasional turn of phrase, perhaps. What interested me was that reading this sentence I found it completely acceptable as 21st century English. I prefer _I must not go just yet_, to _I couldn't go just yet_ (shifts the meaning), or_ I had not to go just yet_ (clumsier).

Perhaps, then, my old thought, that _must_ cannot be used in modern English as a simple past, is just wrong. Or maybe it's the effect of continuous obligation, an imperfect sense, that makes it acceptable here.


----------



## unpelerin

Merci, Thomas

I am satisfied that "must" is commonly used, in today's writing, to indicate simple past tense.

I'm in no way satisfied that I understand its use or history.

The ultimate case that I don't understand would be something like this:

"I must go."   Meaning, I must go (present tense).

"I must go."   Meaning, I had to go (past tense).

Both of those are acceptable as far as I can see, but I'm not comfortable with it and I would never use the second one, myself.


----------



## Imber Ranae

Loob said:


> Hi unpelerin
> 
> I'd actually say things are the other way round. In the past, people happily used "must" as a past tense; I think we're much less likely to do that now.



My thought exactly.


----------



## koniecswiata

I've never heard "must" with an overt past meaning in Modern English.  I couldn't even understand it as a past form.  I can understand it as being present in form but past in meaning when used to tell a story--but then all the verbs are present.
One thing I DO know is that at one point, English did not have modal verbs as a separate category, so verbs such as "must" or "can" (at the time "musten" and "canen") had past forms like any other verbs.  I believe the past of "must" was "musted"--but that was a long time ago, even before Chaucer, I believe, placing it in the Middle English period.


----------



## Loob

koniecswiata said:


> One thing I DO know is that at one point, English did not have modal verbs as a separate category, so verbs such as "must" or "can" (at the time "musten" and "canen") had past forms like any other verbs. I believe the past of "must" was "musted"--


Actually, "must" was originally a past tense: see this extract from the Online Etymology Dictionary:





> O.E. _moste,_ pt. of _motan_ "have to, be able to," from P.Gmc. _*motanan_ "to fix, allot, appoint, to have room, to be able" (cf. O.Fris. _mota,_ M.L.G. _moten,_ Du. _moeten,_ Ger. _müssen_ "to be obliged to," Goth. _gamotan_ "to have room to, to be able to"), from PIE base _*med-_ "to measure." Used as present tense from c.1300, from the custom of using past subjunctive as a moderate or polite form of the present. The noun meaning "something that has to be seen or experienced" is from 1892.


----------



## Imber Ranae

Yes, it's the same phenomenon seen in the use of "might" for "may" and "could" for "can" in certain instances. The transformation was simply more complete with "must", where the original present indicative form was lost altogether.


Here's a random Internet discussion I found concerning the archaic use of "must" as a past tense in Tolkien.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

koniecswiata said:


> I've never heard "must" with an overt past meaning in Modern English. I couldn't even understand it as a past form.[...]


I gave you an example of it in post 9.  Did you find that hard to understand?  I would have said it had to be present in modern English, until I read that.


----------



## koniecswiata

INteresting about Must having been the past form at one time, long ago.  Tompion, the example in post 9--I can only understand it as PRESENT TENSE.  I could see it as "jumping out of the time frame" so to speak.  I fact the whole example seems present--it's happening at the moment that it is being expressed, not as a previous, past action.  For me, it would have had to be "had to" to be past.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

koniecswiata said:


> INteresting about Must having been the past form at one time, long ago. Tompion, the example in post 9--I can only understand it as PRESENT TENSE. I could see it as "jumping out of the time frame" so to speak. I fact the whole example seems present--it's happening at the moment that it is being expressed, not as a previous, past action. For me, it would have had to be "had to" to be past.


I'm interested that you say this. Here's the passage again:

_...everything was playing into my hand._

_I must not go just yet. A few days more and I might win Tamar's trust: I was now convinced that, if she chose, she could point to the injured party._

Clearly _everything was playing into my hand_ cannot be present, and _I was now convinced that_ also is unequivocally past, so the frame of the crucial part certainly gives a past context.

If we change the first part of the sentence we are concerned with to something unambiguously present, see how the mood changes:

_...everything was playing into my hand._

_I cannot leave just yet. A few days more and I may win Tamar's trust: I was now convinced that, if she chose, she could point to the injured party._

It was this consideration, the way the mood changed with what I regard as a tense shift, which convinced me that the _must_ in the original is actually a past tense. If you change the _must_ to _had to_,

_...everything was playing into my hand._

_I had to stay for a while. A few days more and I might win Tamar's trust: I was now convinced that, if she chose, she could point to the injured party._

I think here you get no change in the sense of timing - further support for my tentative view, but you do get the feel of a different sort of obligation, one imposed from without, whereas the _must_ in the original is an obligation imposed by moral forces within the narrator. 

I think it's quite subtle and rather effective.


----------



## Myridon

I read post 9 as present tense reporting of what she (I) was thinking at the time.


----------



## koniecswiata

Tompion,
I really can't understand that "must" as past.  Obviously, "everything was playing..." is past.  But, for me, that's a phrase that is setting the stage.  What follows is present--at the moment that the person is thinking that thought.  "I was now convinced" is also technically present (for me) because of the "now".  In cases where you use a passive construction, but the meaning is more descriptive (adjectival) in expressions such as "I was convinced, I was forced to, I was made to" there is a present effect or feeling to it.  True, I was convinced by someone--that action would have been in the past.  But, here in this case it is present.  The rest:  if she chose, is also present--just conditional (for past, it would have been "if she had chosen").  It's just all present tense for me.  Must be my dialect or something!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

koniecswiata said:


> Tompion,
> I really can't understand that "must" as past. Obviously, "everything was playing..." is past. But, for me, that's a phrase that is setting the stage. What follows is present--at the moment that the person is thinking that thought. "I was now convinced" is also technically present (for me) because of the "now". In cases where you use a passive construction, but the meaning is more descriptive (adjectival) in expressions such as "I was convinced, I was forced to, I was made to" there is a present effect or feeling to it. True, I was convinced by someone--that action would have been in the past. But, here in this case it is present. The rest: if she chose, is also present--just conditional (for past, it would have been "if she had chosen"). It's just all present tense for me. Must be my dialect or something!


I don't see how you can think that _I was convinced_ is in any way, technical or non-technical, present.

Surely it's the past form of _I am convinced._

I'm particularly interested in your main view, because I held it myself until two days ago.

Let's try another tack; let's put _must_ into a context where I think it has to be a past tense, and see if that sounds right.

Suppose I said to you yesterday _"I am_ (present tense) _going fishing"._ Reporting this today you could say _You said you were_ (past tense) _going fishing._

Suppose what I said to you was _"I have _(present tense) _to see him"._ Reporting this today you could say _You said you had_ (past tense) _to see him_.

Suppose what I said to you was _"I must_ (present tense) _see him_". Reporting this today you could say _You said you must_ (past tense) _see him_.

In this last example, when I say _you_, I mean _one_, for you may not agree with me. But *I* could certainly say_ You said you must see him_, and I'm surprised to learn (for I believe it to be true) that this _must_ is actually a past tense.


----------



## koniecswiata

That's interesting.  But, that all has to do with the quirky world of reported speech.  We often just repeat what was said, not applying the (prescriptive and formal) rules of reported speech.
_You said "you must see him._" vs. _You said you had to see him._

The same is happening in statements like:

_You said "you're hungry."
You said "she's arriving at 8."_

I wouldn't say that you're or she's arriving were actually past tense.  It's just quotation being done in the spoken speech reported speech mode.  I think the same was done with the word "must".  Maybe the author forgot the quotation marks.

In the case of was convinced.  I suppose it was the adverb "now" + the present context of the entire sentence that made it present for me.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

koniecswiata said:


> That's interesting. But, that all has to do with the quirky world of reported speech. We often just repeat what was said, not applying the (prescriptive and formal) rules of reported speech.
> _You said "you must see him._" vs. _You said you had to see him._
> [...]


It was, of course, precisely to get round the quirky world of reported speech and its rules that I put it into that setting, alongside those equivalent sentences with their verbs in the past.


----------



## Thomas1

For what it's worth, Merriam Webster dictionary still gives must as a past form of must:
Inflected Form(s):  _present & past all persons_ *must
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/must

*The past form of 'must' that is taught to non-native speakers is 'had to'. I nevertheless remember coming across in literature examples of the kind Thomas cited.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Thomas1 said:


> For what it's worth, Merriam Webster dictionary still gives must as a past form of must:
> Inflected Form(s): _present & past all persons_ *must*
> *http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/must*
> 
> The past form of 'must' that is taught to non-native speakers is 'had to'. I nevertheless remember coming across in literature examples of the kind Thomas cited.


That's very interesting, Thomas.  Thank you.

I see that Otto Jespersen in his Essentials of English Grammar, section 24.6, says that _must_ is not often used as a real past, but is often used as a shifted present, and cites similar examples to the one I gave. 

I think the example from Maria McCann I quoted is a real past, and I'm interested that it didn't trouble me at all.


----------



## Jam on toast

Hi all,
I agre with koniecswiata here, I just can't get my head around "must" used as a part tense, even allowing for the fact that that is what it once was.

Thomas Thompion's example is really interesting, but again I just don't scan it as a past tense; rather I read it as present tense indirect speech conveying internal thoughts, in the same sense as the following rehash:
_"I must not go just yet. A few days more and I might win Tamar's trust" (I reminded myself)._

As such, I get the same mood from the reworking to _"I cannot go in yet...."._

It's interesting to see people reading different inferences from the same sentences. Myself, I really can't ever get a comfortable past tense "feel" from "must", which probably means when people have intended it that way I've simply missed it.


----------



## JamesM

I don't get any past tense feel from "must" in the examples provided so far.  They look like present tense to me.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JamesM said:


> I don't get any past tense feel from "must" in the examples provided so far. They look like present tense to me.


Even _You said you must_ _see him - _Jespersen's shifted present, which is (surely?) as much of a past as _You said you had to see__ him_?

I'm surprised, James.


----------



## e2efour

Could we have some examples of must used in the past tense in a main clause. The curious sentence in post #9 is hardly convincing.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Here are two from the same sentence in Chapter 2 of Emma:

_He had never been an unhappy man; his own temper had secured him from that, even in his first marriage; but his second must shew him how delightful a well-judging and truly amiable woman could be, and must give him the pleasantest proof of its being a great deal better to choose than to be chosen, to excite gratitude than to feel it._

Here's one from Henry James, The Beast in the Jungle, Chapter One:

_She had beautifully not done so for ten years, and she was not doing so now. So he had endless gratitude to make up. Only for that he must see just how he had figured to her. "What, exactly, was the account I gave--?"_

Here's one from Somerset Maugham, The Explorer, Chapter One:

_In them there was so much uprightness, strength, and simple goodness; the sum total of it must prevail in the long run against the unruly instincts of one man._

In each case, apply the acid test: should you substitute for _must_, _have to_ or _had to_? In each case, I'd say it must be _had to_; it's a true past tense.

Perhaps there's no need to ask why I went looking in those particular authors.


----------



## Smithy73

I would probably combine both: "Alexander's troops must have had to do this and that"


----------



## e2efour

Ok, I'm convinced that must is used in the past tense, at least in the Maugham (looking at the first four chapters of the book, he seems to use it several times). Possibly also in the other two authors, although I haven't looked at the context.

It would seem, therefore, to be an archaic use of must in the past tense, which is not used today.


----------



## JamesM

Thomas Tompion said:


> Here are two from the same sentence in Chapter 2 of Emma:
> 
> _He had never been an unhappy man; his own temper had secured him from that, even in his first marriage; but his second must shew him how delightful a well-judging and truly amiable woman could be, and must give him the pleasantest proof of its being a great deal better to choose than to be chosen, to excite gratitude than to feel it._




I would replace this with "has to".




> Here's one from Henry James, The Beast in the Jungle, Chapter One:





> _She had beautifully not done so for ten years, and she was not doing so now. So he had endless gratitude to make up. Only for that he must see just how he had figured to her. "What, exactly, was the account I gave--?"'_




I'm not sure what I think of this one.  "Had to" seems odd to me here but I don't see a better choice.





> Here's one from Somerset Maugham, The Explorer, Chapter One:





> _In them there was so much uprightness, strength, and simple goodness; the sum total of it must prevail in the long run against the unruly instincts of one man._




This would be "would have to" for me, not "had to".




> In each case, apply the acid test: should you substitute for _must_, _have to_ or _had to_? In each case, I'd say it must be _had to_; it's a true past tense.


 
The middle quote gives me pause.  I'm not sure what to think of it.  Thank you for the examples.  They were very helpful.

Perhaps there's no need to ask why I went looking in those particular authors.

[/QUOTE]


----------



## Thomas Tompion

It's common in several circumstances and doesn't raise an eyebrow in me certainly. Here's one I think most BE speakers wouldn't be surprised by:

_“Since I did not know how or when or where he would call me, I knew I must study diligently..."_

It's Copyright 2010.

Just as we say_ I know I must_, so we also say _I knew I must_.

When I came across the example in Maria McCann I wondered whether to restart this thread, or another. The other one has some interesting posts in it, and has the advantage of a title which shows it's about _must_'s use as a past tense. The rather laconic title of this one won't help future searchers to find this discussion.


----------



## panjandrum

It seems that we glide past the use of _must (past)_ without any problem and with correct understanding... unless we pause to think about it.  
It seems that we tend not to use _must (past)_, so when we pause to think about it we don't feel that it has any past sense.

Why is this?

_Must _is very hard to pin down in time.  Even used in its apparently present form, it is not speaking of the present at all.  _I must buy milk today.._. is speaking of a present-to-future obligation.  It's something I know about now, but the buying of the milk will not happen until some time later today.  Even more pointedly, _I must remember to buy milk when I'm at the shops..._ is not speaking of the present at all.  It is speaking of the future.  _I must visit Pamela when I'm in Horton-com-Studley_.

So _must _is past, present and future in meaning and in use.
Except that when many of us want to express this meaning, we don't use must as a past form, and it is clear that students are taught not to use it.

_(I changed the title of this thread and included linkes to each in the first post of the other.)_


----------



## e2efour

Here are a couple more examples from Maugham, which has several examples of what appears to be the past tense of must (see http://www.readbookonline.net/read/13349/32159/).

The meaning in present-day English is "needed to" or "had to". In A. one could write "would have to" instead.

A.     'I want to die in my own home,' he faltered.
  Lucy was in a turmoil of anxiety. She must make some reply. What he asked was impossible, and yet it was cruel to tell him the whole truth.



B.
Fred Allerton was suddenly grown old and bent; his poor face was sunken, and the skin had an ashy look like that of a dying man. He had already a cringing air, as if he must shrink away from his fellows.


----------



## unpelerin

Well, is it not possible that there is an issue of coordination of tenses in that example, Thomas?  "Said" is clearly past tense, so maybe it affects the "must" also.

Alternative theory along the same lines:

You said (past tense)

Quote---I must see him---Unquote (present tense of "must" but clearly occurring in the past, as shown by the previous verb)

I still have examples of "must" in the past tense.  Here is one that I remember, in form but not word for word:

"Alexander's forces were strung out for miles along the road and the commanders must bring up the heavy wagons to support the assault."

Here, again, I am seeing a previous verb, indicating in general that the situation is occurring in past tense.

How 'bout it?


----------



## Orpington

unpelerin said:


> "Alexander's forces were strung out for miles along the road and the commanders must bring up the heavy wagons to support the assault."



To me that just doesn't sound right, to be honest. It sounds like it switches to present halfway through.

I'm not saying it definitely can't be used as a past tense, to be honest I don't really know if it can. I think it's just we aren't used to must as a past tense so we just see it as a present tense, like reported speech within an otherwise past tense sentence.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I was interested to see that the view I expressed earlier that there is a difference in meaning between _must_ used in the past and _had to_, is mirrored in a post by Aupick in the other thread which Panj. has helpfully linked in the first post of this one.

In my post 17 (down at the bottom) in this thread I said that when you use _had to_ 

_you do get the feel of a different sort of obligation, one imposed from without, whereas the_ _must in the original is an obligation imposed by moral forces within the narrator._ 

In the other thread's Post 16 (down at the bottom) Aupick says

_there's justification in using 'must' instead of 'had to', because there's a difference in the nature of the stated obligation, albeit one that is dropping out of the language in the 21st century. ('Must' implies the obligation comes from the speaker, 'had to' from a third party.)_

I'm not saying that when we say _I had to_, we never mean that the sense of obligation comes from within us, but I felt that this meaning comes less naturally than when we say_ I must_, and I was interested that I was not the only person to sense this difference.


----------



## unpelerin

Orpington, it doesn't sound right to me, either, which is the whole reason for my question and my doubts.

But I have seen many (I do not say a flood of) similar examples in current writing---mostly in nonfiction books.  It is always possible that the authors using it that way are wrong, but they did pass muster with their house editors, anyway.

I'll keep digging on it.

Thank you and all for now.


----------



## Thomas1

Here's something interesting that I found in the OED:
d.II.3.d As a past tense: Was obliged, had to; it was necessary that (I, he, it, etc.) should.
   In modern use confined to instances of oblique narration, and of the virtual oblique narration in which the speaker has in his mind what might have been said or thought at the time. To say ‘I must go to London yesterday’ would now be a ludicrous blunder. 
[...]
1894 J. T. Fowler Adamnan Introd. 74 He could not bear to be idle‥he must always be doing something.​


----------



## Brioche

Thomas1 said:


> Here's something interesting that I found in the OED:To say ‘I must go to London yesterday’ would now be a ludicrous blunder.
> [...]​



That nails it good and proper!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Brioche said:


> That nails it good and proper!


 Yes, I agree.

For me that makes the acceptable past uses of _must_ all the more intriguing.


----------



## Loob

Thomas Tompion said:


> For me that makes the acceptable past uses of _must_ all the more intriguing.


Doesn't the first part of Thomas1's OED quote, and in particular the reference to _virtual oblique narration_, cover those, TT?


----------



## panjandrum

It's the intriguing difference in acceptability between:
_I must go to London yesterday._
and
_Yesterday I knew I must go to London._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob said:


> Doesn't the first part of Thomas1's OED quote, and in particular the reference to _virtual oblique narration_, cover those, TT?


 I wasn't suggesting they were in some way uncovered and bare, my dear Loobo, just that they were intriquing.

Of the OED's two categories, oblique narration, and virtual oblique narration, only the second is explained in any detail.  I'm not entirely clear what is or isn't included in the first, and even whether all the cases I have considered correct are included in it.  I suspect they are.  Certainly, _I knew I must_ seems to get a blessing.


----------



## koniecswiata

_n them there was so much uprightness, strength,  and simple goodness; the sum total of it must prevail in the long run  against the unruly instincts of one man._

In each case, apply the acid test: should you substitute  for _must_, _have  to_ or _had to_? In each  case, I'd say it must be _had to_; it's  a true past tense.

Perhaps there's no need to ask why I went looking in  those particular authors.

*You can apply "have to" as well as "had to".  By that logic, have to is also a past form.  So, if must is used as a past form, then why distinguish between had to and have to, since have to can also be past.  

Consequently:

*_There were so doubts; the sky is blue, many people go to work; these things were on people's minds.

_*Are the verbs is and go also past?  They are being used the same way as must in the examples.*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

panjandrum said:


> It's the intriguing difference in acceptability between:
> _I must go to London yesterday._
> and
> _Yesterday I knew I must go to London._


Exactly, Panj.  That puts it very well.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Thomas Tompion said:


> _Yesterday I knew I must go to London._
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, Panj.  That puts it very well.
Click to expand...


This twangs in my mind like a mistake some of my students would have said mixing up tense concord. I'd never in a trillion years say that, it'd have to be _"had to __go_" for me.

Language is slightly different in the minds of all its speakers, it's better to realise that although people have the same native language, I'd be surprised to hear of two people that had exactly the same rules coded into their minds through their life experience, I am of the group that see all the "must" citations as some form of present tense and not as past, I can see some people are struggling to get their heads around how we can't view it this way, we've established a distinction, there's no convincing left to be done to get people to agree (IMHO), it just seems people are reluctant to accept this differentiation in viewing this word, and wanted to point that out.

Nobody is wrong, nobody is right, the English language has changed a phenomenal amount over its 1,600 years, this is just a tiny wrinkle of distinction


----------



## Loob

Alxmrphi said:


> This twangs in my mind like a mistake some of my students would have said mixing up tense concord. I'd never in a trillion years say that, it'd have to be "_should've gone_" for me.


But that would mean something different, Alx: _I knew I must go to London = I knew I had to go to London._


----------



## Alxmrphi

Loob said:


> But that would mean something different, Alx: _I knew I must go to London = I knew I had to go to London._



Hi Loob, "I knew I must go to London" doesn't exist for me.
I understand your point though, I'll edit above, I did mean to write knew_ I had to_, otherwise _should have _reflects the fact I didn't go! (my error)

I knew I must have gone
I knew I should have gone
I knew I had to go

These are my only possibilities of combining should / must / have to in the past.
There are a set of verbs I can easily think of as past that have an identical form in other tenses for example _I will hit the ball_, _I hit the ball_, _Yesterday I hit the ball_..... this is fine for me, as well as verbs like* fit*, *cut* etc, but *must* doesn't belong to this category in my English.

I wasn't aware of it until now but I have absolutely no problem with it working for others.

[Edit]: Ok I've been digging.... talking about the pre-modals (when they were normal verbs, i.e. _willan_ (will), _scullan_ (shall), _magan_ (may), _motan_ (must), _cunnan_ (can)) "A History of the English Language" says:



> In the course of the OE and ME periods, a number of 'unrelated' changes took place that isolated the pre-modals from the other verbs:
> 
> (i) the pre-modals lost the ability to take direct objects
> (ii) the pre-modals were only preterite-present verbs left; all others of this class were lost
> (iii) the past-tense forms of the pre-modals no longer signal past-time reference
> (iv) the pre-modals alone take a bare infinitive; all other verbs start taking _to_-infinitive


As Loob pointed out before in the quote from etymonline.com '_must_' is the past tense form of *motan.

(As per my quote) This is documented to have lost its past time reference between the period of Old English and Middle English.


----------



## djmc

"I knew I must go to London" strikes me as being very slightly literary or poetic e.g. "I knew I must go to London, see the bright lights be at the heart of things, as the years have passed I still retain this knowledge, even though now I will never do this". To say "I had to" seems to lose this graphical effect. To say "I knew I must have gone" sounds to me that at some point in the past one did not know what one had done. Fo example "I knew I must have gone to London because I saw the photo, but I didn't remember". A more natural use would be " I knew the cat must have caught a bird because I saw feathers in the living room".


----------



## unpelerin

Outstanding points, djmc, with which I wholly agree.


----------



## Thomas1

Alxmrphi said:


> [...][Edit]: Ok I've been digging.... talking about the pre-modals (when they were normal verbs, i.e. _willan_ (will), _scullan_ (shall), _magan_ (may), _motan_ (must), _cunnan_ (can)) "A History of the English Language" says:
> In the course of the OE and ME periods, a number of 'unrelated' changes  took place that isolated the pre-modals from the other verbs:
> 
> 
> 
> (i) the pre-modals lost the ability to take direct objects
> (ii) the pre-modals were only preterite-present verbs left; all others  of this class were lost
> (iii) the past-tense forms of the pre-modals no longer  signal past-time reference
> (iv) the pre-modals alone take a bare infinitive; all other verbs start  taking _to_-infinitive
> 
> 
> 
> As Loob pointed out before in the quote from etymonline.com '_must_' is the past tense form of *motan and is documented to have lost its past time reference between the period of Old English and Middle English.
Click to expand...

There's something which I don't quite understand in the citation, Alex. Can't really 'could' have a past-time reference?_
I can swim, but I couldn't when I was a child._
What am I missing?

I realise that 'must' is out of use as past tense of 'must' in spoken English, but as I gather from the posts in this thread, this is not the case in written English, especially in literature, where it ocasionally appears, doesn't it?


----------



## panjandrum

Alxmrphi said:


> ...
> 
> As Loob pointed out before in the quote from etymonline.com '_must_' is the past tense form of *motan and is documented to have lost its past time reference between the period of Old English and Middle English.


Being very careful here...
Loob's quotation (post #13) points out that _must _was originally past tense and came to be used as present tense from 1300s.
It does not say that it ceased to be used as past tense, and there is plenty of evidence that such use continued for a long time after 1300.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Sorry Panj that's what I meant, my quote about what Loob said was meant to end after "*motan", and my own summary from the book is what followed, the summary part is what I edited in, I didn't mean to misrepresent what Loob's _etymonline.com_ quote represented, just clearing that up.

Edited above for clarity.

p.s. (also for clarity) I never stated any time frame on when meanings changed, except between "Old" and "Middle" English..

@Thomas, you're correct, the theory doesn't stand for 'could', I'm going to read and see what it says, if there's an explanation, but you haven't misunderstood anything!
The Syntactic Evolution of Modal Verbs in the History of English reports the same as the book:


> In the last chapter, we underlined the fact that the disappearance of  the inflected forms of infinitives and subjunctives  ended in the grammaticalisation of modals as well as the absence of adequacy between morphological form  and past value of some modals such as SHOULD, WOULD,  COULD and MIGHT.
> 
> In EME, this differentiation between morphology and tense becomes more pronounced. Indeed, more often than not, SHOULD, WOULD,  COULD and MIGHT have an irrealis meaning. The past tense is more frequently expressed with the perfective aspect, that is, using HAVE + V + EN.


but does go on to say:


> Despite what has just been said, the past forms of CAN, SHALL,  MAY WILL can still have a past  meaning and , with a T [+past].


On the same sites I found some more notes about _must_...



> Like in OE, ME has two tenses: present and past. Once again, morphology will tell us the tense of the finite verb. There is no vowel alternation anymore for modal verbs between the infinitive and the present form, the only vowel alternation remaining is between the present and past form. Yet, as Examples (361) to (369)  have shown, a past form does not necessarily have a past value. The following examples illustrate the present forms of (_shall_, _mei_ and _moot_) and the past forms of (_walde/wollde_, _mihhte_, _cuþe/koude_, _shollde_ and* must*).
> 
> These examples allow us to notice two things: first, there is a morphological standardization of past forms of SHALL, WILL and CAN;  *secondly, MUST still has two morphological forms, but only the past one will remain in Common Usage (with a present meaning)*.


[Edit2]
There's absolutely massive debate about this on the internet!!
 I've just been reading a few replies, it definitely appears that it's accepted among people that it can be a past tense, though many people really disagree with it, but you can't deny usage! (I don't mean that in a sense of it being ordinary/normal/standard) but you can't call it wrong, but I have to say I belong to the non-users of this group.


Modality in language is generally split up into 3 categories, epistemic, deontic & dynamic, if we take *deontic modality *(external action onto someone, granting permission, ordering etc) and compare the present-past, I think generally most people would agree its past form is "*had to*".

*Present *- You must go.
*Past* - You must go yesterday! / Yesterday you must go. 
*Past* - You had to go yesterday / Yesterday you had to go. 

Must isn't part of the *dynamic* category of modality because it doesn't refer to personal ability / habit / future / prediction.

When _must _is used in* epistemic modality* (logical deduction) I think there's it appears the most normal that _must_ can be a past tense, along with the periphrastic _must have_.

*Present* - I can hear the doorbell, it must be Jeremy.
*Past* - I heard the doorbell last week, it must be Jeremy  (?? not to me)
*Past* - I heard the doorbell last week, it must've been Jeremy (what I'd say)

Since when people talk about modal verbs, the examples usually are split between all sorts of possible meanings that must can represent, I think it might be helpful to split it up into its possible meanings and analyse them, so that's what I've tried to do, to see if we can understand the situation better, i.e. we might find that people view one type of "_must_" modality as never as a past tense, and another one where it can be, so this is where I believe it is the most useful to split the modal verb up into its core meanings, and see if a pattern can be established.

But in short, for me this sentence doesn't work:

_I went to the Hotel counter and asked if I could use the toilet, *but since we checked out that morning I must leave the Hotel*_.

It has to be 

_I went to the Hotel counter and asked if I could use the toilet, *but  since we checked out that morning I had to** leave the Hotel*_.

Because my mind doesn't accept_ must_ as a past (deontic) modal verb.


----------



## Forero

I am a regular user of _must_ as a past tense (including past subjunctive and conditional, like _could_ or _might_). Here is an example that works for me:
_
Unfortunately I did not stop to read the sign because Mary said we must hurry to catch the bus.

_If I had to use a different verb here, I would use "needed to" rather than "had to".





JamesM said:


> Thomas Tompion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one from Henry James, The Beast in the Jungle, Chapter One:
> 
> _She had beautifully not done so for ten years, and she was not doing so now. So he had endless gratitude to make up. Only for that he must see just how he had figured to her. "What, exactly, was the account I gave--?"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what I think of this one.  "Had to" seems odd to me here but I don't see a better choice.
Click to expand...

Here too, I would prefer "needed to" to "had to", but _must_ sometimes has a nuanced meaning that does not allow it to be replaced by a different verb. And sometimes _must_ is the only verb that allows the sentence to flow, especially if it is already buried as in these examples.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> I am a regular user of _must_ as a past tense (including past subjunctive and conditional, like _could_ or _might_). Here is an example that works for me:
> 
> _Unfortunately I did not stop to read the sign because Mary said we must hurry to catch the bus._
> 
> If I had to use a different verb here, I would use "needed to" rather than "had to".[...]


This is interesting, Forero, and reflects my suggestion that _must_ in the past can have a meaning different to _had to_, an obligation coming from within, rather than one externally imposed.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ok, there's a pattern emerging that it appears to be ok to some speakers when it's the subject of a complement clause (I knew that.... someone said that...), in Forero's latest example we're back to linking with the verb *to say *which I truly believe is playing an influence in the fact that you can have:

_Mary said "we must hurry to catch the bus"._

Not "saying" the quotation marks and getting used to this structure I believe can make it sound ok, in order to better posit a rule, could we focus on examples where we know this could not be a possible explanation? Linguistically I am trying to see a pattern emerging and it doesn't seem to work anywhere outside of a complement clause, so could someone post some sentences they think work, that can't be (possibly) explained by a quirk of direct/reported speech?

Hopefully looking at similarities we can come up with a good rule as to when it fits, because it certainly doesn't fit in all possible examples.

i.e. _Why must you lend it to him again? You must lend it to him last year as well._.. clearly doesn't work.

but _I know you told me (that) I must lend it to him, but that was 5 years ago_....  I can see people being ok with this, but it's linked with "to tell", and could be expressed as _"I know you told me "You must lend it to him", but that was...._ and as it's not direct speech I think it's ok to swap the pronouns to match reported speech ("I" instead of "you") but the same core principle applies.

So, if we find ways that absolutely can't be explained by that, we can hopefully pin down what's going on.


----------



## panjandrum

It may be a matter of coming to an understanding of the OED quote:... instances of oblique narration, and of the  virtual oblique narration in which the speaker has in his mind what  might have been said or thought at the time.​Looking at examples given here and in the OED, it seems to me that there are at least two common categories of use.  

There are examples of reported speech, reported thought or otherwise indirect reporting of the compulsion.
I said I must...
I knew I must...
I felt I must...
- That kind of thing.

There are also examples where the narrative is entirely in the past and must is used as part of the narrative, thus quite clearly referring to a past compulsion.  Here I quote some historical examples from the OED.

*1845* E.  FITZGERALD _Lett._ (1889) I. 154 Poussin  must spend his life in Italy before he could paint as he did.
*1894* J.  T. FOWLER  in St. Adamnan _Vita S. Columbae_ Introd.  74 He could not bear to be idle..he must always be doing  something.
*1941* R.  H. JACKSON _Struggle  for Judicial Supremacy_ v. 124 The year  1936 was one of increasing tensions. The President must stand for  re-election.
*1992* A.  W. ECKERT _Sorrow  in our Heart_ iii. 178 Captains Chaine  and Duquesne..were sure that..they could convince them that they were  hopelessly outnumbered and must surrender themselves and their fort or  die.

In each case, including those I didn't quote, the sense of "past" is there, but is not explicit in the immediate environment of the use of "must". 
(The 1992 example, with "were sure that", is perhaps more like an indirect report.)


----------



## Loob

panjandrum said:


> It may be a matter of coming to an understanding of the OED quote:
> ... instances of oblique narration, and of the virtual oblique narration in which the speaker has in his mind what might have been said or thought at the time.​


Yes - it might be easier if we replace "oblique narration" by "reported speech":
... instances of reported speech, and of the virtual reported speech in which the speaker has in his mind what might have been said or thought at the time.​


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob said:


> Yes - it might be easier if we replace "oblique narration" by "reported speech":
> ... instances of reported speech, and of the virtual reported speech in which the speaker has in his mind what might have been said or thought at the time.​


It might be easier, Loobo, but I'm not sure it's more accurate:

I'm not clear that in _I thought I must..._ or _I felt I must..._ or _I was persuaded that I must..._ and things like it, the _that I must..._ is really an example of reported speech.


----------



## e2efour

I would like to thank the originator of this thread and also, in particular, Thomas for convincing me of the use of _must_ in the past tense in literature.
Here are two more examples (Maugham, Of Human Bondage).
1) "He awoke in the morning with a sinking heart because* he must go*  through another day of drudgery. He was tired of having to do things  because he was told...."

2) "Now and then Philip with one of the more experienced clerks went out to  audit the accounts of some firm: he came to know which of the clients  *must be treated* with respect and which were in low water."

In 1) _must_ cannot be the present tense and can only be replaced by _he had to _OR _he would have to. _If we make it reported speech (_because he knew he must go_ _through_) _must_ sounds natural.
In 2) _must be treated _has to be replaced by the past tense _needed/had to be treated.

_


----------



## Forero

_Must_, like some other modals, is ambiguous as to tense and mode. It may be present or past, and it may be indicative, subjunctive, or conditional, depending on context.

 Without further context, such constructions as the following sound odd:
_
I could go yesterday.
I might go yesterday.
I would go yesterday.
__ I must go yesterday.
_
But the problem is not that there is any incompatibility between a past tense context and _could_, _might_, _would_, and _must_ but the fact that an adverb modifying such a modal construction tends to specify the time of the other verb (e.g. _go_), not the time of the auxiliary, and the time of the other verb is future to the time of the auxiliary:

_Today I know I can go._ [I am able today, but I may not go until tomorrow.]
_Today I know I may go._ [It is possible for me today, but the going may not be realized until tomorrow.]
_ Today I know I will go._ [I am sure or willing today to go some time, perhaps today, perhaps tomorrow.]
_Today I know I must go._ [I have a need or obligation today to go some time (in future).]

_Yesterday I knew I could go.
Yesterday I knew I might go.
__Yesterday I knew I would go.
__Yesterday I knew I must go.
_
_It was yesterday that I could go.
It was yesterday that I might go.
It was yesterday that I would go.
__It was yesterday that I must go.
_
  Many of our examples use "indirect speech" as a device to prove we are using past tense, but past tense or conditional _must_ can sound natural in other contexts too.



e2efour said:


> I would like to thank the originator of this thread and also, in particular, Thomas for convincing me of the use of _must_ in the past tense in literature.
> Here are two more examples (Maugham, Of Human Bondage).
> 1) "He awoke in the morning with a sinking heart because* he must go*  through another day of drudgery. He was tired of having to do things  because he was told...."
> 
> 2) "Now and then Philip with one of the more experienced clerks went out to audit the accounts of some firm: he came to know which of the clients *must be treated* with respect and which were in low water."
> 
> In 1) _must_ cannot be the present tense and can only be replaced by _he had to _OR _he would have to. _If we make it reported speech (_because he knew he must go_ _through_) _must_ sounds natural.
> In 2) _must be treated _has to be replaced by the past tense _needed/had to be treated.
> 
> _


Both of these examples sound natural to me, with _must_ being used as a conditional in 1 and as either a conditional or a past tense in 2.

_Must_ also sounds natural to me as a conditional in the example from _Sorrow in our Heart_.


----------

