# EN: He mustn't have stolen her bag



## Meight

Bonjour.

Je ne parviens pas à trouver la nuance entre _must haven't_ et _mustn't have_.

For instance :
He *mustn't have* stolen her bag.
He *must haven't* stolen her bag.

Le sens est-il le même ?

Thanks a lot.


----------



## Cayenarama

Mon cher, tout simplement, 'must haven't' n'est pas possible. Ce n'est pas anglais. Qu'est-ce que c'est le contexte?


----------



## Meight

Et bien je n'ai pas de contexte particulier car je dois reformuler une phrase en utilisant un modal. La phrase à reformuler est : _I'm sure he didn't steal her car_.

Je ne sais même pas si dans ce contexte, utiliser _have_ est correct, mais quand j'ai demandé à mon prof' s'il y avait une différence, il m'a dit de chercher, sans toutefois me dire que c'était impossible.

Mais bon, si c'est impossible, plus besoin de contexte.

Merci beaucoup.


----------



## Wil_Estel

By the time I get there, he must haven't stolen her bag.
-->The bag is not yet stolen.

Someone stole her bag, but he mustn't have stolen her bag.
--> The bag has already been stolen.

Those are the two contexts I can come up with to help explain the nuance. As to whether this is correct English or not, I'm not arguing on that ground.


----------



## Cayenarama

Pardon, je ne parle pas bien le français. Mais j'étais prof d'anglais. C'est possible utiliser 'have' dans la réponse mais quand le verbe 'have' est infinitif on ne peut jamais dire 'haven't'. Les cas d'utiliser 'haven't' sont très peu. Normalement si c'est un auxiliaire. Par example: I haven't eaten yet. Ce que tu dois chercher est un example d'un verb de déduction. 
'He must have stolen her bag' Mais, dans le négatif. 
'He can't have stolen her bag'


----------



## Wil_Estel

Mais comment pouvez-vous expliquer une phrase comme "He must have not heard about it"?


----------



## Cayenarama

Je préfère en tous cas: 'It must be that he hasn't heard about it' ou 'He can't have heard about it' mais c'est vrai que c'est aussi possible.   Ce n'est pas la forme que cherche votre profeseur, ça c'est sûre.


----------



## Josemoncas

Wil_Estel, je crois que cette phrase n'est pas correcte (au moins grammaticalement).



> He must have not heard about it



Je dirais: "he must not have heard about it".

[Pardon pour mon français... il y a beacoup du temps que je ne le parle pas  ]


----------



## Cayenarama

Hi Josemoncas, 
He must have not heard about it
That also sounds good to me. I would use that construction too. It's not what one generally teaches however as the 'can't' form is clearer and less likely to 'go wrong'.


----------



## Josemoncas

Cayenarama, do you think that sentence is grammatically correct or incorrect but used sometimes in spoken English? Do you actually use such construction? Do you hear it frequently?

(As I said, I have never heard it, though I'm not a native nor do I live in an English speaking country  )


----------



## Wil_Estel

Josemoncas said:


> Wil_Estel, je crois que cette phrase n'est pas correcte (au moins grammaticalement).
> 
> 
> 
> Je dirais: "he must not have heard about it".
> 
> [Pardon pour mon français... il y a beacoup du temps que je ne le parle pas  ]



Yes, I can assure you that it's 100% correct English.


----------



## Cayenarama

Josemoncas said:


> Cayenarama, do you think that sentence is grammatically correct or incorrect but used sometimes in spoken English? Do you actually use such construction? Do you hear it frequently?
> 
> (As I said, I have never heard it, though I'm not a native nor do I live in an English speaking country  )


Ok. I can honestly imagine myself as a native speaker formulating that sentence. But, of course, as a native I could still make mistakes or speak an English that falls short of perfect. If it's not the best form, it is at least an inferior form that a fallible native could say. Certainly if I had time to think about it, I would plump for the other ones that I gave earlier.


----------



## Keith Bradford

It is indeed possible to say "he must not / _*mustn't have*_ stolen her bag" (19 million hits on Google). However, "_*can't have*_" is far more common (2,800 million).

The reason is not hard to find: the use of _*must*_ implies some kind of compulsion, even if only by force of logic. However, there is little idea of compulsion in the phrase in question; there, the issue is rather what was possible or probable and in that case _*can*_ is required.

_Must haven't_  is impossible


----------



## Josemoncas

> Must haven't is impossible



That's what I thought but people say it is possible, at least in spolen English. 

I think that in latest posts we were not discussing the use of "must" vs "can" but the position of "not" in the sentence


----------



## sound shift

I've never read or heard "must haven't". It is not possible in standard English, whether British or American. One cannot be an expert in every single dialect, because there are so many, but I would be very surprised if it occurred in any of them.


----------



## Thomas1

So let me summarise:
one can indeed hear
_He must have not heard._ 
but it's regarded as a rather clumsy English and it is frowned upon by those who take care of how they speak.
one does not hear
_He must haven't heard._
at all.
Is that correct?


----------



## Keith Bradford

All present and correct!


----------



## Wil_Estel

Josemoncas said:


> That's what I thought but people say it is possible, at least in spolen English.



No, no, we are not saying that "must haven't" is correct. All we are saying is that you can find "must have not" in sentences like 

"He must have not heard about it." or 
"He must have not seen it coming."

I'm arguing that this structure is 100% correct English. You will notice that "have" is not contracted with "not" in this case. The reason behind it is unknown to me.

And I disagree with comments that say this is clumsy English. I would argue that this is probably the first thing a native speaker would use, even amongst careful speakers. However, I acknowledge the fact that I would not write this in a composition. My reason is quite simple. I do not write the same way in which I talk.


----------



## sound shift

Wil_Estel said:


> No, no, we are not saying that "must haven't" is correct. All we are saying is that you can find "must have not" in sentences like
> 
> "He must have not heard about it." or
> "He must have not seen it coming."
> 
> I'm arguing that this structure is 100% correct English. You will notice that "have" is not contracted with "not" in this case. The reason behind it is unknown to me.
> 
> And I disagree with comments that say this is clumsy English. I would argue that this is probably the first thing a native speaker would use, even amongst careful speakers.


Some native speakers might use it, and they would presumably not regard it as clumsy, but it is not the first thing I would use. In fact I (and, I believe, many others) do not use "must" for logical conclusions about the past. I use "can": "He can't have heard about it", "He can't have seen it coming".


----------



## Meight

Thomas1 said:


> So let me summarise:
> one can indeed hear
> _He must have not heard._
> but it's regarded as a rather clumsy English and it is frowned upon by those who take care of how they speak.
> one does not hear
> _He must haven't heard._
> at all.
> Is that correct?



What's the difference between _haven't_ and _have not_ ?


----------



## jann

Meight said:


> What's the difference between _haven't_ and _have not_ ?


Il ne s'agit pas de la différence entre _have not _v.s. _haven't_ (celui-ci n'est que la _contraction_ de celui-là). Il s'agit de la différence entre:

_must not (mustn't) have_ + past participle 
_must have not_ + past participle tick
_must haven't +_ past participle  <-- impossible sur le plan grammatical

En anglais, on ne fait jamais de _contraction_ avec un infinitif.... seulement avec une forme conjuguée. 


 Dans la phrase en question, le verbe conjugué est l'auxiliaire modal _must_.  Si vous voulez le mettre à la forme négative, vous avez la possibilité d'une _contraction _: _must --> must not_ ou alors _mustn't._
 L'infinitif passé du verbe _to hear _se forme avec l'infinitif de l'auxiliaire _to have_ plus le participe passé du verbe _to hear_.  Cela fait _to have heard_ (= "avoir entendu").   Quand on met un infinitif passé à la forme négative, il n'y a pas de _contraction_, parce qu'on ne fait jamais de _contraction_ avec un infinitif : _to have heard --> not to have heard, to have not heard_.
  Puisque le modal _must_ doit impérativement être suivi d'un _bare infinitive_ (c'est-à-dire, d'un infinitif sans _to_), le mot _to_ est donc omis de la construction quand on met les deux ensemble : _must to have heard_.
 Pour mettre la phrase à la forme négative, vous pouvez donc choisir entre la négation de l'auxiliaire modal et la négation de l'infinitif passé.  Une _contraction_ n'est possible que si vous choisissez la négation de l'auxiliaire modal :
1. _He must have not heard._ / Il doit ne pas avoir entendu, Il doit n'avoir pas entendu.
2. _He must not have heard, He mustn't have heard._ / Il ne doit pas avoir entendu.​L'idée est "Il n'aurait pas entendu, ça doit être qu'il n'a pas entendu, etc.", bref, une supposition avec assez peu de doute.

J'ai l'impression qu'à l'origine des différentes préférences exprimées dans les posts précédents (version 1 v.s. 2), on a peut-être affaire à une association avec un emploi très différent de _mustn't/must not _: celui qui exprime l'obligation.  Bien que on ne puisse logiquement interpréter ni l'une ni l'autre des deux versions comme une expression de non-obligation, la version 1 (avec une négation déplacée qui porte clairement sur l'infinitif passé) pourrait sembler plus naturelle pour certains (malgré son aspect maladroit) parce qu'elle nous permet d'entendre l'auxiliaire de l'infinitif passé avant d'entendre la négation, ainsi renforçant et confirmant qu'il s'agit d'une supposition qui veut dire _It must be that he did not hear._ En plus, certains pourraient trouver ça plus logique de mettre la négation sur l'infinitif, comme il s'agit plutôt de "ne pas entendre" que de "ne pas devoir".


----------

