# Had to be/had to have been



## Phoebe1200

Hello.

I'm hoping you can help me with this. I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between these two structures. 
_*Had to be/had to have been *_

For example, cops while processing a crime scene and theorizing.

_ The shot had to come/had to have come from the hills somewhere.    
     There had to be/had to have been another shooter._

What is the difference in meaning between those two?
Thanks in advance.


----------



## Oddmania

Hi,

"Had to" +_ past infinitive_ sounds like some sort of backshift.

_I think there had to be another shooter.
I thought there had to have been another shooter._​_Had to _and _have been_ refer to two different times periods (_have been_ being prior to _had to_). For instance:_ She was killed yesterday at 10pm. She had to have seen a doctor some time before, because there was still a prescription on her desk. _

"_had to_"_ → _when she was killed.
"_have seen_"_ → _some time before she was killed.​That's not very conversational, though. It sounds like a narrative. You're more likely to hear _"She must have seen a doctor some time before"_ in everyday conversation.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you, Oddmania.
So in my examples the right forms should be _had to come/had to be_ respectively if it's happening in the present and the police are right now at the scene of the crime and _had to have come/had to have been_ if they're talking about it the next day or maybe a couple hours later. Is that correct?


----------



## Oddmania

Not exactly. It doesn't matter whether the shooting took place a minute or a decade ago. _"There had to be another shooter"_ would be the most usual phrasing.

_J.F.K. got shot in the front _and _in the back, so I think there had to be two shooters _(I've made that up!).​_"There had to have been..."_ can only be used in a very particular context, in which a past event occured before another past event. In the example I made up in my post #2, "_She had to have seen a doctor some time before_"_ = _She probably *had seen* a doctor before she was killed.

Your two examples lack context.

"_The shot had to have come from the hills somewhere_"_ = _The shots had probably come from the hills before (???) happened.
"_There had to have been another shooter_"_ = _There probably had been another shooter before (???) happened.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Hi. I think I got it. But there's still one thing bugging me. If I may ask you to take a look at this thread* had to have been vs must have been *specifically post#13, and overall in that thread nobody mentions any difference in time periods, which got me a little confused.


----------



## Oddmania

Maybe I'm just 'sensing' things or making it harder than it needs to be!

From a pure grammatical perspective, though, I understand "_has to have been_" as equivalent to "_must have been_", but different from "_had to have been_". The latter sounds like a backshift of the former.

To make it even more complicated, "_must have been_" can mean both _has to..._ and _had to... _(i.e. it can be used both in direct and reported speeches), because of the "timeless" aspect of _must_.

I did some poking around and found a good illustration of what I'm trying to get across:


> If you say it to her when she gets home from work, then you would use "It has to have been a hard day". If you were telling someone else about it the next day, you might say "My girlfriend came home from work at 8pm last night. It had to have been a hard day because she was so tired she fell asleep before we'd even had dinner".


Regardless of the fact than _must have been_ would be far more natural in both cases, only "_has to have been_" works in the first case, while "_had to have been_" is more appropriate in the second one because you have *two *past events: *1.* my girlfriend came home last night, and *2.* it had to have been a hard day.

"_It had to have been a hard day_" = She probably *had had* a hard day when she came back home.​


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you so much, Oddmania. Your explanations are very clear. And I think they make perfect sense to me now. So about the example that was discussed in the thread of the link I provided in post#5, should we presume that it's incorrectly used?
_You had to have been hungry._ 
That it just lacks context and for it to be correct something had to happen before he had been hungry. Am I right?


----------



## Englishmypassion

Phoebe1200 said:


> _You had to have been hungry._
> That it just lacks context and for it to be correct something had to happen before he had been hungry. Am I right?



Sorry, I don't think so. I think it's the other way round-- he must have been hungry before something else happened in the past or before the point in time when he was observed in the past.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Oddmania said:


> Regardless of the fact than (sic) _must have been_ would be far more natural in both cases, only "_has to have been_" works in the first case...



Oddmania, I understand all your posts above perfectly but the quoted part eludes me.
Thanks.


----------



## Oddmania

Englishmypassion said:


> Oddmania, I understand all your posts above perfectly but the quoted part eludes me.
> Thanks.



Only "_has to have been_", as opposed to "_had to have been_", and assuming of course that "_must have been_" is not an option.



Phoebe1200 said:


> Thank you so much, Oddmania. Your explanations are very clear. And I think they make perfect sense to me now. So about the example that was discussed in the thread of the link I provided in post#5, should we presume that it's incorrectly used?_ You had to have been hungry._ That it just lacks context and for it to be correct something had to happen before he had been hungry. Am I right?


This is where my skills as a grammarian run out  I've never actually heard "_had to have been_" and have no idea why anyone would say that in everyday English. It's the kind of construction you usually come across in books and novels, full of reported speech and back-shifting. From my experience, people usually stick to _"You had to be..."_ and_ "You must have been..."_.


----------



## Andre 3000

Hi.
'The shot had to come from the hills somewhere.' The speaker doesn't see a connection with the present (at time of speaking).

'The shot had to have come from the hills somewhere.' The speaker does see a connection with the present: a possible follow-on sentence could be 'The hills are the only place where you can see the crime scene'.

'There had to be another shooter'. As above, no connection with the present.

'There had to have been another shooter - There are two sets of footprints here'.

But I think that using 'must' here will save a lot of jaw gnashing!


----------



## Phoebe1200

Englishmypassion said:


> I think it's the other way round-- he must have been hungry before something else happened in the past or before the point in time when he was observed in the past.


Isn't that what I said in post #7? Was it wrong?


----------



## Englishmypassion

I meant this:
You had to have been hungry that's why you ate her cakes.

The state expressed by the clause in pink existed before the action in the blue clause took place, i.e. before you ate the cakes (in the past). 

You said in post #7 that for the sentence "You had to have been hungry" to be correct, there must be some action that took place before the person's being hungry or before he was hungry.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you for explaining, Englishmypassion.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Andre 3000 said:


> The shot had to come from the hills somewhere.' The speaker doesn't see a connection with the present (at time of speaking).
> 
> 'The shot had to have come from the hills somewhere.' The speaker does see a connection with the present: a possible follow-on sentence could be 'The hills are the only place where you can see the crime scene'.
> 
> 'There had to be another shooter'. As above, no connection with the present.
> 
> 'There had to have been another shooter - There are two sets of footprints here'.


Hi, Andre.
I'm having trouble understanding it. Could you please explain a little more what you mean?


----------



## Andre 3000

Hi, Phoebe.
I am now going to contradict my previous post as I believe it is completely wrong! (Oddmania touched upon the right answer)

'The shot had to come from the hills somewhere' is the past form of 'The shot must come from the hills somewhere.'

'The shot had to have come from the hills somewhere' is the past form of 'The shot has to have come from the hills somewhere.'

In the second sentence, _had to/has to_ represent an external obligation, as opposed to an internal obligation using _must (first sentence):
'_I have to go. My boss wants to see me.'
'I must go. My football team are playing tonight.' (I love football)

Idem for your two other sentences.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you for taking the time to explain, Andre. 
It's a bit clearer but I still have some questions, if you don't mind.

Isn't _"The shot had to come from the hills somewhere" _also the past form of _"The shot has to have come from the hills somewhere"_


Andre 3000 said:


> 'The shot had to come from the hills somewhere' is the past form of 'The shot must come from the hills somewhere.'


And here, the sentence with *"must"*, it doesn't make sense to me, I mean, whose internal obligation is it?
Also, can't it be like the following?
'The shot had to come from the hills somewhere' is the past form of 'The shot* has to* come from the hills somewhere.'


----------



## Oddmania

> Isn't _"The shot had to come from the hills somewhere" _also the past form of _"The shot has to have come from the hills somewhere"_


No, "_had to come_" is the past form of "_has to come_" (or "_must come_"), not "_has to have come_".


> And here, the sentence with *"must"*, it doesn't make sense to me, I mean, whose internal obligation is it?


_Must _often expresses a hypothesis, as in "_Hi, you must be Tom. I'm Claire._ (= I suppose you're Tom / You're certainly Tom).


----------



## Phoebe1200

Oddmania said:


> _Must _expresses a hypothesis, as in "_Hi, you must be Tom. I'm Claire._ (= I suppose you're Tom / You're certainly Tom).


So, in the sentence _'The shot must come from the hills somewhere'_, it's not about internal obligation?


----------



## Oddmania

Nope, unless the context clearly required otherwise.

_We can't shoot from the bridge. Don Corleone said the shots *must *come from the hills →_ this would definitely be an obligation.​


----------



## Andre 3000

Hi.


Phoebe1200 said:


> Isn't _"The shot had to come from the hills somewhere" _also the past form of _"The shot has to have come from the hills somewhere"_



No, what Oddmania said.



Phoebe1200 said:


> And here, the sentence with *"must"*, it doesn't make sense to me, I mean, whose internal obligation is it?



It's the speaker's. Bear in mind that _must _is a modal verb, and modal verbs contain the speaker's intentions/attitudes to what they are saying.

Imagine that the speaker is a police detective who has 20 years' experience of dealing with these types of crime: he has seen everything before, nothing is new to him. Using this experience (internal), he might say something like 'The shot must have come from the rooftops.'

However, the sergeant contradicts him and says 'It doesn't look that way, Sir. The shot had to have come from the hills. That's where we found the cartridges.'(external)


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you, Oddmania and Andre for your explanations. 


Andre 3000 said:


> However, the sergeant contradicts him and says 'It doesn't look that way, Sir. The shot had to have come from the hills. That's where we found the cartridges.'


Sorry for another question. But isn't it supposed to be *"The shot had to come from the hills"* I mean, based on what Oddmania has taught me about the _had to/ had to have_ use in posts#2,4,6?


----------



## Andre 3000

The police sergeant said 'The shot had to have come from the hills.'



Phoebe1200 said:


> But isn't it supposed to be *"The shot had to come from the hills"*



No, because the phrase _had to come _could represent either _must come _*or *_has to come _(in present)_, _and the reader/listener wouldn't be aware of any intended differentiation between the sergeant's perception of internal/external obligations.

The sergeant didn't use this form because he sees the presence of the cartridges on the hills as an external obligation as to what happened: cartridges on hills = the place where the shot was fired = had to have come


----------



## Phoebe1200

Hi,
I've gone over the thread again and I have a question for Andre. Don't you hold the same opinion as Oddmania in regards to his posts #2,4,6 ?


----------



## Andre 3000

Hi. Oddmania was right about backshift being involved. If you backshift these two sentences, you arrive at the same form:

1. The shot must come from the hills = The shot had to come from the hills.

2. The shot has to come from the hills = The shot had to come from the hills.

With the past form you cannot see the difference between _must/have to._ (sometimes there is no difference to be made, as they can be near synonyms, anyway)

However, if a difference does need to be made with _must_ in the past, you use _had to. _This generates:

Detective: 'The shot must have come from the rooftops' (using his 20 years on the force experience (internal))

Sergeant: 'It doesn't look that way, Sir. The shot had to have come from the hills. That's where we found the cartridges.' (the sergeant sees the cartridges as an external reference/obligation to what happened)

For me, the difference in forms used in the dialogue comes from the differences in perception of internal/external obligations, and not from any time shifts.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Here's a sentence from NCIS.
(Joann is a suspect in a murder case. She claims her fiancé Norton was killed by an attacker while they were on a date.)
*Medical examiner:* However Joann could not have been behind Norton when he tried to disarm his attacker. There's no way she was on the side of the exit wound.
The actual blood spatter on her was low down around the waist.
She* had to have been* in front of him, and facing him.
She fired those shots herself.

I can see here what Andre was explaining about external obligation, because M.E. based his conclusion on the blood spatter evidence. Am I understanding this correctly?

But my second question is for Oddmania now, concerning this


Oddmania said:


> _Had to _and _have been_ refer to two different times periods (_have been_ being prior to _had to_). For instance:_ She was killed yesterday at 10pm. She had to have seen a doctor some time before, because there was still a prescription on her desk. _
> 
> "_had to_"_ → _when she was killed.
> "_have seen_"_ → _some time before she was killed.


Do you see a prior action in the sentence_ "She* had to have been* in front of him, and facing him"._
Could you tell me what it is?


----------



## Andre 3000

Phoebe1200 said:


> Am I understanding this correctly?



Yes. For argument's sake, if you summarise Joann's defence/what her defence attorney thinks, you might get a sentence such as 'It must have been the attacker who killed Norton'. (all internal, subjective judgements)

The medical examiner, who wants to contradict this, uses _had to, _as he sees the blood traces as being an external, objective obligation.

Oddmania is right in that you can use a perfect infinitive to mark time:
1. I'm happy to finish work at 5 pm.
2. I'm happy to have finished work at 5 pm. (the finishing happened before the being happy)
But I don't see this distinction in the narrow context of the OP.


----------



## Oddmania

I don't, Phoebe, but I don't know everything  I described a situation where using "_to have been_" (instead of "_to be_") makes perfect sense to me, because we've got two actions following each other chronologically, but that doesn't seem to be the only context in which it makes sense.

I would have thought "_She had to be (standing) in front of him..._" would have been enough to describe the scene from NCIS, but if the actor (or the screenwriter) went for "_had to have been_" instead, that means something might be escaping me.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Andre 3000 said:


> I'm happy to finish work at 5 pm.


And when did the finishing happen here?


----------



## Glasguensis

It is a general statement. As such, the only thing the 5pm can refer to is finishing.

"I was happy to finish work at 5pm" is on the other hand ambiguous - we don't know for certain whether 5pm relates to finishing or feeling happy.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Andre 3000 said:


> 'The shot had to have come from the hills somewhere' is the past form of 'The shot has to have come from the hills somewhere.'


Can we also say that 
'The shot had to have come from the hills somewhere' is the past form of "The shot *must have come* from the hills somewhere"?


----------



## Glasguensis

That would be probably the best way to backshift it, yes.


----------



## Andre 3000

'I'm happy to finish work at 5 pm.'


Phoebe1200 said:


> And when did the finishing happen here?



It didn't. I could be talking about 5 pm today, or about a general truth:
'I'm happy to finish work at 5 pm - it gives me plenty of time to cook the kids' dinner.'


----------



## Phoebe1200

Can all the sentences below be replaced with the form _*"must have come"*_?

_The shot has to come from the hills somewhere._
_The shot must come from the hills somewhere._
_The shot had to come from the hills somewhere._
_The shot had to have come from the hills somewhere._
_The shot has to have come from the hills somewhere._


----------



## Glasguensis

Phoebe1200 said:


> Can all the sentences below be replaced with the form _*"must have come"*_?
> 
> _The shot has to come from the hills somewhere. *No : must come, refers to a future or regular event*
> The shot must come from the hills somewhere. *No : must come, refers to a future or regular event*
> The shot had to come from the hills somewhere. *Yes*
> The shot had to have come from the hills somewhere. *Yes*
> The shot has to have come from the hills somewhere. *Yes*_


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thanks.
I still can't seem to get the difference between these two "*had to/had to have been" *though.
Maybe you could share your opinion on this.


----------



## Glasguensis

There had to be another shooter : it was necessary to have another shooter
There had to have been another shooter : there must have been another shooter

In the context of an investigation there isn't any meaningful difference. In other contexts there might be.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> In other contexts there might be.


Could you give an example?


----------



## Glasguensis

If for example I was describing how I had planned an assassination, and describing my thought process I could say "I realised there had to be another shooter". The other form wouldn't fit.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> There had to be another shooter : it was necessary to have another shooter


Necessary for who?


----------



## Glasguensis

That depends on the context.


----------

