must have/should have/have to have

[navi tasan]

Which are correct:

1-He called from his country house. If he is there, then he must have left the city yesterday.
2-He called from his country house. If he is there, then he should have left the city yesterday.
3-He called from his country house. If he is there, then he has to have left the city yesterday.

From the fact that he is in his country house now, I conclude that it is likely that he left teh city yesterday.

Gratefully,
Navi.

[moeb8]

1- Implies that he had to leave the day before in order to make it in time to call from his destination.
2- Implies that he could have left, but it isn't a requirement; the distance is short enough that he could have left on the day of the call and still made it in time to make said call.
3- Has to have = must have. Their meaning is the same.

So, it is relative and they are all correct depending on the circumstance.
Is there a possibility or not. 1/3 imply that there is no chance. 2 implies that there is a chance.

[bhaisahab]

Which are correct:

1-He called from his country house. If he is there, then he must have left the city yesterday.
2-He called from his country house. If he is there, then he should have left the city yesterday.
3-He called from his country house. If he is there, then he has to have left the city yesterday.

From the fact that he is in his country house now, I conclude that it is likely that he left teh city yesterday.

Gratefully,
Navi.

#2 is incorrect.

[5jj]

1- Implies that he had to leave the day before in order to make it in time to call from his destination.

There is no idea of obligation at all in this construction. 'Must' here has the idea of logical certainty

[moeb8]

There is no idea of obligation at all in this construction. 'Must' here has the idea of logical certainty

I got the impression that if he is there, then there is no way he did not leave yesterday. As in, they know he did not leave two days ago, they are only uncertain about 'yesterday' but since he made the call today, he could not have possibly have reached his destination in the same day.

Am I making sense? It's sort like deducing from the time of the call what day he left.

[emsr2d2]

Any deduction requires our knowing where he lives most of the time, how far away his country house is (therefore, how long it would take him to get there) and whether or not we know where he was the day before yesterday.

If he was at work in the city on Monday, out with friends in the city until late Monday night and he makes a call from his country house on Wednesday morning, then it is a reasonable deduction that he left the city on Tuesday (yesterday). On that basis, we can say "he must have left yesterday" or "he has to have left yesterday". In any other set of circumstances, we can only say that he was definitely at his country house when he made the call.

[moeb8]

Any deduction requires our knowing where he lives most of the time, how far away his country house is (therefore, how long it would take him to get there) and whether or not we know where he was the day before yesterday.

If he was at work in the city on Monday, out with friends in the city until late Monday night and he makes a call from his country house on Wednesday morning, then it is a reasonable deduction that he left the city on Tuesday (yesterday). On that basis, we can say "he must have left yesterday" or "he has to have left yesterday". In any other set of circumstances, we can only say that he was definitely at his country house when he made the call.

Thanks.

[Tdol]

#2 is incorrect.

#2 doesn't work for me either.