Poll: What is the past tense of "must"?
What is the past tense of "must"? |
|
Votes: 2985
Comments: 22
Added: July 2003
Comments:
| willbut - 28th November 2003 23:52 |
| Into the early twentieth century, people used 'must' as the past tense. Then it disappeared. |
| Schaheb - 3rd July 2005 04:12 |
| I know "must" can be used as a past tense in reported speech. But I have seen it used as a past tense in a translation of Franz Kafka's "The Trial": "it was as if in a moment he must spring up with a violent and probably wrathful gesture [...]" |
| USACat - 8th February 2006 16:26 |
| In my experiences I have heard " must have" sounding like "must've". Rather it is correct or not I don't know. I do think it is acceptable in Americanized English. |
| BT - 10th March 2006 01:50 |
| Schaheb - that's actually a future form ("in a moment he must = would have to") |
| cheesewiz - 9th October 2006 08:40 |
| im mostly concerned about the present tense of must (musting?) than the past tense. or, i was. |
| Trish - 20th December 2006 12:26 |
| Well, when you say must in a sentence, meaning you don't have any choice but to do it. That is why "I had to do it." |
| stephen uy - 23rd October 2007 15:08 |
| actually i dont have any idea eithier |
| Vidableek - 27th February 2008 23:38 |
| I think "It must have had to happen" would work. But if you are talking about yourself and you must do something yesterday, you should just say "I should have". |
| vladimir - 4th February 2009 02:05 |
| had to just seems fine. |
| Rasmus - 4th November 2009 09:32 |
| How come there be only two choices? Anyway, must is like hit both present and past tense, at least in my opinion, and you will mostly understand witch one from context. |
| Adrock - 8th December 2009 19:13 |
| "Must" is a Saxon imported word and interestingly in old english it was primarily used in past tense more then present tense. Back then the past tense was "Moste" however this got dropped over time and we were left with a present/future tense shortening of that word. If you study German you will find that modal verbs such as these still retain the ability to be used in past tense with a different verbal suffix .. "Ich muss" translates to English as "I must" perfectly, but "Ich musste" can now only translate as "I had to" instead of "I musted". Old English was forced to adapt to new language structure changes whereas German could remain largely intact. But yeah in conclusion, "Must" no longer has a past tense form of itself other than an archaic saxon relic :) |
| Secsee Devil - 11th December 2009 14:18 |
| WRONG WRONG! THERE IS NO PAST TENSE! It must have been dark. It had to have been dark? They are both past tense already. He must want it. He had to want it? no no no... |
| Jeremias - 10th June 2010 02:08 |
| "had to" is the past tense of "have to". "must"expresses an obligation that yo`'ve made for yourself, like an objective, and have to" is like a law. |
| ahmed el sayed - 9th August 2010 14:00 |
| must does not have a past form because it is a modal varb . but there is a usage for obligation in the past with " had to" |
| Afonso - 4th September 2010 14:39 |
| For me the past of had to be (Had to) cause it is really make a sens |
| not a language wiz - 17th February 2011 03:48 |
| The word "must" and the words "had to" have slightly different meanings, but if you need to use the past tense of "must," "had to" almost always works. There is also "need to," but "need" and "had" also differ slightly. *For everyone else who submitted comments here, thanks for the help on my language paper.* |
| Turkeytrot - 30th March 2011 20:02 |
| Must does NOT have a preterite. If you want to express obligation or necessity in past time then you must use a construction with the non-modal auxiliary 'had' followed by a to-infinitivial complement. But this is only a way round the fact that 'must' has no preterite; it does not mean that it's the preterite form of 'must'. |
| scduck - 23rd July 2011 06:11 |
| I MUST agree with adrock's respond. I am learning German and learned that the verb 'must' only has present tense. |
| Fredrick dundo - 9th August 2011 23:43 |
| First of all it should be understood that the purpose of auxiliary or modal verbs is to,in different forms,write an infinitive without 'to'. (e.g) I {am able to} play chess=I can play chess. He {is going to} feel better tomorrow=He will feel better tomorrow. I {have got to} listen to the speech=I must listen to the speech. As you can notice the words in brackets have been replaced by can,will, and must respectively for they are formed from these words in the brackets.though the past tenses of can and will have been made to be 'could' and 'would' respectively, 'must' by itself will never find a way to be constructed in past tense other than taking the 'have got to' form it represents and converting it into 'had got to'. (i.e) present form>I {have got to} listen to the speech= I must listen to the speech, past form> I had got to listen to the speech. |
| Mohammad Anwar - 10th August 2011 04:37 |
| THE PAST OF MUST IS HAD TO |
| chris - 5th December 2011 06:36 |
| I'm with Fredrick. The semantics behind 'must' and the reason for it not having a past tense is complex, but probably the simplest analogy I can give is this: 'must' is a bit like an imperative, e.g "go!" a past tense of 'must' would be like a past imperative: "go yesterday!" - which makes no sense. "had to", is not really an imperative, but rather pointing to the fact that there was an obligation in the past to carry out an action. the reason people mistakenly believe it is the past tense of 'must' is because there is no reason anyone would use a past imperative (unless we had a time machine?) the best substitute we have to comment on a previous obligation. |
| hamid - 27th January 2012 21:00 |
| it seems somhow controversial subject but in my point of view there is a slight difference in function between these two items i mean its function between grammer in use and usage could be different and we should consider context. |
You must vote before you can post a comment.
SUBSCRIBE
