past tense of "mustn't"

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheParser

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Basically I care about meaning.
Please how would you shift the following sentence to the past tense to keep the exact meaning?

"I mustn't tell her about, otherwise she would be disconsolate."

Thank you.

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Good morning, Tapies.

(1) This is certainly an interesting thread.

How about:

(a) Today when my wife returns home, I must not tell her that I have a
terminal illness. It's my moral duty to shield her.

(b) Yesterday when my wife returned home, I was obliged not to tell her about my terminal illness. It was my moral duty to withhold the news.

Thank you.
 

Tapies

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Czech
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
"I couldn't tell her ..." or "I had to not tell her ..." or "I was obliged not to tell her..."

Thank you all very much. Best regards.
 

Abstract Idea

Key Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Portuguese
Home Country
Brazil
Current Location
United States
What about the past tense of "must" as "must" itself brought by Kornungursvia?
I know in most situations it sounds terrible, but could it be 'formally' right?

Raymott says "I must do it yesterday" is not a proper sentence.
I agree it sounds terribly, but isn't there anyway to rescue it the way it is?

Maybe the form "must" as a past tense was used only long time ago?

I feel confused by reading this current thread.
 

Abstract Idea

Key Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Portuguese
Home Country
Brazil
Current Location
United States
I'm not entirely sure it doesn't exist in the past: Here we have several examples in the British National Corpus of constructions which appear to be must in the past: BNC Simple Search .

They fit the pattern "he knew he must...." which, by analogy with "he knew he had," and in contradistinction to the unattractive "he knew he has" appears to show this exists.

Although I couldn't find anything with 'must+yesterday' a query with 'must+then' brings some interesting stuff.
 

TheParser

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
What about the past tense of "must" as "must" itself brought by Kornungursvia?
I know in most situations it sounds terrible, but could it be 'formally' right?

Raymott says "I must do it yesterday" is not a proper sentence.
I agree it sounds terribly, but isn't there anyway to rescue it the way it is?

Maybe the form "must" as a past tense was used only long time ago?

I feel confused by reading this current thread.

*****NOT A TEACHER *****

Good morning, ymnisky.

(1) You may already know this, but in case you don't, I would like to pass it along.

(2)MUST is the past tense of MOTE (a verb that is no longer used).

(3) MUST is nowadays used only for the present and the future, with two EXCEPTIONS:

(a) It is used with the present perfect to refer to the past.

TOM: Where is Sue?

MARTHA: I don't know. She must + have gone to the library. It's 3 p. m. And I know that she's always there at this time.

(b) It is used with reported (indirect ) speech to refer to what was said in the past.

MONA: I must/ have to go to Paris tomorrow.

JOE: I will miss you.

(Mona leaves the room. Ralph enters the room.)

RALPH: Hey, dude! Why are you looking so sad?

JOE: Mona told me that she must/had to go to Paris.

Have a nice day!

*****

Credits: Mr. Paul Roberts, UNDERSTANDING GRAMMAR (1954)/ Professors Quirk and Greenbaum, A CONCISE GRAMMAR OF CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH (1973).
 

Almegawiz

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
French
Home Country
France
Current Location
England
Hi,
please can you tell me how to express meaning of "mustn't" (when it is only my opinion) in the past tense?

I mustn't do it today.
I ??????? do it yesterday.

I was not allowed or I was not supposed sounds to me as a someone else's order.

Thanks a lot.


My suggestion: I wasn't allowed to do it yesterday.
 

Jack8rkin

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
I have a question then!
Can I use the following construction with "mustn't"?

I mustn't have done it yesterday. or
I shouldn't have done it yesterday.

There is a song by Roxette called "It Must Have Been Love". But the meaning of "must" is different from prohibition in this title, and changing "must" into the negative form ruins the entire sense here.

If I use "must" in the negative form to denote the prohibition or regreat (I got the results of my actions today because I had done smth unadvisable or prohibited yesterday, so I regret what I had done) like in the sentence above, will it be an appropriate form?
 
Last edited:

TheParser

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I have a question then!
Can I use the following construction with "mustn't"?

I mustn't have done it yesterday. or
I shouldn't have done it yesterday.

There is a song by Roxette called "It Must Have Been Love". But the meaning of "must" is different from prohibition in this title, and changing "must" into the negative form ruins the entire sense here.

If I use "must" in the negative form to denote the prohibition or regreat (I got the results of my actions today because I had done smth unadvisable or prohibited yesterday, so I regret what I had done) like in the sentence above, will it be an appropriate form?


***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Good morning, JackBrkin.


(1) I do not know whether this is what you are seeking, but Mr. Michael Swan in Practical Modern English says:

Should not have = unwanted things that happened:

You shouldn't have called him a fool -- it really upset him.

As far as I know, "mustn't" in that sense would not be appropriate.

Thank you.
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
Since he's talking about must and not about need, we should listen to your other advice:
I had to do it yesterday. :up: -> My parents told me that, it was an order.
That's OK.
I must do it yesterday
. :up: -> I decided by myself that it was better for my health.
That's NOT OK.
"I must do it yesterday" is not a proper sentence.


R.


As always, Raymott has a great point. That sentence doesn't sound very proper to me either. But my late father, a professional editor and published historian, used to use "now" with past tense verbs in situations I felt sounded improper as well. Yet they were correct. Similarly, Barbara Tuchman, also an historian, usually wrote "Does not the.... " rather than "Doesn't the...." which sometimes strikes my ear as just plain wrong.

My point here is that sounding wrong is not always an indication a sentence is not grammatical. I am still not convinced about this one (sup. cit.)
 

emsr2d2

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
As "must" is a modal auxiliary verb, we can treat it in a smilar way ti "should".

The sentence "I should do it today" becomes, in the past "I should have done it yesterday". As you can see, the word "should" does not change its form. The only part that changes into the past tense is the verb "do" which changes to "have done".

By the same token, "must", as we have seen, does not have a "past tense" version of its own. Surely we simply have to remember that "must" means exactly the same thing as "have to". The past tense of "have to" is "had to", and that is (admittedly confusingly) also the past of "must".

As far as I am concerned, the context in which someone uses the word "must" makes no difference at all. As soon as we start referring to the past, we need to use "had to".

Am I being too simplistic?! :-D
 

bhaisahab

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
Ireland
As "must" is a modal auxiliary verb, we can treat it in a smilar way ti "should".

The sentence "I should do it today" becomes, in the past "I should have done it yesterday". As you can see, the word "should" does not change its form. The only part that changes into the past tense is the verb "do" which changes to "have done".

By the same token, "must", as we have seen, does not have a "past tense" version of its own. Surely we simply have to remember that "must" means exactly the same thing as "have to". The past tense of "have to" is "had to", and that is (admittedly confusingly) also the past of "must".

As far as I am concerned, the context in which someone uses the word "must" makes no difference at all. As soon as we start referring to the past, we need to use "had to".

Am I being too simplistic?! :-D
Not too simplistic at all, absolutely spot on.
 

Abstract Idea

Key Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Portuguese
Home Country
Brazil
Current Location
United States
As "must" is a modal auxiliary verb, we can treat it in a smilar way ti "should".

The sentence "I should do it today" becomes, in the past "I should have done it yesterday". As you can see, the word "should" does not change its form. The only part that changes into the past tense is the verb "do" which changes to "have done".

By the same token, "must", as we have seen, does not have a "past tense" version of its own. Surely we simply have to remember that "must" means exactly the same thing as "have to". The past tense of "have to" is "had to", and that is (admittedly confusingly) also the past of "must".

As far as I am concerned, the context in which someone uses the word "must" makes no difference at all. As soon as we start referring to the past, we need to use "had to".

Am I being too simplistic?! :-D

If I may, with all respect, I think you are being too simplistic here.
This is not a simple point as can be seen by the other posts here and by many similar discussions in the Internet.

Of course your practical "solution" works quite well.

Please do not get me wrong, that is my opinion.
 

emsr2d2

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
If I may, with all respect, I think you are being too simplistic here.
This is not a simple point as can be seen by the other posts here and by many similar discussions in the Internet.

Of course your practical "solution" works quite well.

Please do not get me wrong, that is my opinion.

It may not be "simple" to explain, as we can see. But there is one simple fact throughout the entire thread - the past tense of "must" is still "had to"! :-D
 

Abstract Idea

Key Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Portuguese
Home Country
Brazil
Current Location
United States
It may not be "simple" to explain, as we can see. But there is one simple fact throughout the entire thread - the past tense of "must" is still "had to"! :-D

What I was trying to say by respectfully disagreeing with your previous post was the following:

Your previous answer:
As "must" is a modal auxiliary verb, we can treat it in a smilar way ti "should".

The sentence "I should do it today" becomes, in the past "I should have done it yesterday". As you can see, the word "should" does not change its form. The only part that changes into the past tense is the verb "do" which changes to "have done".

By the same token, "must", as we have seen, does not have a "past tense" version of its own. Surely we simply have to remember that "must" means exactly the same thing as "have to". The past tense of "have to" is "had to", and that is (admittedly confusingly) also the past of "must".

As far as I am concerned, the context in which someone uses the word "must" makes no difference at all. As soon as we start referring to the past, we need to use "had to".
is correct and simple (I understand it), and it is the same explanation I would give to an ESL student whose aim were to use English for communication purposes.
But it is not a satisfactory answer for someone who wants to deeply understand the reasons and subtleties of the English language (as seems to be the case of many posters here).
 

emsr2d2

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
What I was trying to say by respectfully disagreeing with your previous post was the following:

Your previous answer:

is correct and simple (I understand it), and it is the same explanation I would give to an ESL student whose aim were to use English for communication purposes.
But it is not a satisfactory answer for someone who wants to deeply understand the reasons and subtleties of the English language (as seems to be the case of many posters here).

I agree, but before attempting to understand the reasons and subleties of a language, it's important to be able to speak it fluently first. I would say that that is not the case with the vast majority of the learners on this site.

(As far as the "reasons" behind certain aspects of the language go, it's an annoying fact that with some things, there are no reasons! They just are!) :-D
 

bhaisahab

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
Ireland
I agree, but before attempting to understand the reasons and subleties of a language, it's important to be able to speak it fluently first. I would say that that is not the case with the vast majority of the learners on this site.
I agree.
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
I agree, but before attempting to understand the reasons and subleties of a language, it's important to be able to speak it fluently first. I would say that that is not the case with the vast majority of the learners on this site.

(As far as the "reasons" behind certain aspects of the language go, it's an annoying fact that with some things, there are no reasons! They just are!) :-D

That might be a bit stiff, for a number of reasons. If you meant that the judgment of a native English speaker is likely to be more in-tune with the language as the community uses it, yes, that's right.

But there are a couple of rebuttals that come to my mind as I read your statement:

1) You say "before" even trying to understand the subtleties, it's important to be able to speak it "fluently first." Actually, the two -- understanding the subtleties, and speaking fluently -- can only ever go hand-in-hand, after a very gradual step-wise learning process, a long phase of "becoming" that must be journeyed by everyone: you, me, and Bhai (we've already completed it) ESL students (who are on their way).

2) This site mostly facilitates text-only communication. A few emoticons and links to short mp3 files can be seen, but you probably haven't heard many of the site's users actually speak. So you can't determine their level of fluency in speech. Many non-English natives have provided lots of great input on the subtleties of the English language. Indeed, some are so qualified to do so that their less common positions represent valuable new angles rather than odd points of view.

3) As a Ph.D. student in French in Paris, I often found -- often -- that I was able to explain the subtleties of French far more readily and correctly than native speakers, even educated ones. The reason? My focus at the time was that language, its difficulties, its subtleties. Most of my French classmates, who were math or Greek or Latin scholars, used French only in a colloquial, ordinary sense; they hadn't studied the literature, language or linguistics of French in years, and then only at a teenager's level.

So, I find your comment overall is meant to claim superior authority -- an argumentation fallacy.
 

emsr2d2

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
That might be a bit stiff, for a number of reasons. If you meant that the judgment of a native English speaker is likely to be more in-tune with the language as the community uses it, yes, that's right.

But there are a couple of rebuttals that come to my mind as I read your statement:

1) You say "before" even trying to understand the subtleties, it's important to be able to speak it "fluently first." Actually, the two -- understanding the subtleties, and speaking fluently -- can only ever go hand-in-hand, after a very gradual step-wise learning process, a long phase of "becoming" that must be journeyed by everyone: you, me, and Bhai (we've already completed it) ESL students (who are on their way).

I take your point, but I would say from my experience and from that of my Spanish friends who speak a high level of English, that really getting to grips with the subtleties happens at a late stage of learning a language. I'm learning Spanish and I know that I am nowhere near the stage where I would be able (or wish) to use colloquialisms, slang etc. These are the sorts of things I mean by "subtleties". Once I believe that I can speak good, technical, grammatical Spanish at a decent level, then I will start to try to evolve a more "native" way of speaking.

2) This site mostly facilitates text-only communication. A few emoticons and links to short mp3 files can be seen, but you probably haven't heard many of the site's users actually speak. So you can't determine their level of fluency in speech. Many non-English natives have provided lots of great input on the subtleties of the English language. Indeed, some are so qualified to do so that their less common positions represent valuable new angles rather than odd points of view.

No, I have not heard any of the learners on this site physically speaking. But again, from personal experience, I know that I am much more able to express myself in a foreign language in writing than when speaking. My written Spanish, for example, is far better than my spoken Spanish because I have the time to consider what I'm writing and change it if necessary. If I were to post on a similar website to this in Spanish, it would give a false impression of my level - it would look far better than it is. I would expect the same to be true of many of the posters on this site.
I entirely agree that some of the posters on this site have brought some very interesting and entirely valid points to threads.


3) As a Ph.D. student in French in Paris, I often found -- often -- that I was able to explain the subtleties of French far more readily and correctly than native speakers, even educated ones. The reason? My focus at the time was that language, its difficulties, its subtleties. Most of my French classmates, who were math or Greek or Latin scholars, used French only in a colloquial, ordinary sense; they hadn't studied the literature, language or linguistics of French in years, and then only at a teenager's level.

All I can say about this is that I believe there is a huge difference between "learning a language" and "studying language". I think it's fairly easy to tell from the first post in each thread whether the student is still "learning English" or is actually "studying English", which I believe would involve much more complicated questions and, consequently, answers.

So, I find your comment overall is meant to claim superior authority -- an argumentation fallacy.

I actually have no idea what you mean by an argumentation fallacy, I readily admit. If you mean by this sentence that I have come across as superior and that is an argumentative standpoint, then I can only apologise if that is the impression I have given.

I seek to help where I can, and am more than happy to accept that plenty of people on this site have a far more in-depth knowledge of the language and its intricacies than I.

Please see my comments above. :-D
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
Please see my comments above. :-D

Aw, you're a good sport mate, and you took the "rebuttals" really well. A good character. What I meant by argumentation fallacy is, a strategy that appears to score a point in arguments but ultimately weakens the position by introducing an error of some kind, usually logical.

I have an English passport, as well as a Canadian one, and I am proud of both my English and Viking heritage(s). But I do note that we Englishmen, unlike most men around the world, have a bad habit of considering the "other views" less thoroughly than we should... that is all. We can be overly confident, and miss a few roses along the way.

I miss our Hungarian friend, who was banned, and also, many non-natives who contribute to the site, and this thread, write better English than many natives I know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top