[Grammar] Construction: "...has had to be (cancelled)"

[skelerobo]

I've found the expression has had to be (canceled, postponed etc.) and am wondering if it's grammatically correct. If it is correct please explain the construction. Many thanks, Skele.

 

[5jj]

They have had to postpone the meeting. Active
The meeting has had to be postponed. Passive

Clearly the obligation to postpone concerns 'they', or person or persons unknown, not 'the meeting', but the meaning of this type of sentence is clear.

 

[skelerobo]

They have had to postpone the meeting. Active
The meeting has had to be postponed. Passive

Clearly the obligation to postpone concerns 'they', or person or persons unknown, not 'the meeting', but the meaning of this type of sentence is clear.

I see, and thank you for your reply. I earlier found this article on have had, had had on a BBC page,

c.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv343.shtml (It can't be directly linked, as I'm under 5 posts)

,but couldn't find a reference to has had/ have had to be, and was wondering why 'has to be postponed' or 'had to be postponed' is not more correct? Thank you for any help, Skele.

 

[nyota]

They are just different tenses.

It has to be postponed.
It had to be postponed.
It has had to be postponed.


I have to postpone it. - It is necessary for me to postpone it.
I had to postpone it.
I've had to postpone it.

 

[skelerobo]

Thank you. My understanding had had to be kick started ;-).