had to have been=must have been

[ostap77]

"But you had to have been scared. The day they said, Piers, it's over." Would there be a difference between "had to have been" and "must have been" in the sentence?

 

[bhaisahab]

"But you had to have been scared. The day they said, Piers, it's over." Would there be a difference between "had to have been" and "must have been" in the sentence?

No.

 

[ostap77]

What's the difference between "have to have been" and "had to have been"? As in "Yes, maybe you have to have been there." Does it mean that someone has to be there when something else happens?

 

[ostap77]

"You don't even have to have been a fan of sports or a fan of the NBA to have heard all of this hoorah this week about the former NBA player, John Amaechi, who has written a book and who has come out and announced that he is gay." What does "have to have been" here mean? Is it close in meaning to "have to be"?

 

[JohnParis]

Yes, that's a bit closer to the meaning.
Is the sentence an exact quotation from someone, or did you make it up yourself?

 

[ostap77]

It's part of the quotation from COCAE. I'm looking to get an answer to questions in posts 3 and 4.

What about this sentence? "It has to have been a difficult year also. In some ways there's -- there's been a series of disclosures about the Biosphere 2 project." Does it mean here "It must have been....."? What would be the difference in meaning, if I changed it to "It had to have been........"?

 

[Raymott]

It's part of the quotation from COCAE. I'm looking to get an answer to questions in posts 3 and 4.

What about this sentence? "It has to have been a difficult year also. In some ways there's -- there's been a series of disclosures about the Biosphere 2 project." Does it mean here "It must have been....."? What would be the difference in meaning, if I changed it to "It had to have been........"?

It’s the same principle as always for the present and past perfect.
“It has to have been …” The speaker is making this judgement now.
“It had to have been …” The speaker is referring to a judgement that could have been made at a time in the past (but following the year in question). You still need two events in the past for this.

“2010 has to have been a bad year for him”. The speaker is making this assessment now, on the basis of what he knows happened in 2010. There is only one time in the past referred to – 2010.
“2010 had to have been a bad year for him. And then in 2011, his wife died.” Here we have two time periods in the past. The point that the speaker is asserting is that this judgement (about 2010) could have been made in 2011 before his wife died.

 

[ostap77]

"Yes. Yes. I suspect that it had to have been among the great moments in Nixon's life." By saying "had to have been..'' the speaker is saying it was one of the great moments before he died, right? Could I say "it has to have been......", if I was making this assessment now?

 

[Raymott]

"Yes. Yes. I suspect that it had to have been among the great moments in Nixon's life." By saying "had to have been..'' the speaker is saying it was one of the great moments before he died, right? Could I say "it has to have been......", if I was making this assessment now?

Yes, you could use "has". But you're right; the speaker is using Nixon's death as the other event in the past, and is asserting that if the judgement had been made back then, it would be the same.

 

[ostap77]

So I guess I could say to my girl friend who came home tired from work either "It has to have been a hard day." or "It had to have been a hard day."

 

[emsr2d2]

So I guess I could say to my girl friend who came home tired from work either "It has to have been a hard day." or "It had to have been a hard day."

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".

 

[ostap77]

If there was a party and my friend slept in the next morning after, could I say to him:

A. Since you slept in, it had to have been a great party.

B. Since you've slept in, it has to have been a great party.

C. It has to have been a great party since you slept in.

 

[Raymott]

If there was a party and my friend slept in the next morning after, could I say to him:

A. Since you slept in, it had to have been a great party. No.

B. Since you've slept in, it has to have been a great party. Yes.

C. It has to have been a great party since you slept in. Yes.

In any case, it would far more natural to say "It must have been ..." And since 'must' doesn't have a past tense, you don't have to worry about whether you need the past perfect.

 

[philo2009]

"But you had to have been scared. The day they said, Piers, it's over." Would there be a difference between "had to have been" and "must have been" in the sentence?

Have to have V-ed (as a finite VP) refers to events viewed as completed in a present time frame, while had to have V-ed refers to events viewed as completed in a past time frame. Thus e.g.

You have to have been here before, otherwise how do you know your way around so well?

You had to have been there before, otherwise how did you know your way around so well?

On account of the origin of 'must' as a past tense form, must have V-ed can generally be substituted for either, hence the semantic equivalence of the above to

You must have been here before, otherwise how do you know your way around so well?

You must have been there before, otherwise how did you know your way around so well?

However, being exclusively epistemic in sense, must have V-ed is naturally more limited in scope than the other expressions, which can also serve deontically, e.g.

I have to have paid the bill in full by next Wednesday at the latest, or they'll cut off the electricity.

which may not naturally be rephrased as

?I must have paid the bill in full...