had to vs must have been

[ademoglu]

Hi,

http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/have#have__49

had to: used to say that you are sure that something will happen or something is true.

No one else could have done it – it had to be Neville.

Question 1: I cannot understand what 'had to' in that sentence means. Is it the same in meaning as 'It must have been Neville'?

Question 2: If they are the same, so what's the difference between 'had to' and 'have to have done' when we want to express certainty.

No one else could have done it – it had to be Neville.
No one else could have done it – it have to have been Neville.

I really feel confused.

Thanks.

 

[GoesStation]

http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/have#have__49

had to: used to say that you are sure that something will happen or something is true.

No one else could have done it – it had to be Neville.

Question 1: I cannot understand what 'had to' in that sentence means. Is it the same in meaning as 'It must have been Neville'? :tick:

Question 2: If they are the same, so what's the difference between 'had to' and 'have to have done' when we want to express certainty.

No one else could have done it – it had to be Neville. :tick:
No one else could have done it – it [STRIKE]have[/STRIKE] has to have been Neville. :tick:

Either is possible. Either version is equivalent to "must have been" here.