4

1- "He had to do it." (obligation)

This sentence is easy to understand for me. It is the past form of "have to" to refer to the obligation in the past, although we don't know for sure he did it or not.

2- He had to have done it. (obligation or probability????)

For some time, I have been thinking the meaning of it, and how it differs from "He had to do it."

And as far as I could understand, it seemed to have the same meaning with: It couldn't have been done by anybody but him.

However, the more I read the more confused I got, because some people say the 2nd sentence is for deduction about the past, not for obligation about the past just like "must have done" is used for deduction about the past, while some others say the 2nd sentence is almost the same as the 1st sentence in meaning with some subtle differences, but then the 2nd one also refers to the "obligation in the past" rather than "deduction in the past".

I wonder if anybody would be so kind as to explain this obscurity?

Improve this question
11
  • 1
    All I see in the second is a deduction. If someone asks "Why did you do it?" you cannot reply "I had to have done it". Commented Jan 11 at 13:59
  • What do you mean by It couldn't have been done by anybody but him? That could be interpreted two ways - "He is the only person who could have done it" (a deduction about the past) or "He was the only person able to do it" (a statement about a situation in the past). Otherwise, I agree with Stuart's answer. Commented Jan 11 at 13:59
  • @KateBunting, I meant "He is the only person who could have done it" (a deduction about the past). This is what I learnt from the readings I have made about the issue. I didn't know it could be interpreted two ways. Commented Jan 11 at 14:01
  • @TimR, Very interesting and helpful approach, which I have never encountered in any of my readings on that so far. Thanks I appreciate it. Commented Jan 11 at 14:12
  • 1
    TLDR: "He had to do it" assumes that he did do it, and it asserts that he could not have chosen to do any differently. "He must have done it" sounds like an accusation, and it sounds as if it's based on deduction: These are the facts,... Someone did it, and the only way we can explain the facts is if he was the one who did it. Commented Jan 12 at 3:06

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
6

You have two separate events, which occur at different times. One is the actual doing the thing, the other is reasoning about the obligation or probability or whatever else. The relative order of these determines the possible meanings. In this case the reasoning (or state of affairs behind the reasoning) is in the past, but it's a lot simpler if you shift the first verb "He had to" from past to present "He has to". Now you are reasoning in the present about an event in the past or future.

"He had to do it" refers to a case where doing it is after the obligation (expressed by "had to") in time. You can be obliged to do something, and then do it. That's the normal order of events, and so it's the usual meaning. It's the same as "He has to do it", which is typically a statement that something must be done in the future based on an obligation in the present. It doesn't make any sense for this to be about probability because he's not done it yet.

"He had to have done it" refers to the case where the event being done precedes the thinking about it. In such a case you're probably thinking about the probability that he did it. Compare "he has to have done it", which is also most likely about probability.

However there are always exceptions. When you have an auxiliary or modal verb with multiple meanings, you need to consider which meaning is most likely based not just on grammar but based on your understanding of the situation and people's thought processes. This is essential for translation and writing.

Improve this answer
0

"He had to do it" is a statement of belief that the subject ("he") is or was obligated to commence on some action. It can precede the attempt to "do it" or proceed it.

Consider, "He was the only one who could open the door. He had to do it."

"He had to do it" is akin to "[He or I, ambiguously, believe] he had to do it". He had an obligation or an intent or some impetus to take the action. We have uncertainty about whether or not the action is necessary ("Must he do it?") for a given actor to take and are affirming it.

The other construction, "He was the only one who could have opened the door. He had to have done it" is a statement of belief about possibilities for who could have done an action. The door was opened is taken as a given; but who did it? We have uncertainty about the actor, not the action ("Must have done it", emphasis on subject) . The action has already happened, it's a given.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.