Level: intermediate
We can use a modal verb with have and a past participle:
| Subject | Modal | have | Past participle | Adverbial, object or complement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| They | will | have | arrived | by now. |
| You | might | have | seen | the film. |
| Jack and Jill | would | have | been | late. |
We use a modal verb with have:
- to refer back from the present:
It's nearly eight o'clock. They will have arrived by now.
- to refer back from a point of time in the past:
We were very worried. We thought someone might have taken the car.
- to refer back from a point of time in the future:
We won't eat until they arrive. They might not have had supper.
- to refer to past time:
You should have helped her when she asked.
They might have got lost. Nobody knows where they are.
- Modal verbs with have 1
- Modal verbs with have 2
Average
Do you need to improve your English grammar?
Join thousands of learners from around the world who are improving their English grammar with our online courses.
"We may have to live with the coronavirus."
In this sentence 'have’ is main verb or it is modal verb(have to) ?
In another words, I want to know 'to' is part of 'have to' or it is part of 'to live'?
Further, can two modal verbs be placed together?
Hello Mordhvaj,
'have' and 'to' go together here to express the idea of obligation. Although it is similar to modal verbs in some ways, 'have to' is not a modal verb, so it's possible to use 'may' before it.
You are right in thinking that we don't combine modal verbs. The sentence *'we may must live with the coronavirus' is not correct, for example.
By the way, please do not post the same comment more than once. You might think this will speed up replies, but in fact it will slow down our responses not just for you, but for everyone.
All the best,
Kirk
LearnEnglish team
Hello sir ,
Have I ever graduated. Does it have meaning ?
Hello g-ssan,
The sentence is grammatically fine - a present perfect verb form to refer to all of your life up to now - but it does not really make sense. After all, you are asking about yourself, so unless the question is rhetorical there is no reason to ask. You already know about your own experience!
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Sir , if we assume that someone lost his memory and asked his relative about previous life , Have I ever graduated from high school , does it make sense now .
Hello again g-ssan,
Yes, in that (highly unlikely) situation the sentence would make sense.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Thank you Peter M.
A:You could have posted my letter when you went out.
B:No,I couldn't post it. I was busy .
Or No,I couldn't have posted it .I was busy.
Which one should we use here ?
Hi Faii,
The first answer ("I couldn't post it") is the correct one. Person A says "could have" because A's idea is that it was possible for B to post the letter, even though B didn't actually do it. "Could have" expresses this idea (for more examples, see Macmillan Dictionary). Person B, however, thinks that it was NOT possible because he/she was too busy. That's why B replies using "couldn't" (not "couldn't have"). Person B is simply talking about his/her inability to post the letter.
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Thank you Jonathan R.
A:You could have posted my letter when you went out.
B:No,I couldn't post it. I was busy .
Or No,I couldn't have posted it .I was busy.
Which one should we use here ?
--------------------
could have v3 + simple past
or
could have v3 + past perfect.
Hello Prakash,
Both forms are possible here with little difference in meaning.
The form could + verb [base form] describes ability. Being busy meant I was not able to post it. Perhaps I tried or intended to do it, but was not able.
The form could have + verb3 [past participle] is a little more speculative. It suggests that the speaker knew that posting the letter was impossible and so did not even try. It contains a sense of judgement or assessment. I would understand this to mean that the speaker knew (or judged) in advance that posting the letter was impossible.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Thank You.
If the flight was on time ,he should have arrived in Jakarta early this morning .
Why did they use should here ?Can we use here 'Would' ?
Hello Faii,
As I said in my answer to your other question, 'should have' in this use describes the speaker's expectation. It's not clear whether or not the speaker knows if the other person arrived on time. 'Would have arrived' is possible too but I think it suggests more scepticism on the part of the speaker. In other words, 'would have arrived' tells me that the speaker knows or suspects that the other person did not arrive. It's not certain, but that is the way I would understand it absent of any other context.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Thanks for your explanation. But I'm still not sure does this structure refer to the past or the present ?
Hello again Faii,
'Should have arrived' describes a past action: the action of arriving is in the past.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Could you please tell me what is the difference between these sentences?
She should have arrived by now.
She will have arrived by now .
She should be here by now.
Hello Faii,
The first two sentences are similar. The speaker is talking about his or her expectation (this is what I expect). 'Will' is a little stronger, in the sense of more confident, than 'should. Of course, these are expectations, so the speaker does not know if the other person has arrived or not.
The third sentence is different. In this sentence the speaker knows the other person has not arrived and is saying that this is unexpected. A person who is waiting for a friend might say this when their friend is late, for example.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Mussorie,
As with all modal verbs, context is key to the meaning.
In general, would suggests an imagined choice, option or likely result; could describes possibility. For example:
I would go to the party - my choice or decision, if I were in a position to choose.
I could go to the party - it is possible for me to go.
Since like is a personal preference, it is logical that we use would like to (option/choice) rather than could like to (possibility).
In your sentences, would describes the likely or certain result, while could describes a possible but not certain result. You would miss the meeting is sure, if the condition is fulfilled. You could miss the meeting is not certain, even if the condition is fulfilled; it may depend on other factors.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Nuro,
Yes, we could use a passive here too: several brances of the bank have recently been opened up ... The meaning is the same, but the passive highlights the role of people more in this activity (opening up branches).
For open and some other verbs, we can put the thing as the subject (even though, logically speaking, you might think that a thing like a branch of a bank cannot act by itself). These verbs are called ergative verbs and you can find more explanations and examples here. I hope it helps :)
Best wishes,
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Ahmed Imam,
All three are correct (well done!) and in general they all mean the same thing.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Ahmed Imam,
Typically grammars say that 'must' is used for internal obligations and 'have to' is used for external ones. This is a good guideline, but I'm not sure it always holds up, and in any case it's sometimes difficult to distinguish between external and internal. For example, to my mind, all of the sentences you wrote could express internal motivation. On the other hand, I'd probably not use the first one to express external obligation -- but then again, I almost never use the modal verb 'must', so it may have more to do with that than anything else.
I hope this helps. By the way, if there's a specific point you want to ask about, please mention it in your comment. We could often write much more in our explanations, but simply don't have the time to write comprehensive replies. We're happy to try to help with specific queries, but can't afford to make guesses.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello,
is there a difference?
1) I do not have a car.
2) I have not a car.
Hello Prakash,
Both sentences have the same meaning, but 2 is only very rarely used anymore. I can't think of a single situation when I would recommend using it.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
I'm still confused.
Have you a car? does it mean...
Do you have a car?
Hello Prakash,
Yes.
But almost no one ever says 'Have you a car?'. People say 'Do you have a car?' or 'Have you got a car?' instead.
Best wishes,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Nuro,
Both forms are possible here. I don't believe this is a question from our site so you'd have to ask the author why the key allows only 'must'.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello AsahiYo20,
You could use 'might have', but it would express probability (a guess) instead of possibility. As you note, 'could have' expresses that you had the possibility of borrowing it, but 'might have' would express the idea perhaps you would have borrowed it (if, for example, the circumstances had been different).
'may have' means the same thing as 'might have' here. 'could have' can also be used to make guesses about the past, and thus could also be used here, but most of the time we use 'might have' or 'may have' to do this.
Yes, 'could not have' would express impossibility here. 'may not' would mean the same as 'might have'.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Sunyoung1005,
We have a page devoted to the difference between can and could. You can find it here:
https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/english-grammar-reference/can-and-could
I think if you take a look at that page you can try to answer your own question. We'll be happy to confirm or to correct, of course!
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi AkiraTa05,
Good questions. I'll try to answer below.
Q1: yes! Both can't have and couldn't have are the opposite of must have, for the meaning of deduction.
Q2: yes. You could replace could with might in those sentences.
You might like to have a look at this page, for more examples: https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/intermediate-to-upper-intermediate/modals-deductions-about-the-past
Best wishes,
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Sunyoung1005,
Will have is an expression of belief. Must have is similar, but it is generally used when we have evidence of some kind (including past experience) which causes us to form an expectation. Must have carries a sense that the speaker would be surprised if things were not as he or she expects.
I think you could use will have in the first sentence, though must have is better as it carries the sense of I would be amazed if not.
Must have does not work in the second sentence as the context suggests that the writer sent the form. You could use must have if there were a time reference so the speaker could express an expectation that the time has been sufficient.
Must have is possible in the third sentence for the reasons above.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Sunyoung1005,
Yes, that's right.
With the second sentence, must is possible because the evidence could be a knowledge of how the postal service works, but will is also fine.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello ysl_cherry,
I believe this was a temporary problem and should now be fixed. I have checked on my computer and am able to access the site without logging in.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Rsb,
It is possible to use perfect modal verbs with future reference when we are looking back from a point further in the future. The future perfect (will have + verb3) is an example of this:
May/might can replace will to make the prediction less certain:
We can also use the perfect modal (may/might have + verb3) to express a counter-factual with an if-clause (or implied if-clause).
For example, imagine we are talking on Wednesday. I plan to meet my friend on Thursday. However, there is an earthquake and all travel is cancelled. In that situation I might say this:
(would, could and may are all also possible here)
As you can see, context is crucial.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello pipilica,
All of the sentence are possible, but they have different meanings and implied if-clauses.
1. This is fine as it stands. It functions as a criticism of John's performance, which did not reach expectations. It suggests the speaker does not understand why John did not play well.
2. This sentence describes an alternative outcome which was possible but not certain. It implies an if-clause:
3. This sentence is similar to the second, but is more certain of its conclusion. It does not (like #2) tell us that an alternative was possible, but that the alternative was certain if the condition were met
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team