I’m born and raised in the US and have only spoken English my whole life. I used that phrase the other day and then randomly realized (while laying in bed, not able to sleep last night) how complex it is with all the different tenses of “to have” and I got to wondering how fluent one has to be to compose a phrase like that in conversation
I know English has a lot of irregular or inconsistent grammar rules that can make it hard to learn, I was wondering if multiple-tense phrases like this also make it hard to learn
27 comments
English grammar doesn’t really have that many confusing rules. The grammar itself is simpler than most European languages (maybe not Spanish).
The worst parts are really the pronunciation and spelling rules, which all have almost as many exceptions as they have adherents.
Your example phrase is tricky to parse because it expresses a complex idea. The same phrase in German, for example, is even trickier because the object of the comparison needs to be embedded within the subjunctive clause, so anything other than a simple noun phrase makes the sentence spiral into unreadability.
Basically, phrases like this are difficult in most languages. The only slightly tricky thing in English is using “had to” instead of “needed to”. Some people would probably tend towards the latter since it’s easier for a listener to understand.
This is a quality ask an American shower thought
I would say, “it would have had to be”. But I’m a native English speaker.
I’ve spoken English all my life too but even I don’t care to say that. I’d just say “It would’ve been”. Much more simple and you get the same point across.
Perhaps, “It would have needed to be,” depending on context?
Friend: I bought a 2000$ purse today at the mall.
Me: it would’ve had to have been 1000$ cheaper for me to buy it (today at the mall).
I ustacould
Would not have thought twice about this phrase if not for this post haha
“When last week did you water the plants?”
“Hmm, it would’ve had to have been Thursday. Sunday through Wednesday I was sick and in bed, then Friday I left early to go on vacation.”
Or something like that. There are definitely contexts where it makes sense!
Past perfect (AKA pluperfect), which is what that sentence is, can be confusing with languages with simpler grammar (think Mandarin) but for the bulk of Indo-European languages that construct makes perfect sense.
The issue is you used the “to be” verb twice when you didn’t need to. You should have simply said “It would have been”. For example, if someone asks me the price of a pair of shoes last Tuesday and I was the one that made the update to the system I would simply say “The price *would have been* [whatever the prices was]”. The urge to say “**It would have** ***had to*** **have been”** comes from the fact that the price was set – so it was necessarily going to be whatever the price was from the last update. There was no fungibility to that price, by policy the price *had to be* whatever was specified. Resist that urge, it is unnecessary and you can give that level of detail in another sentence.
“The price was $1.99. It had to be that price because we set it to $1.99 as a result of change #[whatever] which we recorded *here*.” If you find yourself trying to express more than one idea in one sentence, seriously consider if it is a better idea to simply write two sentences.
“Which car did Tim take to work last week?”
“It would’ve had to have been the van because the truck is totaled.”
James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher”
James, while John had had ‘had’, had had ”had had”. ”had had” had had a better effect on the teacher”
I have and do quite often
English is my first language and I don’t think I’ve ever used this phrase lol
Yes.
In French I have said “Que c’est que je t’ai dit?” literally “that that is what I to you said?”
Languages are odd.
I would use it too. Mostly with time. For example, if you asked me when I last ate I would say “It would’ve had to been about 4 hours ago”
“Are you bummed they cancelled the concert?”
Me: “It would have had to been one hell of a show for me to spend $300 on a ticket”.
Sure.
We are Southerners, and thus above grammar.
How necessary is the word “would’ve”? Doesn’t the sentence without that word mean the same thing?
It had to have been….
I am not American but English is my second language. My girlfriend is American though so i speak english most of the time.
It took me a few minutes to wrap my head around that sentence. But i think i got it. Never heard it been used and i have talked with quite a few Americans and other english speakers.
Just wait ’til non-native speakers come across the grammatically correct sentence “Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo”.
(bison from Buffalo, who run over bison from Buffalo, run over bison from Buffalo.)
It’d’ve had’ve’bn
Interesting, I’ve been raised speaking primarily English and I would never/have never used this phrase. But I do live in a highly Diverse area, I wonder if that could possibly a reason why. I would just you “would’ve been”
[The dangers of the English language](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher)
I asked someone to parse that exact phrase because it made sense to me to say it, but I had no idea what the parts of it were. Don’t remember their answer, tho…
I’m an ESL teacher. I’ve used an example sentence like this to show how crazy things can get.
I probably would not.