0

I am confused between

I could have to go

I could have had to go

I can have to go

I can have had to go

Can anyone explain meaning of both with better and easy understanding example.

Improve this question
3
  • These sentences don't sound OK. I think we don't use can/could before have/had + to-infi itive.
    – Khan
    Commented Apr 5, 2019 at 18:16
  • @Khan: you certainly can use could with have. It expresses the possibility of a requirement.
    – SamBC
    Commented Apr 5, 2019 at 20:17
  • books.google.com/ngrams/…
    – Khan
    Commented Apr 5, 2019 at 21:25

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

I could have to go

It is possible that I may be required to go. That's the auxiliary have in its modal sense (have to), indicating a requirement, along with the modal could indicating possibility.

I could have had to go

It was possible that I might have been required to go. Just the same as before, but in the present perfect, basically.

I can have to go
I can have had to go

These don't work.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .