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.

  • These sentences don't sound OK. I think we don't use can/could before have/had + to-infi itive. – Khan Apr 5 at 18:16
  • @Khan: you certainly can use could with have. It expresses the possibility of a requirement. – SamBC Apr 5 at 20:17
  • books.google.com/ngrams/… – Khan Apr 5 at 21:25
0

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.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.