Look at these examples to see how must, might, may, could, can't and couldn't are used in the past.
An earthquake? That must have been terrifying!
We don't know for sure that Alex broke the coffee table. It might have been the dog.
How did she fail that exam? She can't have studied very much.
Try this exercise to test your grammar.
- Grammar test 1
Read the explanation to learn more.
We can use modal verbs for deduction – guessing if something is true using the available information. The modal verb we choose shows how certain we are about the possibility. This page focuses on making deductions about the past.
We use must have + past participle when we feel sure about what happened.
Who told the newspapers about the prime minister's plans? It must have been someone close to him.
The thief must have had a key. The door was locked and nothing was broken.
Oh, good! We've got milk. Mo must have bought some yesterday.
might have / may have
We can use might have or may have + past participle when we think it's possible that something happened.
I think I might have left the air conditioning on. Please can you check?
Police think the suspect may have left the country using a fake passport.
May have is more formal than might have. Could have is also possible in this context but less common.
can't have / couldn't have
We use can't have and couldn't have + past participle when we think it's not possible that something happened.
She can't have driven there. Her car keys are still here.
I thought I saw Adnan this morning but it couldn't have been him – he's in Greece this week.
Do this exercise to test your grammar again.
- Grammar test 2
Hello. Could you please help me? Is the following sentence correct using "should"?
- Samar should have missed the train because she arrived at the station too late.
Hi Ahmed Imam,
Yes, it is correct. "Should have" can be used to show your expectation about a past event.
However, "should have" is more commonly used to express criticism (e.g. You should have studied harder before the exam) or regret (e.g. I should have studied harder), which is apparently not the meaning here. So, "Samar must have missed ..." or "Samar will have missed ..." or even "Samar has (definitely/probably) missed ..." would be my first choice of wording here.
I hope that helps.
I would like to give your attention on following 2 sentences.
1. We don't know for sure that Alex broke the coffee table. It might have
been the dog.
2. How did she fail that exam? She can't have studied very much.
Could you please explain can't we write the above 2 sentences as follows.
1. We don't know for sure that Alex broke the coffee table. It may be a dog.
2. How did she fail that exam? She couldn't study very much.
If the second sentence in 1 is identifying the culprit, that is, the person responsible for breaking the table, you can say either 'It might have been the dog (that broke it)' or 'It might be the dog (that broke it)'. I'd say the first one is better since it refers to the person who broke the table, but the second one isn't wrong.
I'm afraid that neither version of sentence 2 makes much sense to me. The question means the speaker is surprised that she failed the exam. Both of the other sentences indicate that she didn't study much, so it doesn't make sense to me that the speaker is surprised?
Does that make sense?
All the best,
Hi, everyone! I am in desperate need for help!
I keep finding different information when it comes to negative past modals of deduction:
Some materials will say that it is possible to say:
"I must not have seen her" as well as
"I couldn't have seen her"
Others say that the only possibility is "couldn't have" and that "mustn't have" is never used as a modal of deduction. I'm completely lost!!!!!
I (native English speaker from the north of England) would not use mustn't have in this kind of context but that's not to say that it does not occur in some dialects of English.
I do sometimes use 'must have' with a negated past participle. For example:
Note there is a difference in meaning here between couldn't have seen and must have not seen:
> couldn't have seen - this action is not logically possible
> must have not seen - this is the only possible explanation
Obviously, in the context of justifying myself the second is more useful!
The LearnEnglish Team
Could you please say if it is correct "You must have me confused with other person" or am I to say "You must have confused me with other person"?
I'm grateful for your helpful work and thank you very much for answering this post beforehand!
No worries. Thanks for posting your questions :)
Both of these are grammatically correct. The first sentence (have + object + confused with something) refers to now - the person is confused right now.
The second sentence (have confused + object + with something) is the present perfect and it refers to a confusion that has already happened.
It should also be "another person" (instead of "other person"). Hope it helps!
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello, I'm wondering if what I wrote is correct:
"The referee could have disallowed the goal and the same controversy would have remained."
Context: there was a controversial goal. Some people said it was a goal, while others said it shouldn't have stood. I think that in case the referee had disallowed the goal the controversy would have remained.
My problem: I feel my phrase is not completely right because it combines two past-modal verbs "could have" + "would have". Maybe this is not a right structure.
Thanks in advance.
The sentence is fine. The first part describes an imagined past and the second describes an imagined result. In conditional constructions we generally do not use a modal verbs in the if-clause (If the referee had... then... would have...), but this is not a conditional construction - perhaps this is the source of your uncertainty.
The LearnEnglish Team