Why "had" instead of "has"?

   Share on Facebook  
Maple  #290584  Wed, 08 Nov 06 10:34 AM

It is no accident that the twentieth century should be the century of highly centralized governments and totalitarian dictatorships; it had to be so for the simple reason that the twentieth century is the century of planetary overcrowding.

(the essay was written in the 20th century)

Why did the author use "had" instead of "has"? Is it a kind of subjunctive?

  
Top 75 Contributor
Joined on Tue, Jul 11 2006
An ESL student in China
Contributing Member (1,110)
Philip  #290759  Wed, 08 Nov 06 04:51 PM
 Maple wrote:

It is no accident that the twentieth century should be the century of highly centralized governments and totalitarian dictatorships; it had to be so for the simple reason that the twentieth century is the century of planetary overcrowding.

(the essay was written in the 20th century)

Why did the author use "had" instead of "has"? Is it a kind of subjunctive?

Not a subjunctive.  I think it should be 'has'.
  
Top 25 Contributor
Joined on Thu, Jun 23 2005
USA Pacific Northwest (Seattle)
Veteran Member (6,283)
ModeratorProficient Speaker
At reise er at leve! - H. C. Andersen
Marius Hancu  #290762  Wed, 08 Nov 06 04:55 PM
EDIT:
Philip has a point with has
it's the correct version, as I don't see any IFs around.

  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Wed, Apr 26 2006
Montreal, Canada
Veteran Member (11,673)
Proficient Speaker
mountain  #290795  Wed, 08 Nov 06 06:57 PM
 Marius Hancu wrote:
EDIT:
Philip has a point with has
it's the correct version, as I don't see any IFs around.



You can only use had if there "IFs" around? Thanks
  
Top 500 Contributor
Joined on Tue, Dec 14 2004
Full Member (147)
CalifJim  #290811  Wed, 08 Nov 06 07:33 PM
I think the author is saying that it was a foregone conclusion that the twentieth century was already the century of highly centralized governments and totalitarian dictatorships at the time of writing.  By saying it had to be so, he is referring to a time before the twentieth century became that way; he is referring to what preceding causes made it so.  (No subjunctive here.)

I'll admit that the switch of tenses is just a bit puzzling, however.  Smile [:)]

CJ

  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004
California
Veteran Member (17,568)
ModeratorProficient Speaker
"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche
Yankee  #290816  Wed, 08 Nov 06 07:45 PM
Hi everyone

Using "has to" in the sentence would sound strange to me. Surprise [:O]

I think the writer probably used "had to" because saying "has to" sounds like a reference to the future.  However, the writer is not referring to the future.  Although the century was not yet finished when the sentence was written, I assume it was written in the latter part of the twentieth century. The writer sees the twentieth century as having already become and already come to be seen as this "type of century".  And the things that have happened had to happen due to the fact that the century is also the century of planetary overcrowding (a fact which was already known when the sentence was written). 

Just my two cents. 

EDIT:
Oops, Jim posted while I was writing.   Looks like we see things the same way. Big Smile [:D]


  
Top 25 Contributor
Joined on Sat, Apr 15 2006
Connecticut, USA
Senior Member (4,272)
ModeratorTeachers
Amy "You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." - Mark Twain
Marius Hancu  #290848  Wed, 08 Nov 06 10:01 PM
Well, there's definitely something there which should force had, but it's not clearly written in.

CJ and Yankee have a point there. This would be a potential translation along those lines:

[This (20th) century had to be so from its very beginnings/its very beginning] for the simple reason that it is the century of planetary overcrowding



  
Maple  #290905  Thu, 09 Nov 06 12:22 AM

I think the author is saying that it was a foregone conclusion that the twentieth century was already the century of highly centralized governments and totalitarian dictatorships at the time of writing.  By saying it had to be so, he is referring to a time before the twentieth century became that way; he is referring to what preceding causes made it so.  (No subjunctive here.)

I think the writer probably used "had to" because saying "has to" sounds like a reference to the future.  However, the writer is not referring to the future. ........And the things that have happened had to happen due to the fact that the century is also the century of planetary overcrowding.........

These explanations make me start to understand it in some degree. Thanks a lot!Coffee [C]Coffee [C]

BWT: MH, Could you please tell me what is "IF" ? I'm a little curious about it. Thanks!

  
AddThis Feed Button RSS Feed: ESL General English Grammar Questions
© 2008 MediaCET Ltd.
Terms and Conditions & Terms of Service