May I ask if I can replace the "must have been" with "may have been" or "might have been"? Like the ones below:
＊ Sam was sure that his wallet may have been found by one of the villagers.
＊ Sam was sure that his wallet might have been found by one of the villagers.
Thank you for taking your precious time answering my question.
There is nothing ungrammatical in using may or might instead of must but as you have was sure at the beginning of the sentence, must is a far better choice. If you think of the meanings of may, might and must in your native language, I think you'll realise that the same is true even then.
Looking for ESL work?: Try our EFL / TOEFL / ESL Jobs Section!
are you guys sure "must" is ok used that way? Does that sound good?
I'm asking this because I think "must" usually becomes "had to" in the past. I don't like sentences like "When I was in high school one of my teachers told me I must write an essay about weapons". I say "had to".
The verb "must have been" is ok when you are using it from a present point of view ("Did you see that guy on TV? She must have been out of his mind"), but in Viceidol's example it's used from a past point of view.
There are people - and I am one of them - who consider it correct to usemust + present infinitive in a "that" clause when must indicates a conclusion, not obligation:
I knew [that] he must be tired after having walked 20 kilometres.
ViceidolMay I ask if I can replace the "must have been" with "may have been" or "might have been"?You may, and you have. The answer is no. That replacement is not possible.
People are waiting to help.
Related forum topics: