+0

Does "would have to" indicate the past, present, or future? And can I use "had to" instead of it?

1. To meet the challenge the public authority would have to be transformed into a public limited company. ( I think here it indicates "future")

2. But he said there would have to be a complete overhaul of the electoral system first. (Here it indicates past)

3. I think all the girls in the anime are awesome, but my favorites would have to be Nozomi and Umi! ( I can't understand what it indicates here)

4. As for the difference in meaning, I’d have to say it’s very subtle. ( I think here it indicates present)

5. It's not something I want to do, but it's something I'd have to do". (I think here it indicates past)

6. If he asked me to fix his car, I would have to do it tomorrow. ( here it indicates future)

7. It would not be something you'd have to do forever. (I think it indicates future)

8. "Sorry, that's above my pay grade" is another way of saying this "you don't pay me enough to do X". But, as it's a lot more formal than "you don't pay me enough to do X" one would have to be careful of one's tone: as Karim said, it's jokey. (I think it indicates future)

+0
Hasibrahman1. To meet the challenge the public authority would have to be transformed into a public limited company. ( I think here it indicates "future")
2. But he said there would have to be a complete overhaul of the electoral system first. (Here it indicates past)
Hasibrahman6. If he asked me to fix his car, I would have to do it tomorrow. ( here it indicates future)
7. It would not be something you'd have to do forever. (I think it indicates future)
Hasibrahman5. It's not something I want to do, but it's something I'd have to do". (I think here it indicates past)
Hasibrahman8. "Sorry, that's above my pay grade" is another way of saying this "you don't pay me enough to do X". But, as it's a lot more formal than "you don't pay me enough to do X" one would have to be careful of one's tone: as Karim said, it's jokey. (I think it indicates future)

These all refer to hypothetical or imagined events, in most cases imagined to occur in the future. (1) and (2) could alternatively refer to future-in-the-past, depending on wider context. (8) seems more "purely hypothetical" than set in any particular timeframe, but if you want to think of it as potentially happening in the future then I guess that's OK.

The content of (8) seems of dubious correctness to me, though this does not affect your question.

Hasibrahman3. I think all the girls in the anime are awesome, but my favorites would have to be Nozomi and Umi! ( I can't understand what it indicates here)
4. As for the difference in meaning, I’d have to say it’s very subtle. ( I think here it indicates present)

Literally, these also refer to hypothetical events (implied conditions e.g. "if I had to choose", "if I was asked"), but in practice this "would" acts a way of making a statement softer or more distanced, as compared with saying something directly.

+0
HasibrahmanDoes "would have to" indicate the past, present, or future?

'would' can put its clause into hypothetical space, i.e., into the world of imagined situations, so it can have more to do with logical relationships than with time (tenses). Alternately, it can be simply a means of weakening a statement (making it less certain) so as to save the speaker from committing himself definitively to a proposition (as in 3, 4, and 8 below).

1. To meet the challenge the public authority would have to be transformed into a public limited company. ( I think here it indicates "future".)
It can be used in either a past or a future context.

2. But he said there would have to be a complete overhaul of the electoral system first. (Here it indicates past.)
It can be used in either a past or a future context.

3. I think all the girls in the anime are awesome, but my favorites would have to be Nozomi and Umi! ( I can't understand what it indicates here.)
'would have to be' is just an elaborate way of saying "is" while showing that the speaker isn't completely sure, that the speaker is having difficulty deciding on his favorites.
You may as well say "present".

4. As for the difference in meaning, I’d have to say it’s very subtle. ( I think here it indicates present.)
This one is like 3. The second clause (after the comma) boils down to "it's very subtle". Here, "I'd have to say" is a way for the speaker to distance himself from what he is saying. He doesn't want to make a definite statement.
You may as well say "present".

5. It's not something I want to do, but it's something I'd have to do". (I think here it indicates past.)
It's future. The sentence below is the equivalent for the past — actually the future of the past.

It wasn't something I wanted to do, but it was something I'd have to do.

6. If he asked me to fix his car, I would have to do it tomorrow. ( Here it indicates future.) OK.

7. It would not be something you'd have to do forever. (I think it indicates future.)
It can be used in either a past or a future context.

8. "Sorry, that's above my pay grade" is another way of saying this "you don't pay me enough to do X". But, as it's a lot more formal than "you don't pay me enough to do X" one would have to be careful of one's tone: as Karim said, it's jokey. (I think it indicates future.)
This one is like 3) and 4). The direct counterpart here is "one has to be careful".
You may as well say "present".

HasibrahmanAnd can I use "had to" instead of it?

No. That changes the meaning in various ways depending on the sentence. You definitely can't use "had to" in sentences of the type shown in 3), 4), and 8).

CJ

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Comments  
Thanks CJ and GPY 💖💖💖
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.