"As he settled down at the table just next to me, I quietly told him that I was batting at number 3 today. He asked, ‘Who is missing out then?’ I had no idea. I wasn’t brave enough to ask the captain of India, though I felt it had to be Sidhu. Dravid got up to get some juice. I saw Azhar walking up and talking to him. So he could be playing as well. He came back and confirmed it. I asked what number. Dravid shook his head and said he didn’t know."
In the above sentence, why did not use "HAD TO SIDHU" instead of "HAD TO BE"? What is the difference of both usages?
David, but "had to" also past reference? "Has to" or "Have to" is present. I am bit confused when I am digging into it more. 🤔 Can you make me out in detail?
The semi-modal "have to" can be used in different tenses and with different subjects, so it can have the forms "have to," "has to," "had to," "having to." In your example, the past form ("had to") is used, with "be" as the main verb:
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .