On-demand content
Hello! I'm currently studying "Understanding and Using English Grammar" by Betty Azar and have repeatedly encountered the phrase "Must not have been". However, several linguistic experts and educators have indicated that this construction is not grammatically correct. This has caused me quite a bit of confusion. Could you clarify this for me?
Hello! The phrase "must not have been" is a grammatically correct construction in English, and it's used to express a strong assumption or conclusion about a past event that did not happen.
It might be a bit confusing because it's not as commonly used as "must have been" (which is used to express a strong assumption or conclusion about a past event that likely happened), but it's definitely not incorrect.
Let's take an example:
Imagine you've been told that a friend had an exam in the morning, but she went to a party the night before and stayed out late. You could say: "She must not have been prepared for her exam," meaning you have come to the conclusion that she couldn't have been ready for the exam given her actions.
In this context, "must not have been" is expressing a negative conclusion or assumption about a past event. You're assuming that something was not the case.
Do note that "must not have been" is used when the speaker feels very sure about the situation, based on the evidence or facts they have. It is less about actual, verifiable truth, and more about the speaker's interpretation and judgement. It's also worth noting that this usage might be more common in American English than in British English.
Also, keep in mind that language is a living entity and it may vary between different groups of speakers, regions, and over time. What's considered 'grammatically correct' can often depend on who you ask and in which context! So it's not surprising that you might encounter different opinions on this matter.
