....must have rained there...

< Previous | Next >

russian80

Senior Member
Russian
How would the pronunciation of the phrase change in the following

(A) phone conversations:

1.
John: The road to K. is wet.
Jill: It must have rained there.

2.
John: The road to K. is dry.
Jill: It must have rained there.

3.
John: Will the road to K. be wet?
Jill: It must have rained there.


(B) conversations between John and Jill riding in the same car:

1.
John: This road K. is wet.
Jill: It must have rained here.

2.
John: This road is dry.
Jill: It must have rained here.

3.
John: Will the road be wet?
Jill: It must have rained there.
 
  • dojibear

    Senior Member
    English - Northeast US
    In A2, A3, B2 and B3, Jill's statement makes no sense. There is no difference in pronunciation. But it makes no sense.

    The English idiom "it must have rained there" means "based on what you said, I must conclude that it rained there".

    Jill cannot conclude this, based on the statement she is replying to, in A2, A3, B2 and B3.
     

    dojibear

    Senior Member
    English - Northeast US
    Jill's statement (in A1, B1) is a direct reply to John's statement. The "it must have" part says "If what you say is true, then it must be true that it rained there". So it is based on what John said.

    If she was basing her statement on other information that she had, she would word it differently. The "it must have" idiom does not mean "I think that" or "I am sure that".

    For example:

    John: The road to K. is dry.
    Jill: Are you sure? I thought it was supposed to rain there.
     

    dojibear

    Senior Member
    English - Northeast US
    Yes, that is possible.

    Normally, if Jill says this, she then adds something saying why she thinks it "should have". It was forecast, for example.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top