would have to have been extremely hardy to survive

[Alexey86]

NASA's "follow the water" approach to exploring Mars has led to tantalizing clues that microbial life may have existed at some point on the Red Planet. But any organisms would have to have been extremely hardy to survive, according to new calculations. At the places visited so far, at least, it may have been too salty for any Earth-like life at all.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2008/05/salty-mars-looking-bad-life

Is 'have been' necessary there? How would the meaning change if I changed it to 'to be': 'But any organisms would have to be extremely hardy to survive, according to new calculations'?

 

[GoesStation]

Your change means the organisms still exist. The original, which is the correct choice for the context, means they no longer do.

 

[Alexey86]

Your change means the organisms still exist. The original, which is the correct choice for the context, means they no longer do.

Doesn't would make the sentence conditional with the omitted if-clause: But any organisms (if they existed now) would have to be extremely hardy to survive, according to new calculations. It doesn't mean that the organisms still exist.

 

[Skrej]

Doesn't would make the sentence conditional with the omitted if-clause: But any organisms (if they existed now) would have to be extremely hardy to survive, according to new calculations. It doesn't mean that the organisms still exist.

No, but it means they might still exist in the present day, which takes us back to Piscean's comments in post #3.

 

[Alexey86]

No, but it means they might still exist in the present day, which takes us back to Piscean's comments in post #3.

'If I were you, I would be happy.' It doesn't mean I might be you, does it?

 

[Tarheel]

"If I were you I would be happy" is pretty clear. I am not you, but if I were I would be happy.

That is not the same as the original sentence.

 

[Alexey86]

"If I were you I would be happy" is pretty clear. I am not you, but if I were I would be happy.

That is not the same as the original sentence.

So, would have to have been extremely hardy to survive strongly refers to the past (back in the time when the organisms may have existed), right?

 

[Tarheel]

That's right.

 

[Alexey86]

'Would have to have been' or 'would have had to be' are the appropriate forms..

Is there any difference between these variants in terms of their use, or are they interchangeable?

 

[Alexey86]

I've found a confusing example with the has to have been pattern:

We don’t know exactly why Mr. Boehner didn’t respond to the president’s offer with a real counteroffer and instead offered something ludicrous —
a “Plan B” that, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, would actually raise taxes for a number of lower- and middle-income families,
while cutting taxes for almost half of those in the top 1 percent. The effect, however, has to have been to disabuse the Obama team of any illusions that they were engaged in good-faith negotiations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/opinion/krugman-playing-taxes-hold-em.html

It's puzzling in two ways:
1) Is the bolded part about the past or the present? I thought to have been referred to the past, but it's preceded by has to.
2) I've never seen a to-infinitive after have been before.

 

[GoesStation]

1. It's about the recent past from the writer's perspective. The writer believes the Obama team must have become convinced at that time that the other side was not negotiating in good faith.

2. The infinitive follows the effect + BE.

 

[Alexey86]

2. The infinitive follows the effect + BE.

It's clear to me now. Thank you.

1. It's about the recent past from the writer's perspective. The writer believes the Obama team must have become convinced at that time that the other side was not negotiating in good faith.

Does must mean it's most probably/very likely to be true? Or, does it express disappointment that the Obama team hasn't become convinced?

 

[Tarheel]

When the writer says has to have been he/she is making a supposition. We don't know for sure from the context if it's true or not.

 

[Alexey86]

When the writer says has to have been he/she is making a supposition. We don't know for sure from the context if it's true or not.

I was asking about the writer's point of view, not the objective truth. So, has to have been expresses a supposition, not disappointment, right?

 

[GoesStation]

I was asking about the writer's point of view, not the objective truth. So, has to have been expresses a supposition, not disappointment, right?

More than that. It expresses certainty.

 

[GoesStation]

Does must mean it's most probably/very likely to be true? Or, does it express disappointment that the Obama team hasn't become convinced?

It doesn't say "must", it says "must have been". This expresses certainty.

 

[Tarheel]

That's right. It's what the writer expects to have happened.

 

[Alexey86]

In Washington it is an honor to be disgraced. You have to have been somebody to fall.
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0112/112.html?sh=59b0e01d56cd

In this case, have to have been expresses a necessary condition, not certainty. The have been part suggests a period of time of being 'somebody' (a successful person, I guess, whatever it might mean) before the moment of falling. Am I correct?

 

[jutfrank]

In Washington it is an honor to be disgraced. You have to have been somebody to fall.
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0112/112.html?sh=59b0e01d56cd

In this case, have to have been expresses a necessary condition, not certainty. The have been part suggests a period of time of being 'somebody' (a successful person, I guess, whatever it might mean) before the moment of falling. Am I correct?

Yes, that's all exactly right.