It’s not idiomatic, actually; it’s functional. We do this with language in many ways, and the OP just isn’t able to recognize that yet.
For example, when an employee says to his boss, “I was wondering if I could have this Friday off,” the employee is showing deference to the boss by using the past tense. Literally, the employee is still wondering; however, he changes I’m wondering to I was wondering to show recognition of the boss’s authority.
Using the periphrastic modal had to is functional too, albeit in a different way. Nevertheless, the OP is insisting that all language use be purely representational (literal), when we know that that is not how language actually works.
No, he doesn’t. He’s not using a standard grammatical device in an unusual or novel way, he is using a perfectly normal method of expressing himself. It is your interpretation that is the outlier and therefore, wrong.
Thank you for the correction, guizot. I always enjoy reading your posts on linguistics.
When used as a condolence, it’s not only saying that the death is a sad thing, it’s also saying that everyone knows that they did everything that they could have to prevent it, but preventing it just wasn’t possible. It also implies that this bad thing is exceptionally bad because of when or to whom it happened. The second and third parts are what the “had to” adds.
When not part of a condolence, there’s a Murphy’s Law flavor to the phrase.
Yup. At least with the first two sentences, you didn’t do anything to cause the action, you couldn’t have controlled or prevented the actions, and they are particularly unwelcome because of their timing and the fact that they happened to you and not someone else. I think it applies to the third sentence, too, if we presume that most free advice is bunk that should be ignored.
Well, once the bullet went through her brain, she sort of did. But that’s not what the phrase is saying. This phrase is saying that those who survive her may be feeling that they should have prevented it somehow, but that there was nothing that they could do. They should not burden themselves with guilt on top of sorrow.
With due respect, words do not just mean what you personally want them to mean. English is a fairly complicated language in which words and phrases can mean more than one thing depending on context.
Everything does happen for a reason. It’s just not always a good reason. Or it’s a reason unconnected to the person it happened to. As someone wiser than me once said, “Life is not unfair. Life is random and arbitrary. People are unfair.”
Anyone still unconvinced could set up a poll asking if these two sentences contain the exact same information.
“It rained today.”
“It had to rain today.”
Native English speakers will recognize that the second sentence is stating that the speaker was royally screwed by the rain. Just as they would recognize that the word ‘even’ in the sentence “Even Rodney passed the test” is stating that the test was very easy and that Rodney is dumb, although that is not the primary usage of the word even.