"To like children the way she does, she must never have been a teacher."

[nekocat]

To like children the way she does, she must never have been a teacher

Hi. Could we interpret the sentence as "When I see that she likes children so much, it's unimaginable that she has been a teacher." or "In order to like children so much, she shouldn't have become a teacher. There could have been other occupations cut out for her."?

 

[Geostigma]

It's probably closer to the first sentence you have listed. From the use of "must" in the quote, its clear that the speaker does not know if she was ever a teacher or not, but because of her like for children, its "most likely" that she has never been a teacher.

 

[SushiShin]

she likes the children more i would say find another occupation with children then

 

[bakaKanadajin]

What it's saying is that because she likes children alot, she (must have/was probably never/could never have been/wasn't) a teacher. Despite the strength of the language its just speculation by the speaker. He or she said this because in their experience, if this other person HAD been a teacher at some point in time, she would naturally dislike children probably for reasons such as children are noisy, troublesome, disobedient, etc. Her love of children is not tainted by the negative experience of having been a teacher.

 

[Sarapva]

Nekocat - Your first interpretation of the sentence has the same meaning. I agree with the suggestions above - that the speaker is speculating that she must never have been a teacher, but doesn't know for sure.

 

[nekocat]

Ah, the sentence is an irony, then!

Despite the strength of the language its just speculation by the speaker.

I remembered that "must" is more emotional/personal, "have to" more social.

Thanks!