~hard case~: An American colloquialism for a person of pronounced or curious type.
~hasten~, ~hurry~: Although both words imply a celerity of action, the former presupposes consideration and is not opposed to good order, whereas the latter is indicative of perturbation and a measure of irregularity. Therefore these terms are not synonymous. Phelps in his “English Style in Public Discourse,” says “the first does not imply confusion; the second does.” Lexicographers do not restrict the meaning of _hurry_ to “to confuse by undue haste or suddenness,” but define it as “to cause to be done rapidly or more rapidly; accelerate.” You _hasten_ to congratulate but _hurry_ to catch a train.
~have~: On the use of this word the STANDARD DICTIONARY says; Used in the past tense following another past tense, a use often indiscriminately condemned, though sometimes proper and necessary. (1) _Improper construction._ Where what was “meant,” “intended,” or the like was, at the time when intended, some act (as of going, writing, or speaking) _future_ in its purpose and not _past_, and therefore not to be expressed by a _past tense_; as, “He meant _to have gone_” for “He meant _to go_”; “I meant _to have written_ to you, but forgot it,” for “I meant _to write_,” etc.; “I had intended _to have spoken_ to him about it,” for “I had intended _to speak_,” etc.; “I should like _to have gone_” for “I should have liked _to go_.” The infinitive with _to_ expresses the relation of an act as so conceived, so that both analogy and prevalent usage require “meant to go” instead of “meant to have gone.” Such construction, although occasional instances of it still occur in works of authors of the highest literary reputation, and still often heard in conversation, is now generally regarded as ungrammatical.
(2) _Proper construction._ The doubling of the past tenses in connection with the use of _have_ with a past participle is _proper and necessary_ when the completion of the future act was intended before the occurrence of something else mentioned or thought of. Attention to this qualification, which has been overlooked in the criticism of tense-formation and connection, is especially important and imperative. If one says, “I meant _to have visited_ Paris and _to have returned_ to London before my father _arrived_ from America,” the past infinitive in the dependent clause is necessary for the expression of the completion of the acts purposed. “I meant _to visit_ Paris and _to return_ to London before my father _arrived_ from America,” may convey suggestively the thought intended, but does not express it.