Job Discussion Forums

Capergirl · Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2004 8:37 pm Post subject: Grammar debate

After telling my students the other day in tutorial that must and have to have the same meaning, one of them proceeded to argue the point. He had been taught - or had read somewhere, he isn't sure where - that must implies a stronger obligation than have to and therefore it has a slightly different meaning. After citing several examples, I gave up trying to convince him that there is no difference between the two.

Could the grammarians in the room please give me your opinion(s)? Is there a difference, however subtle, between must and have to or are they synonymous?

Joe Gahona · Joined: 24 Apr 2004 Posts: 27 Location: New York City

You are right.

I don't doubt that your student read that distinction somewhere, but who knows where.

denise · Joined: 23 Apr 2003 Posts: 3419 Location: finally home-ish

I read somewhere that the difference (or a difference) is in whether the obligation is internally or externally imposed. For example, a student could say of him/herself, "I have to study," whereas a teacher could say either "You must study" or "you have to study."

d

Cadava · Joined: 10 Jul 2004 Posts: 6 Location: Central China

You are correct in the postive sense. It is only when we negate these that the real difference is apparent.

Must not ... is not the same as Don't have to ...

That is the grammatical explanation, although intuitively I feel that 'must' does carry more weight and obligation than 'have to'. Grammarians will not agree with me on this.

Dr.J · Joined: 09 May 2003 Posts: 304 Location: usually Japan

I kind of agree with your student actually. They have the same 'meaning' but not the same usage (which amounts to a different meaning in my book).

Must is more imperative, or more serious.

"We must rid the country of neo-nazis."

Have to or Got to seems a little less formal, or just 'normal'.

"I have to get this done by tomorrow."

I am a little surprised if you can't sense this as it seems quite obvious to native speakers!

Capergirl · Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 12:59 am Post subject:

Roger · Joined: 19 Jan 2003 Posts: 9138

The difference between "must" and "have to" - I would borrow Denise's words: Internal or external obligation.

"Must" is internal, i.e. in your mind you accept it even if it is an imposed obligation from someone else; "have to" looks more like an obligation you can't escape - you may obey in spite of yourself, or in spite of moral objections.

Teacher in Rome · Joined: 09 Jul 2003 Posts: 1286

I'd go with the external / internal distinction.

If you say "You must....", the authority for this obligation comes from you, the speaker.

If you say "You have to...", the authority for the obligation doesn't come from the speaker, but comes from an external source, such as goverrnment rules, or company regulations.

For this reason, if you wanted to tell someone what to do, but didn't want to be too direct as that person was someone you didn't know too well, you could couch the obligation as a "have to". It would make it sound a little more gentle.

"You must make a note of how many photocopies you make" (a little direct, because I'm telling you)
"You have to make a note of how many photocopies you make" (less a personal command, more a general rule)

lajzar · Joined: 09 Feb 2003 Posts: 647 Location: Saitama-ken, Japan

I'll go along with the internal/external thing too.

Having said that, in all but written multiple choice exams, teh distinction is almost irrelevant.

Mike_2003 · Joined: 27 Mar 2003 Posts: 344 Location: Bucharest, Romania

Greetings,

Nearly all of my students have been taught that "must" is stronger. It's really quite difficult to get them out of the habit, especially as in Turkish there is really only one way of expressing have to/must/should.

The internal/external explanation is correct in my opinion, although the choice can be quite a close run thing. It is also often manipulated for different effect. Imagine a cop stopping you for not wearing a seat belt. The rules are the rules but he could say "You must wear a seatbelt" (because I say so and I'm the law) and it would sound a lot more authoritarian than saying with a shrug: "You have to wear a seatbelt" (sorry mate, but that's the way it is. I don't make the rules, I just enforce them).

It's easy to see how this direct/indirect issue can be confused with strength.

These two sentences also highlight the difference:

"I have to get this done by tomorrow." (the teacher says so, the course requires it, the boss requested it, etc)

"I must get this done by tomorrow." (although there is possibly an external obligation also, it suggests the speaker has set himself this task and is more determined)

Regards,
Mike

Dr.J · Joined: 09 May 2003 Posts: 304 Location: usually Japan

I apologise if I seemed condescending.

But I am genuinely surprised if you cannot sense a difference.

mjed9 · Joined: 25 Oct 2003 Posts: 242

There are also differences in past tense and use with other modals.

So I can't say

I musted finish this by yesterday

of

I will must finish this by tomorrow

but I guess that is common grammatical sense too.

So "have to" is more versatile in conversation

Stephen Jones · Joined: 21 Feb 2003 Posts: 4124

'Have to' and 'must' can both be used for internal obligation.

However 'must' cannot be used for external obligation.

Now, just don't ask me the difference between external and internal obligation :)

joe greene · Joined: 21 Mar 2004 Posts: 200

(... hmm, let me run to check my grammar book. then I'll post a reply)

Capergirl · Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 5:19 pm Post subject: