I don't think that you can claim that there is any more than a tendency for "have to" to represent an obligation-imposed-from-without, in the examples you give above there is no real clang if the alternative is used. After all there is a huge semantic overlap, we issue commands due to the external situation, and our issuing of them creates a new existential situation in any case. The doctor may issue the instructions for the nurses using "have to", feeling the medical situation demands it. And were he actually reeling off orders I feel he would tend to go for "should" or "I would like the nurses to.....' in any case.
The slight clang we have come across, "I have to not smoke", is still a slight clanger even if the patient is talking about the doctors instructions.
So how to answer a student question "what's the difference?". I don't think we can say "you shouldn't ask this kind of question". I don't think that any simple rule we formulate about "have to" being a more external situation will do much more than mislead. The student may feel that it would be wrong to say "You have to change your skirt!", and it isn't wrong. Simply to say they are synonyms seems the best answer we can give.
What's the difference?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
But of course. That is precisely my point.woodcutter, you wrote:The doctor may issue the instructions for the nurses using "have to", feeling the medical situation demands it.
But of course, again. There is nothing wrong with either of them. However, I do not think it is misleading them to say they are different. The different situations in which one would be chosen over the other is often merely the adoption of a particular point-of-view on the part of the speaker. Remember that it is the speaker's perception that commands the language he chooses to use. Claiming must and have to are synonymous, however, is likely, in my view, to lead to confusion and/or errors in use because it offers students no basis for choosing either.You also wrote:The student may feel that it would be wrong to say "You have to change your skirt!", and it isn't wrong.
Larry Latham
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
Woodcutter,This point is easily explained. The negatives of "must" and "have to" cross over.
Thus "mustn't" is the negative of "have to", and "don't have to" is the negative of "must".
The reason why "have to not smoke," grates is that it is the first verb that carries the purpose - you have been prohibited, and so it is the first part that must be negative. In plain English, the doctor told you that you mustn't smoke.
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Whoa there, cowboy!
must
must not
have to
don't have to
have to not
All have separate meanings, and some of them do double-duty as regards what they might negate, it seems to me. And the negation can take place elsewhere in the sentence as well:
Let's suppose your original (positive) statement is: You have to go to the mall.
One possible "negation" is: You don't have to go to the mall.
Another is: You have to not go to the mall.
Another is: You have to stay away from the mall.
Another is: You mustn't go to the mall.
Another is: You must keep clear of the mall.
And there are probably several more besides. None of them is "stronger" than others. The strength of any of them depends primarily on the manner in which they are spoken. The central point, however, is, for all of these, that they are not synonymous. In particular, germane to this conversation, the last two reflect that the speaker has adopted the position that it is she who requires the listener to avoid going to the mall. In the first, she is denying the necessity, and in the second and third, she insists on the necessity of not going, but also, at the same time, taking the position that such necessity originates not with her, but outside her in some important sense. Possibly there are reports of a bomb there, or a rapist who preys on women who are alone in the parking lot.
It is true, as you suggested, that one way to negate, "You must go to the mall" is: "You don't have to go to the mall." But I'm afraid you may have left the impression on our readers that that is the only way, which, I'm sure you will agree, is not true.
Larry Latham
Could you elaborate on this, Andy? It's not my understanding of must and have to. It looks to me like there are five possible forms, if not all equally likely:Andy wrote:Thus "mustn't" is the negative of "have to", and "don't have to" is the negative of "must".
must
must not
have to
don't have to
have to not
All have separate meanings, and some of them do double-duty as regards what they might negate, it seems to me. And the negation can take place elsewhere in the sentence as well:
Let's suppose your original (positive) statement is: You have to go to the mall.
One possible "negation" is: You don't have to go to the mall.
Another is: You have to not go to the mall.
Another is: You have to stay away from the mall.
Another is: You mustn't go to the mall.
Another is: You must keep clear of the mall.
And there are probably several more besides. None of them is "stronger" than others. The strength of any of them depends primarily on the manner in which they are spoken. The central point, however, is, for all of these, that they are not synonymous. In particular, germane to this conversation, the last two reflect that the speaker has adopted the position that it is she who requires the listener to avoid going to the mall. In the first, she is denying the necessity, and in the second and third, she insists on the necessity of not going, but also, at the same time, taking the position that such necessity originates not with her, but outside her in some important sense. Possibly there are reports of a bomb there, or a rapist who preys on women who are alone in the parking lot.
It is true, as you suggested, that one way to negate, "You must go to the mall" is: "You don't have to go to the mall." But I'm afraid you may have left the impression on our readers that that is the only way, which, I'm sure you will agree, is not true.
Larry Latham
Oy!
Larry, Larry! It's like reading something from Ignatius J. Riley's notebooks! Eschew obfuscation, homes!
Andrew's answer is really clever. I think he's right that don't have to go is the opposite of must go...but I think must not still qualifies as an opposite of must, too.
The idea that people say have when impelled and must when compelled based on the weight of authority is just gettin' goofy. I think it would be closer to the truth just to say that we think of must as a more formal way to indicate obligation than have.
Andrew's answer is really clever. I think he's right that don't have to go is the opposite of must go...but I think must not still qualifies as an opposite of must, too.
The idea that people say have when impelled and must when compelled based on the weight of authority is just gettin' goofy. I think it would be closer to the truth just to say that we think of must as a more formal way to indicate obligation than have.
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Perhaps you do. I've never understood what is meant by "a more formal way..." Could you elaborate on what you mean by that, particularly in this case?El_Chivo wrote:I think it would be closer to the truth just to say that we think of must as a more formal way to indicate obligation than have.
Where did this come from? I don't recall anyone here suggesting that a speaker was either urged or forced to say anything.The idea that people say have when impelled and must when compelled based on the weight of authority is just gettin' goofy.
Larry Latham
Formal vs. Informal
C'mon, Larry! Now you're just trying to make me do busy work. 
Are you really saying you don't know the difference between formal and informal speech? Do you address your dog the same way address a judge? Do you write a note to your friend during a boring lecture the same way you write a complaint to your state legislator?
If what I said about situations in which one is impelled compared to situations in which one is compelled was confusing, I was just trying not to repeat the argument verbatim. I don't remember who wrote it, but someone was grasping at straws and speculating that have might be used when the obligation was more like being urged (impelled) by someone with no real authority, and must was suitable when a higher authority blah, blah, blah.
Are you really saying you don't know the difference between formal and informal speech? Do you address your dog the same way address a judge? Do you write a note to your friend during a boring lecture the same way you write a complaint to your state legislator? If what I said about situations in which one is impelled compared to situations in which one is compelled was confusing, I was just trying not to repeat the argument verbatim. I don't remember who wrote it, but someone was grasping at straws and speculating that have might be used when the obligation was more like being urged (impelled) by someone with no real authority, and must was suitable when a higher authority blah, blah, blah.
Last edited by El_Chivo on Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Of course not. But are you seriously suggesting that when you're addressing your state legislator you should say, "...you must go", but when you're addressing your friend it would be better to say, "...you have to go"? How strange that is!!C'mon, Larry! Now you're just trying to make me do busy work. Are you really saying you don't know the difference between formal and informal speech? Do you address your dog the same way address a judge? Do you write a note to your friend during a boring lecture the same way you write a complaint to your state legislator?
Larry Latham
Should?
It's not a matter of shoulds, dude. Language isn't dictated, it's negotiated. When one wants to sound more formal one chooses different words. It's misleading to suggest to L2 learners that word choice isn't sometimes a matter of tone rather than meaning.
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
El Chivo,
Thans for using the words impelled and compelled, I haven't seen them used with regard to must and have to, but I think they are better terms than internal and external obligation.
However, I think that you may have got the words mixed up. An impulse comes from within, if you are impelled you are fulfilling a duty to yourself.
If you are compelled, you are made to do sth through external enforcement.
Larry,
I'm not sure I can explain further, but I'll try. "Must" implies that you are impelled to fulfil a duty to yourself, "don't have to" implies there is no such duty.
Come to think of it, I think it does indeed also refer to a lack of compusion too.
Mustn't is an explicit compusion not to do sth.
"Have not to do sth" is not strictly ungrammatical, but it is awkward and goes against normal and plain use.
Thans for using the words impelled and compelled, I haven't seen them used with regard to must and have to, but I think they are better terms than internal and external obligation.
However, I think that you may have got the words mixed up. An impulse comes from within, if you are impelled you are fulfilling a duty to yourself.
If you are compelled, you are made to do sth through external enforcement.
Larry,
I'm not sure I can explain further, but I'll try. "Must" implies that you are impelled to fulfil a duty to yourself, "don't have to" implies there is no such duty.
Come to think of it, I think it does indeed also refer to a lack of compusion too.
Mustn't is an explicit compusion not to do sth.
"Have not to do sth" is not strictly ungrammatical, but it is awkward and goes against normal and plain use.
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Well guys, this is certainly not worth gettin' into a battle over. I've no intention of that. But I'm afraid the arguments you guys have advanced simply don't hold water.
Andy, you've been around the block many times, and you know (I hope) that I hold you in high regard. I always take your views seriously, even when I don't agree. In this matter, it seems to me like you've let yourself get into a rut. I don't think the distinction between must and have to has anything whatever to do with impelled/compelled. Nor is it a matter of obligation. Obligation forces one kind of necessity, but there are other kinds as well, and they also drive the selection we are talking about here. It doesn't even depend on a particular speaking situation. It seems clear to me that the distinction depends on the speaker's view, at the moment of speaking, of whether the source of necessity (expressed by choice of either one of them) is himself or comes from outside himself. In many particular speaking situations, it may be possible for the speaker to view it either way, and that's why often it seems either will work in a particular situation. For instance, in one of the original example sentences about the nurses taking temperatures, if a doctor is the speaker, at that moment he could choose either to see the medical situation (outside source) driving the necessity for the nurse to take the temperature at midnight, or simply decide to issue the order because he is the doctor, and he gets to call the shots (himself). So, he could choose to say, "The nurse has to take...", or he could choose, "The nurse must take..." But they are not the same. The speaker's momentary decision about the source of necessity governs his choice of words. Interpretation, then, of his specific meaning at that moment can be made by noting the choice that he made.
El_Chivo, I haven't known you for long, but you seem a bright enough lad. However, in this case, it sounds to me that you've let your youthful exuberance get the better of you, resulting in the espousing of your ideas before you quite think them through. You want to give students choice, but then you give them no basis for making the choice. You distinguish between speaking with bosses or state legislators on the one hand, and friends or dogs on the other, but then prescribe must for one group and have to for the other--an idea for which I feel sure you will lose enthusiasm once you've thought about it.
It's not really very difficult, guys, and there is a great deal of academic support for the distinction on the basis of "view of the source of necessity." Just remember that any particular view is instantaneous and changeable. It is part of the process of, as you've suggested, El_Chivo, the negotiation of language. What is totally clear, and well agreed upon in the academic arena, as far as I can tell, is that must and have to are not equal. However, that is a revelation to a great many teachers of English, sad to say. Far too many are telling their students that the two terms are synonyms, and I believe they are misinforming those students and setting them up for confusion.
Larry Latham
Andy, you've been around the block many times, and you know (I hope) that I hold you in high regard. I always take your views seriously, even when I don't agree. In this matter, it seems to me like you've let yourself get into a rut. I don't think the distinction between must and have to has anything whatever to do with impelled/compelled. Nor is it a matter of obligation. Obligation forces one kind of necessity, but there are other kinds as well, and they also drive the selection we are talking about here. It doesn't even depend on a particular speaking situation. It seems clear to me that the distinction depends on the speaker's view, at the moment of speaking, of whether the source of necessity (expressed by choice of either one of them) is himself or comes from outside himself. In many particular speaking situations, it may be possible for the speaker to view it either way, and that's why often it seems either will work in a particular situation. For instance, in one of the original example sentences about the nurses taking temperatures, if a doctor is the speaker, at that moment he could choose either to see the medical situation (outside source) driving the necessity for the nurse to take the temperature at midnight, or simply decide to issue the order because he is the doctor, and he gets to call the shots (himself). So, he could choose to say, "The nurse has to take...", or he could choose, "The nurse must take..." But they are not the same. The speaker's momentary decision about the source of necessity governs his choice of words. Interpretation, then, of his specific meaning at that moment can be made by noting the choice that he made.
El_Chivo, I haven't known you for long, but you seem a bright enough lad. However, in this case, it sounds to me that you've let your youthful exuberance get the better of you, resulting in the espousing of your ideas before you quite think them through. You want to give students choice, but then you give them no basis for making the choice. You distinguish between speaking with bosses or state legislators on the one hand, and friends or dogs on the other, but then prescribe must for one group and have to for the other--an idea for which I feel sure you will lose enthusiasm once you've thought about it.
It's not really very difficult, guys, and there is a great deal of academic support for the distinction on the basis of "view of the source of necessity." Just remember that any particular view is instantaneous and changeable. It is part of the process of, as you've suggested, El_Chivo, the negotiation of language. What is totally clear, and well agreed upon in the academic arena, as far as I can tell, is that must and have to are not equal. However, that is a revelation to a great many teachers of English, sad to say. Far too many are telling their students that the two terms are synonyms, and I believe they are misinforming those students and setting them up for confusion.
Larry Latham
Confused....
Hey all!
I hope the original poster got his/her answer. I know I'm beginning to get confused, but I'm not worried about it, I would never go to the extent of explanation of these things in my classes, mine is that given on page one of these commentaries. Does anyone else share my views on the question? Just wondering.
peace,
revel.
I hope the original poster got his/her answer. I know I'm beginning to get confused, but I'm not worried about it, I would never go to the extent of explanation of these things in my classes, mine is that given on page one of these commentaries. Does anyone else share my views on the question? Just wondering.
peace,
revel.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
nuances
I'm prepared to go with your "more force" Revel, and Larry's text-book backed distinctions, and maybe even El Chivo's formality. That's the thing. They are nuances. It isn't easy to infer very much that is concrete about a sentence from the form chosen. It isn't easy to create a guideline that will work for a student in ALL sentences.
Where are the killer examples to prove otherwise?
The best one I can think of is
"Are you coming out to play ball, Bob?"
"Nah, I have to stay in and wash my hair".
I don't like "must" there. But which rule is the winner? They all work!
Where are the killer examples to prove otherwise?
The best one I can think of is
"Are you coming out to play ball, Bob?"
"Nah, I have to stay in and wash my hair".
I don't like "must" there. But which rule is the winner? They all work!
Prescribed?
Larry, you're the only one talking about prescribing anything. I thought I was pretty clear in saying that the terms are interchangeable but that one is more often used in formal speech than the other. That is precisely the choice the user has, to sound relaxed or edgy, casual or formal, friendly or stuffy, etc. And could you provide some of the sources from the academic arena that you think are debating this issue as if it matters...the way we have been 
? How does the saying go? The argument is so heated because the stakes are so low!
Degustibus, non est disputandum
? How does the saying go? The argument is so heated because the stakes are so low!Degustibus, non est disputandum
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Yeah, I suppose so, El_Chivo. You are right that the stakes are low, since probably no one is likely to change their mind about whatever position they may hold on this issue, no matter how strong the argument.
I have not prescribed anything. But I do believe that a speaker's choice has meaningful implications in the interpretation of his remarks. This also means that awareness of the apparent differences offers users a basis for making a useful choice.
You asked about academic sources. I've already mentioned and paraphrased Michal Swan, earlier in this thread. His is generally a highly respected opinion in such matters. In addition, Michael Lewis expresses his view that it is speaker perception of the source of necessity that offers the greatest influence on his choice of must or have to. Lewis is also greatly respected by many in this field. I believe also Diane Larson-Freeman of UCLA also supports this view, but I've loaned out my Larson-Freeman grammar book to someone who hasn't returned it yet, so I can't check to be sure. Those are some of the supporters of this view, but there are many more to be sure. I have the impression that this is not that controversial in the world of heavy-hitters in Modern English Grammar, but only amongst EFL teachers and wannabes, but I could be wrong about that. I believe I am on pretty firm ground here, but I can see that you do too, and your views and mine do not seem to be compatible.
But, like you said, who cares!
Larry Latham
I have not prescribed anything. But I do believe that a speaker's choice has meaningful implications in the interpretation of his remarks. This also means that awareness of the apparent differences offers users a basis for making a useful choice.
You asked about academic sources. I've already mentioned and paraphrased Michal Swan, earlier in this thread. His is generally a highly respected opinion in such matters. In addition, Michael Lewis expresses his view that it is speaker perception of the source of necessity that offers the greatest influence on his choice of must or have to. Lewis is also greatly respected by many in this field. I believe also Diane Larson-Freeman of UCLA also supports this view, but I've loaned out my Larson-Freeman grammar book to someone who hasn't returned it yet, so I can't check to be sure. Those are some of the supporters of this view, but there are many more to be sure. I have the impression that this is not that controversial in the world of heavy-hitters in Modern English Grammar, but only amongst EFL teachers and wannabes, but I could be wrong about that. I believe I am on pretty firm ground here, but I can see that you do too, and your views and mine do not seem to be compatible.
But, like you said, who cares!
Larry Latham