<b>Forum for the discussion of Applied Linguistics </b>
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Post
by LarryLatham » Sat Jan 29, 2005 12:27 am
Stephen Jones wrote:The point is that must be can substitute has to be with little or no change in meaning.
Now, you know that I
must most forcefully disagree with that. Do you deny the point I made above in the quote from Richard Dawkins?
Larry Latham
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
Post
by Stephen Jones » Sun Jan 30, 2005 8:27 am
If only I knew what your point was, Larry!
If you are saying that the fact that you must or have to use has to instead of must have been in that particular context is because of a fundamental difference between must and have to, then yes I do disagree with you.
You are equally wrong if you are saying that the choice between must be and has to be has a huge effect on his ultimate meaning.