implied obligation?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:04 am

What do you think? Is it the mother or the kids who are being described as under obligation here?

"My kids just have to eat their cereals with chocolate milk. At first, I refused to let them, but in the end I caved in."

Does this imply obligation?

He just has to have/insists on having his dinner on the table by seven prompt.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:59 am

I'd say it more implies irritation (or irony at the very least) than an actual obligation. Just because 'have to' appears doesn't necessarily mean it's so. Perhaps we could say the mother feels compelled to get her little darlings the chocomilk - anything for an easy life, eh.

Oh, and are the examples drawn from your own life once again, metal?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:22 am

fluffyhamster wrote:
Oh, and are the examples drawn from your own life once again, metal?

Yes. Why do you ask?

Isn't being under compulsion the result of an obligation?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:25 am

You could also use have to in first person with this meaning too e.g.

I just have to have that dress. Will you buy it for me?
(n.b. not from my personal life

)

Metal's example could almost be considered an ironic usage. Isn't the speaker effectively saying "my kids are the ones who call the shots at the breakfast table?"

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:36 am

lolwhites wrote:
Metal's example could almost be considered an ironic usage. Isn't the speaker effectively saying "my kids are the ones who call the shots at the breakfast table?"

Indeed. What is sometimes called fake-obligation.

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:52 am

It can be ambiguous too:

He has to have his dinner at seven. (I want him to have it at seven/He wants to have it at seven/neither of us want to have it at seven, but the doctor has advised so.)

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:56 am

Have to could be ambiguous, but just have to probably isn't. In real life, intonation and context would resolve any uncertainties.

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:57 am

The answer to your question may lie in asking what the mother doesn't say, namely "must".

Wouldn't it be useful to see "have to" in relation to "must" as we see "going to" in its relation to "will"?

"Have to" then becomes what is used when the speaker wants to present the information as a fact. NB not that it is a fact but that it's being presented as such.

So everybody is under the obligation. The mother. the kids, the universe

So I don't think that this "He has to have" is the same as "He insists on having" because "he has to have" doesn't analyse the origin of the obligation:

He just has to have his dinner on the table by seven prompt ........

We may know that this matter of fact originates in his insistence but there could be many other reasons:

....... if he wants to get to the theatre on time.

...... and that's the rules of this prison.

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:02 am

For me ambiguity works just as well with just have to, of course with the intonation/stress.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:44 am

Anuradha Chepur wrote:It can be ambiguous too:

He has to have his dinner at seven. (I want him to have it at seven/He wants to have it at seven/neither of us want to have it at seven, but the doctor has advised so.)

Yes, there it can be.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:47 am

<So everybody is under the obligation. The mother. the kids, the universe>

How are the kids under obligation?

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:49 pm

Because we are not told if the kids would frame their point of view as:

"We must eat our cereal with chocolate milk"

or as:

"We (just) have to eat our..............."

Cos if it's the second then it's the case that they feel that the obligation is externalised. IOW they are messengers too.

So I myself can choose between:

"I must phone my mother" or

"I have to phone my mother"

But for an observer it's only: "John has to phone his mother". If an observer relayed the info as "John must phone his mother" I suppose it would have to be some kind of reported speech.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:13 pm

I see. Thanks Juan-2-3.

<If an observer relayed the info as "John must phone his mother" I suppose it would have to be some kind of reported speech.>

Yes, for me it would be that.

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:59 pm

To what extent does "have" mean something like "carry around with one"?

A beautiful car, to start work soon and seen sunset over Venice are all things I have.

How different are these three things? I mean it's not:

"Beans and swim are both things I can"

It's the same "have". It's not a pun and the double or triple take is not great. So what does the "have" of "I have to go" really mean? Is there a holy grail combining possession, obligation and experience?

More questions than answers I'm afraid.

PS I see that on the sister thread to this there is something similar said by Andrew.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:03 pm

fluffyhamster wrote:I'd say it more implies irritation (or irony at the very least) than an actual obligation. Just because 'have to' appears doesn't necessarily mean it's so. Perhaps we could say the mother feels compelled to get her little darlings the chocomilk - anything for an easy life, eh.

Oh, and are the examples drawn from your own life once again, metal?

This is different to my take on things but I think you are also right with the added idea that she may have just given up to their pestering and bought choco milk.