# Tengo prohibido comer en clase = mustn't?



## Londoneye

Hello friends!!
I have a simple question which is driving me crazy!
If I want to say in Spanish "Tengo prohibido comer en clase", I would say the sentence "I mustn't eat in the classroom" Is this correct?

However, if I want to say "No debo beber mucho café porque no es bueno para mi salud" , I would also make the sentece with "mustn't" "I mustn't drink much coffee because it is not good for my health" Is this also correct??

Can we say that "mustn't" as a modal verb is used to exrpess prohibition and to express something you shouldn't do because it is not good??

Thank you in advance!!!
Londoneye


----------



## grubble

I would say 
_"I'm not allowed to eat in the classroom".
"I can't drink much coffee because it is not good for my health"._

However, to answer your question, both are correct with "mustn't".


----------



## Londoneye

Thank you grubble!


----------



## blasita

I agree, grubble. 

Native speakers will know best, but this is my explanation:

_I musn´t eat in the classroom/I´m not allowed to eat ... =can´t)_ _No puedo/(me) está prohibido/no (me) está permitido.

I must/shouldn´t drink ... (=no puedo/no debería, pero ´should´ is less strong than ´must´).  Maybe: ´must´ because you suffer from high blood pressure and your doctor has told you not to do it;  ´should´ because you know it´d be a good idea as it´d be bad for your health if you keep on drinking so much coffee._


----------



## donbill

blasita said:


> I agree, grubble.
> 
> Native speakers will know best, but this is my explanation:
> 
> _I musn´t eat in the classroom/I´m not allowed to eat ... =can´t)_ _No puedo/(me) está prohibido/no (me) está permitido.
> 
> I must/shouldn´t drink ... (=no puedo/no debería, pero ´should´ is less strong than ´must´).  Maybe: ´must´ because you suffer from high blood pressure and your doctor has told you not to do it;  ´should´ because you know it´d be a good idea as it´d be bad for your health if you keep on drinking so much coffee._


_

Very good observations, blasita. I agree with you that must is stronger than should.

a. I must finish my work now, so I can't leave the office.
b. I should finish my work now, but I think I'll take a walk instead.

But another problem for us angloparlantes (this angloparlante ) comes with all of the possibilities with deber, specifically: debe, debería, debiera. I understand the shades of meaning when I hear them in Spanish, but it's sometimes hard to find just the right way to express the nuance in English._


----------



## blasita

Thanks, donbill.  I think your comment is very interesting, and I´d love to hear from other foreros who, for sure, know best.

_Debe dejar de fumar._ _You must give up smoking._
_Debería/debiera dejar de fumar._ _You should give up smoking._


----------



## k-in-sc

In this country it's "stop smoking" or "quit smoking. "Give up" is only for things you enjoy or would like to continue doing.


----------



## blasita

Really?  So sorry, then.  I really thought that ´giving up=stop a habit´ in American and British English.  Good to know, thanks k-in-sc.


----------



## Alma de cántaro

k-in-sc said:


> In this country it's "stop smoking" or "quit smoking. "Give up" is only for things you enjoy or would like to continue doing.



According to your explanation, "give up" is perfect for "dejar de fumar", because most people who smoke enjoy it and would like to continue doing.

Saludos,
Pedro


----------



## donbill

blasita said:


> Thanks, donbill.  I think your comment is very interesting, and I´d love to hear from other foreros who, for sure, know best.
> 
> _Debe dejar de fumar._ _You must give up smoking._
> _Debería/debiera dejar de fumar._ _You should give up smoking._



*Debiera dejar de fumar* = "You really should--if it wouldn't bother you so much, and if it really wouldn't ruin your life and make your existence unbearable--stop/give up smoking."  That's an exaggeration, of course, but it's the kind of additional comment I might resort to in English if I wanted to soften my advice to someone to stop smoking.

The message seems to come through in Spanish more more directly and clearly through morphology (debe, debería, debiera). In English it's often through the choice of _must_ or _should_. But, alas, _should_ has just one form, so it can't express nuance.


----------



## donbill

Alma de cántaro said:


> According to your explanation, "give up" is perfect for "dejar de fumar", because most people who smoke enjoy it and would like to continue doing.
> 
> Saludos,
> Pedro



I'll have to confess that I had never thought of the distinction that k-in-sc has made between "to stop" and "to give up." In many cases, I think they would be interchangeable, but the matiz is definitely there.

_"I really enjoy running, but I had to give it up because of problems with my knees,_" does express a more personal dimension, I think, than _"I had to stop"._


----------



## Alma de cántaro

donbill said:


> I'll have to confess that I had never thought of the distinction that k-in-sc has made between "to stop" and "to give up." In many cases, I think they would be interchangeable, but the matiz is definitely there.
> 
> _"I really enjoy running, but I had to give it up because of problems with my knees,_" does express a more personal dimension, I think, than _"I had to stop"._



Thank you,

Pedro


----------



## blasita

Thanks to all!  I understand now what you, donbill, meant about expressing nuance; you actually didn´t need any help; I was just trying to do so.

So, is it the same in British English (the very interesting point about giving up k-in-sc and donbill have just made?).


----------



## k-in-sc

Decades ago, people used to say "give up smoking" here, but now smoking is socially unacceptable. Also, most smokers I know hate being addicted to a nasty, expensive and harmful substance.


----------



## blasita

Thanks for the explanation. I thought that ´give up´ and ´stop/quit´ were always interchangeable.


----------



## donbill

blasita said:


> Thanks to all!  I understand now what you, donbill, meant about expressing nuance; you actually didn´t need any help; I was just trying to do so.
> 
> So, is it the same in British English (the very interesting point about giving up k-in-sc and donbill have just made?).



Blasita, I *always* need help! I think that every comment we share through the forum helps each of us--sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.


----------



## blasita

Yes, thanks so much, donbill.  That´s the spirit!  But I sometimes feel I´m not giving the right answer/what exactly they need and I feel bad cause I just want to help!

So, anyway, is it all right now, Londoneye?


----------



## donbill

blasita said:


> Yes, thanks so much, donbill.  That´s the spirit!  But I sometimes feel I´m not giving the right answer/what exactly they need and I feel bad cause I just want to help!
> 
> So, anyway, is it all right now, Londoneye?



But, Blasita, I do have a question about _debería_ and _debiera_ that requires some help.

Most grammar texts say that _debería + inf_ is polite and that_ debiera + inf_ is even more polite. Is this the way that you, as a native speaker, see it? Is there a context/situation in which you would choose one in preference to the other? (I ask the question because I am far more interested in what people say and how they say it than I am in prescriptive rules.)

un saludo


----------



## Londoneye

Pretty clear Blasita!!!! THANK YOU everybody. It is always nice to belong to a community like this!!!


----------



## duvija

Y por qué se saltearon el 'have to'? I have to stop/give up betting on horses.
Creo que 'have to' es más usado que 'must'. Una de las explicaciones (aunque parezca absurda) es que "mustn't " no suena bien en el negativo. Es difícil de pronunciar.

Creo que 'have to' es más camaleón; que se ajusta a la necesidad de la obligación requerida por el contexto, ¿no?


----------



## blasita

Yes, duvija. But I think the negative of ´have to/must´ is ´mustn´t´ anyway, so I    wouldn´t be able to put the original sentence into negative using ´have to.´  But you´re right when you say that it depends on the situation, i.e. I think that it depends if the obligation comes from the speaker/not _I must stop it (from speaker)._ and _I have to stop it (a rule).

Please correct me._


----------



## blasita

_Debería/ debiera ir al médico._

Creo que las dos formas son correctas. En vez del condicional se puede utilizar el imperfecto de subjuntivo con algunos verbos, entre los que se encuentra "deber". El hablante es quien se decantará por una u otra.

To sum up,  I´m really sorry for not being able to help you any further here, donbill, but right now I can tell you that I would use both. Any other ideas???


----------



## donbill

blasita said:


> _Debería/ debiera ir al médico._
> 
> Creo que las dos formas son correctas. En vez del condicional se puede utilizar el imperfecto de subjuntivo con algunos verbos, entre los que se encuentra "deber". El hablante es quien se decantará por una u otra.
> 
> To sum up,  I´m really sorry for not being able to help you any further here, donbill, but right now I can tell you that I would use both. Any other ideas???



No problem. You answered my question.

By the way, duvija is right: "have to" is stronger than "must". I suppose we could say the same thing about _tener que_ and _deber_.

_"Mustn't_ however, in spite of looking really strange, isn't hard to pronounce. It's actually fairly common in everyday speech. You say to a child, for example, "Johnny, you mustn't do that." It's just a softer way of saying, "Johnny, don't do that!"

Interesting variations!


----------



## cbrena

donbill said:


> But, Blasita, I do have a question about _debería_ and _debiera_ that requires some help.
> 
> Most grammar texts say that _debería + inf_ is polite and that_ debiera + inf_ is even more polite. Is this the way that you, as a native speaker, see it? Is there a context/situation in which you would choose one in preference to the other? (I ask the question because I am far more interested in what people say and how they say it than I am in prescriptive rules.)
> 
> un saludo



We don't normaly say _debiera + inf_.

I can only imagine myself saying that expression in this way:

_Sé que debería dejar de fumar, pero el que debiera hacerlo no quiere decir que realmente esté dispuesta a intentarlo.
_


----------



## donbill

cbrena said:


> We don't normaly say _debiera + inf_.
> 
> I can only imagine myself saying that expression in this way:
> 
> _Sé que debería dejar de fumar, pero el que debiera hacerlo no quiere decir que realmente esté dispuesta a intentarlo.
> 
> _



Muchas gracias por tu observación. En realidad has tenido que "inventar" un contexto que no depende de la expresión de obligación sino de "el [hecho de] que" para justificar el uso de debiera + infinitivo. ¡Muchas gracias por el ejemplo!

un saludo


----------



## duvija

blasita said:


> Yes, duvija. But I think the negative of ´have to/must´ is ´mustn´t´ anyway, so I wouldn´t be able to put the original sentence into negative using ´have to.´ But you´re right when you say that it depends on the situation, i.e. I think that it depends if the obligation comes from the speaker/not _I must stop it (from speaker)._ and _I have to stop it (a rule).
> 
> Please correct me._


_


¿Qué tiene de malo 'don't have to'?_


----------



## blasita

Pues que creo que:

1 _I don´t have to do it._  =   Lack of obligation, i.e. I can do it if I want to.
2 _I mustn´t do it._    =     Obligation.

Supongo que se traducirían por algo así como: 1 _No tengo que hacerlo._  2 _No debo hacerlo._  Por lo que creo que el significado de ambas es distinto, duvija.

Saludos.


----------



## donbill

blasita said:


> Pues que creo que:
> 
> 1 _I don´t have to do it._  =   Lack of obligation, i.e. I can do it if I want to.
> 2 _I mustn´t do it._    =     Obligation.
> 
> Supongo que se traducirían por algo así como: 1 _No tengo que hacerlo._  2 _No debo hacerlo._  Por lo que creo que el significado de ambas es distinto, duvija.
> 
> Saludos.



Exactamente, blasita.


----------



## blasita

Thanks very much for your post, donbill!

As to _debe/debería/debiera_  I´m not sure it´s okay if we continue with this fascinating (in my opinion) discussion in this thread. What about opening a new one?

I´ll be more than happy (and sure other _foreros_ too) to contribute as much as I can. All the best.


----------



## donbill

blasita said:


> Thanks very much for your post, donbill!
> 
> As to _debe/debería/debiera_  I´m not sure it´s okay if we continue with this fascinating (in my opinion) discussion in this thread. What about opening a new one?
> 
> I´ll be more than happy (and sure other _foreros_ too) to contribute as much as I can. All the best.



I'm all for opening another one. Will you do it?


----------



## blasita

A bit busy right now, but I will do as soon as can; alternatively, you could start it off, and I promise I´ll contribute to it.
Looking forward to hearing from you and all foreros on this discussion.


----------



## Suzie166

blasita said:


> Thanks to all!  I understand now what you, donbill, meant about expressing nuance; you actually didn´t need any help; I was just trying to do so.
> 
> So, is it the same in British English (the very interesting point about giving up k-in-sc and donbill have just made?).



It's not really the same in British English. Here you would definitely hear people talking about 'giving-up' in many of the same contexts as you would hear 'stopping' or 'quitting'. In Britain the verb 'quit' is not used nearly as much as it is in the US. We would often use 'give up' where Americans would use 'quit'.

e.g. UK 'I'm going to give up smoking'
       US 'I'm going to quit smoking'

      UK 'I can't do it. I give up.'
      US 'I can't do it. I quit.'


----------



## donbill

Suzie166 said:


> It's not really the same in British English. Here you would definitely hear people talking about 'giving-up' in many of the same contexts as you would hear 'stopping' or 'quitting'. In Britain the verb 'quit' is not used nearly as much as it is in the US. We would often use 'give up' where Americans would use 'quit'.
> 
> e.g. UK 'I'm going to give up smoking'
> US 'I'm going to quit smoking'
> 
> UK 'I can't do it. I give up.'
> US 'I can't do it. I quit.'



I don't think that's exactly the contrast, but I confess that it's my idiolect talking. _I'm going to give up smoking_ and _I'm going to quit smoking_ are basically the same. _To give up_ implies, for me at least, that it's a bit of a sacrifice to do so.

And I would definitely say--and probably have said--_I can't do it. I give up_.

I think we may be trying to analyze (uk analyse, right?) this one too closely.


----------



## capitas

Donbill, debería is "polite" as you say; it's exactly the same than your should.
"Debiera" is still more polite, even formal, and when colloquial, adds a special meaning of suggestion.
Deberías ir al médico= you look ill and everybody would agree that you should go to the doctor.
Debieras ir al médico= it just suggests one more option (it's still further than should).
Just to make it clear, in a very formal use, it can be stronger than should, and even  stronger than must:
"Usted no debiera estar aquí" You must not be here anyhow.
In my opinion, DEBIERA is not very usual, and can be replaced in colloquial stile with debería+entonación adecuada.


----------



## zetem

Londoneye,

Use "I mustn't" when you forbid yourself to do something (the meaning is close to "I do not want to"). When someone else orders you to do or not to do something, you say "I have to" or "I am not allowed to". Your sentence "I mustn't drink much coffee because it is not good for my health" is correct, because it is how you feel or want.


----------



## donbill

Just to make it clear, in a very formal use, it can be stronger than should, and even  stronger than must:
"Usted no debiera estar aquí" You must not be here anyhow.

.[/QUOTE]

That's interesting! I see how _no debiera estar aquí_ could be stronger than should. The formality and distance expressed by no debiera can affect the context.

un saludo


----------



## blasita

Thank you for the explanation (debería/iera), capitas.  Yes, grammars tend to agree on what you are saying. We use the ´condicional´ here to soften it; and I would not use myself the ´imperfecto de subjuntivo´ exactly the same way. 

Just another thought (please note that the following is just one example of how I would use them).

_(With my partner at a party; it´s very late and we are bored and tired.  Other guests are talking to us but we want to go.  We would say...)_

*Deberíamos* irnos ya.   I would preferably use this one.

*Debiéramos* irnos ya.   Although it is grammatically correct, I would not say it (only if for instance they will not let us go, insist too much, etc). 

Also possible: _Tendríamos que irnos ya.  Deberíamos habernos ido ya._

_Debiera_ might be more used in some South American countries, but I am not sure.


----------



## capitas

blasita said:


> thank you for the explanation (debería/iera), capitas. Yes, grammars tend to agree on what you are saying. We use the ´condicional´ here to soften it; and i would not use myself the ´imperfecto de subjuntivo´ exactly the same way.
> 
> Just another thought (please note that the following is just one example of how i would use them).
> 
> _(with my partner at a party; it´s very late and we are bored and tired. Other guests are talking to us but we want to go. We would say...)_
> 
> *deberíamos* irnos ya. I would preferably use this one.
> 
> *debiéramos* irnos ya. Although it is grammatically correct, i would not say it (only if for instance they will not let us go, insist too much, etc). I would never use it.
> 
> Also possible: _tendríamos que/ deberiamos irnos ya ok._
> _deberíamos habernos ido ya. Different meaning: You are blaming so/sth for not having gone yet_
> 
> _debiera_ might be more used in some south american countries, but i am not sure.


 i would never use it, bUt very formally.


----------



## duvija

Y qué pasa con 'ought to'? oughtn't?


----------



## capitas

I think that ought express the same than should, but slightly more formal. 
Any opinion?


----------



## gringomejicano

I think all the words we're discussing "ought to", "must", "should", and "have to" are relatively heavily dependent on context.  

"Ought to" and "should" are relatively equal as are "must" and "have to".  Many times the reason we feel we cannot do something is because it is prohibited, either by law, policy, or social custom.  Other times, the reason we feel we cannot do something is because of the limits we place on ourselves.


----------



## duvija

Isn't 'ought to' stronger than 'should'? and stronger than 'have to? similar to 'must'?
We should list them all in order of strength...


----------



## donbill

duvija said:


> Isn't 'ought to' stronger than 'should'? and stronger than 'have to? similar to 'must'?
> We should list them all in order of strength...



This thread may go on forever!

My view: _to have to_ and _must_ are stronger than _ought, _which is equal to _should_. 

I _have to_ something/_I must_ do something = strong obligation.
_I ought to do/I should do_ something, but maybe I won't.

Pure opinion and nothing more.

Un saludo a todos


----------



## k-in-sc

I agree that "ought to" and "should" are equivalent and "have to" is stronger. "Must" also is stronger, but it's more formal, which throws the comparison off.


----------



## zetem

_RE: I ought to do/I should do_ something, but maybe I won't.

_Ought_ is more objective. The need to do it comes, not because of our feeling, but because of external conditions (for example law, rules, duties, professional obligations, etc.). _Should _is more subjective.It is our opinion, feeling, or wish. 

I _ought _to do it, but I don't want to. (It is my duty to do it, but I don't want to do it). This sounds reasonable.

I _should _do it, but I don't want to. (I want to do it but I don't want to do it). This does not sound reasonable.


----------



## gringomejicano

zetem said:


> I _ought _to do it, but I don't want to. (It is my duty to do it, but I don't want to do it). This sounds reasonable.
> 
> I _should _do it, but I don't want to. (I want to do it but I don't want to do it). This does not sound reasonable.



I don't think this holds for American English.  It's natural to say the second sentence.


----------



## k-in-sc

At least where I live, that distinction doesn't exist. And I have to say that it sounds like a stretch. No offense


----------

