# Must or have to - modal verbs exercise - now with added POLL!!



## majlo

Could you tell me if I chose the correct answers? If some of them are incorrect, please, explain it to me why. Thank you in advance.

1. You _must/have to_ write a letter to your grandmother to thank her for your birthday present. 
2. At my school, students _must/have to_ wear a uniform. 
3. You _mustn't/are not allowed to_ tell my secret to anyone or I will be upset. 
4. You _must/mustn't_ smoke in the library. It is prohibited. 
5. You _are not allowed to/have to_ run in the classroom. It is dangerous. 
6. You _must/are not allowed to_ pass exams to get into university in England.

My answers:
 1. have to (what's the difference between _must _and _have to_?)
2. must 
3. mustn't
4. mustn't 
5. are not allowed to
6. must


----------



## virr2

majlo said:


> Could you tell me if I chose the correct answers? If some of them are incorrect, please, explain it to me why. Thank you in advance.
> 
> 1. You _must/have to_ write a letter to your grandmother to thank her for your birthday present.
> 2. At my school, students _must/have to_ wear a uniform.
> 3. You _mustn't/are not allowed to_ tell my secret to anyone or I will be upset.
> 4. You _must/mustn't_ smoke in the library. It is prohibited.
> 5. You _are not allowed to/have to_ run in the classroom. It is dangerous.
> 6. You _must/are not allowed to_ pass exams to get into university in England.
> 
> My answers:
> 1. have to (what's the difference between _must _and _have to_?)
> 2. must
> 3. mustn't
> 4. mustn't
> 5. are not allowed to
> 6. must



My suggestions

1.must
2.have to 
3. musn't
4.musn't
5.are not allowed
6. must

'Must' expresses sth that you or a person feels is necessary;  it expresses a strong obligation. 'have' means that some external circumstance makes an obligation necessary.


----------



## Jacob

For the first and second ones I would use either but must sounds more formal. The rest of your answers are correct.


----------



## virr2

"You must wear uniforms," said the principle. 
"At my school we have to wear uniforms," a student said.

When we comment our or other people's responsibilities we use "have to" not "must"


----------



## majlo

You're right, virr2. Finally, I found my grammar notes


----------



## susanb

majlo said:


> Could you tell me if I chose the correct answers? If some of them are incorrect, please, explain it to me why. Thank you in advance.
> 
> 1. You _must/have to_ write a letter to your grandmother to thank her for your birthday present.
> ...
> My answers:
> 1. have to (what's the difference between _must _and _have to_?)


 
I'd say that both are correct. It only depends on the person speaking feelings. If this person strongly feels you have to write to her, then s/he would use must. Something like: 
"Your grandma writes to you every week and you never write to her. You *must *write to her!"
I was taught that the difference between must and have to depended on the person speaking.
I say to myself:
I must do my homework ( I'm comvinced I want to do it -at least I'll try
I have to do my homework (the teacher told me to do it)
When other people say:
You *must *or you *have to* the difference is in how strong is the belief or the obligation.
I hope this is clear and I'm not wrong.
Again, let's wait for the natives


----------



## suzi br

virr2 said:


> "You must wear uniforms," said the principle.
> "At my school we have to wear uniforms," a student said.
> 
> When we comment our or other people's responsibilities we use "have to" not "must"


 
It might be in your grammar notes, but it doesn't reflect a real difference in the way English people speak, in real life we interchange must and have to, I don't make a distinction between the two.

Learning modals is hard because the way we use them is slippery and inconsistent and hard to define. By all means learn the "grammar notes" dictats to pass exams, but use your eyes and ears to observe what we really do!


----------



## virr2

suzi br said:


> It might be in your grammar notes, but it doesn't reflect a real difference in the way English people speak, in real life we interchange must and have to, I don't make a distinction between the two.
> 
> Learning modals is hard because the way we use them is slippery and inconsistent and hard to define. By all means learn the "grammar notes" dictats to pass exams, but use your eyes and ears to observe what we really do!



Not only in my notes, but also in my books written by English Native Speakers. Sure, real life and classes are sometimes different notions, but as you have noticed the question asked by majlo concerned a grammar exercise not a real life situation. 
If I really wanted to use only my eyes are ears I would probably end up saying "more better" and the like. However, thank you for your observation.


----------



## suzi br

Yes, but sometimes native speakers who write text books are pedantic peopel who like rules for the sake of them.  With modals it is very hard to be precise about how to use them.

In many cases the choice between "Have to" and "must" is completely interchangeable!


----------



## Sabelotodo

I also use _must_ and _have to_ interchangeably.  To me the meaning is identical, but I think must sounds more formal, so I use it in more formal situations.  For example, I made a sign that says, "Students must remain in the cafeteria during the lunch period."  But if I were conversing with a student, I would say, "You have to stay in the cafeteria."


----------



## Cayuga

I don't know what a modal verb is, but I agree that _must_ and _have to_ are completely interchangeable.

However, _not allowed_ implies some sort of authority behind it, so the answer to #3 would be _mustn't_. (The idea is that friend can't tell you what you are and are not allowed to do.)

Am I the only one who thought it odd that the first three items on majlo's quiz required choosing between two similar or identical words, but the second three items involved choosing between a positive and a negative?

Majlo, are the first three items accureately reproduced here?

Just asking.


----------



## cyberpedant

Around here (Western Massachusetts, close to NYC) we almost always use "have to," rather than "must." 
We restrict "must" to phrases like, "They must have gone home."


----------



## virr2

suzi br said:


> Yes, but sometimes native speakers who write text books are pedantic peopel who like rules for the sake of them. With modals it is very hard to be precise about how to use them.
> 
> In many cases the choice between "Have to" and "must" is completely interchangeable!



I don't think it is a question of being pedantic or not. It is not a question of only one textbook. Suzi br I find your opinion arguable, but since I am not a Native Speaker I cannot trust my own judgement. I can only say that in Polish (and I am sure in other languages) there are rules that many people don't follow. It doesn't make the rules unnecessary but rather implies that people who neglect them don't speak good Polish.

Anyway, I requested a poll to see how other users of English feel about "have to" and "must".

Best regards,
Virr


----------



## gaer

virr2 said:


> I can only say that in Polish (and I am sure in other languages) there are rules that many people don't follow. It doesn't make the rules unnecessary but rather implies that people who neglect them don't speak good Polish.


This is a very untactful thing to say in a forum where you are not a native speaker and you are talking to someone who *is* a native speaker.  

I would suggest that you attempt to find out a bit more about "suzi br" before you imply that she does not speak good English, which is exactly what you last remark implies. 

Gaer


----------



## foxfirebrand

I'm voting with the minority here-- they're interchangeable.  "Must" is a little more formal or old-world, but the meaning is still identical with "have to."
.


----------



## virr2

gaer said:


> This is a very untactful thing to say in a forum where you are not a native speaker and you are talking to someone who *is* a native speaker.
> 
> I would suggest that you attempt to find out a bit more about "suzi br" before you imply that she does not speak good English, which is exactly what you last remark implies.
> 
> Gaer



Gaer, I think you misinterpreted my post. I've never said that Susi doesn't speak good English.  Where did you read this?  I was confused by Susi comment on Native speakers' use of modal verbs, in particular "must" and "have to". After all, all text books I have at home and my teachers say that the difference in considerable. I was made study the modals, which was not that easy, and now when I can say I am aware of them, I hear that actually Natives use them interchangeably  
Gaer, this forum is meant for sharing ideas, and so I did in this thread. Susi is a Native Speaker and a teacher of English, so I had right to "challenge" her on this. 

Best regards
Virr


----------



## gaer

virr2 said:


> Gaer, I think you misinterpreted my post. I've never said that Susi doesn't speak good English. Where did you read this?  I was confused by Susi*'s* comment on *n*ative speakers' use of modal verbs, in particular "must" and "have to". After all, all text books I have at home and my teachers say that the difference in considerable.


Why are you capitalizing "Native Speaker"? As a general term, this should be all lower case.

Let me make my own position clear. I voted that "must" and "have to"  are not interchangeable in all situations merely because I know that there are almost always special cases.

Apparently your problem is with this sentence:

"At my school, students _must/have to_ wear a uniform."

I would say: "At my school, students have to wear a uniform."

But I would consider anyone who marked the other possibility, "must", as wrong to be following rules that are, at best, highly questionable.

There is one thing you must/have to remember about English. We have no "Academy of English". There is no central authority that has the right to declare anything as absolutely right or wrong. You will find that most of us agree most of the time about what is correct and incorrect, but not always.

And frequently when there is a disagreement, there are very well-educated and knowledgeable people on both sides of the debate. In fact, there are debates that have been going on for centuries and that remain unresolved.

There are some very sharp people in this forum. I don't think one person so far has agreed that "must wear uniforms" is wrong.


> I was made *to* ["forced to" might sound better here] study the modals, which was not that easy, and now when I can say I am aware of them [now that I have been made aware of how to use them], I hear [have been told] that actually *n*atives use them interchangeably.


The same thing has happened to me for years in conversations with native speakers of German. Again and again I've been told that things I was taught in textbooks are either incorrect or poorly explained. However, I have to/must tell you that the advice that I have gotten in the German forum here has been "spot on". 

I believe that if the majority of people in this forum tell you that a rule you have been taught is suspect, you will be safe if you assume you are getting good advice.

Now, this does not help with tests, of course. If you have been told that you must/have to use "must" and "have to" in a specific way in order to pass a test, then you must/have to "humor" those who have made the test.


> Gaer, this forum is meant for sharing ideas, and so I did in this thread. Susi is a *n*ative *s*peaker and a teacher of English, so I had *the* right to "challenge" her on this.
> 
> But this is what you said to Susi:
> 
> I can only say that in Polish (and I am sure in other languages) there are rules that many people don't follow. It doesn't make the rules unnecessary _*but rather implies that people who neglect them don't speak good Polish*_.
> 
> My impression was that you were asserting that people who "neglect rules" written in books about grammar don't speak "good English". The problem is that countless books about grammar disagree with each other, and I don't know of a single language in which all "grammarians" are full in agreement.
> 
> If my impression about your point was wrong, I apologize!
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Gaer


----------



## suzi br

Thank-you gaer for your defence. Of course I agree with what you say.

@ virr2 I am surprised that you didn't realise your responses to me were likely to seem rude. You *did *seem rude to me! However, messageboards are notorious for this, so I will not take offence. 

I must say / have to say that your example of the consequences of lisening to native speakers 





> I would probably end up saying "more better"


 is a completely different sort of issue. No-one would call that sort of thing standard grammar and text books and speakers alike would agree on that. What we are discusing here is the nuance of meaning in modals, which ARE slippery and NOT fixed. In any case it seems that you must / have to admit this, as you say:


> now when I can say I am aware of them, I hear that actually Natives use them interchangeably


 
@ majilo - your poll does NOT reflect my opinion, this is NOT an either or issue, the whole point is that in many cases the two ARE interchangeable, but in some cases one might be able to suggest a nuance of meaning by preferring one over the other.

You must/ have to be able to see that!


----------



## virr2

suzi br said:


> @ virr2 I am surprised that you didn't realise your responses to me were likely to seem rude. You *did *seem rude to me! However, messageboards are notorious for this, so I will not take offence.



Susi br, if you felt offended I appologise. As I've already said I didn't mean to offend you. You know I am not a native speaker and it is understandable that I may not feel the language well. However, you as a native speaker and a teacher of English should be more understanding. Are the sentences below examples of courtesy? Is your latest remark that message boards are notorious for ... impoliteness OK? 

Isn't this sentence a bit patronising?



suzi br said:


> It might be in your grammar notes ..



In Polish, the use of exclamation mark at the end of a post/letter is a generally considered impolite. 



suzi br said:


> ... use your eyes and ears to observe what we really do!





suzi br said:


> In many cases the choice between "Have to" and "must" is completely interchangeable!




Once again, I appologise if you felt offended.

Best regards
Virr


----------



## foxfirebrand

virr2 said:


> Once again, I appologise if you felt offended.


Once again?  I don't see any apologetic attitude out of you, and this post is a perfect example.

In it you are confused between the urge to apologize and the need to do battle.  And all along you've been doing this instead of listening and learning.

Why don't you just leave the defensive and combative things unsaid?  This forum isn't your best venue for indulging them.
.


----------



## cuchuflete

foxfirebrand said:


> I'm voting with the minority here-- they're interchangeable.  "Must" is a little more formal or old-world, but the meaning is still identical with "have to."
> .


 I'm not voting...polls like this are meaningless.  The "universe" of potential voters is not representative of anything more than those who read this thread.

There is a potentially slight difference in formality, but I agree with Fox that the meaning is identical.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

My humble opinion, although not requested:
I (as a non native English speaker) find WR extremely useful and unique because I get the chance to learn from you (native English speakers) not only grammar rules (also supplied by a lot of grammars books), but  most of all how English is actually spoken all around the world.
For this reason, if most of you suggest that _must_ and _have to_ are very often interchangeable, that's how I'm going to consider them from now on.
However, I can see virr2's point: many grammars, especially if written for foreigner students, tend to make a distinction between these two forms and advice to bear in mind all the possible different usages.


----------



## cuchuflete

virr2 said:


> In Polish, the use of exclamation mark at the end of a post/letter is a generally considered impolite.
> 
> Virr



In a forum dedicated to discussion of the English language, one must wonder about the purpose of this bit of information.  Do we have to understand English by noting cultural habits in Slavic languages?   In English, the use of an exclamation mark at the end of a post or letter generally indicates the desire of the writer to give emphasis to a statement.  That statement may be endearing, sweet, tender, or intentionally sardonic.  The exclamation mark does not make it polite or otherwise!  I suspect that piles of grammar books will, must, and have to note that the purpose of said mark in English is to make a statement emphatic.

I suppose that the attraction of this thread to some native speakers of Polish is that it appears, according to the statement above, doubly impolite:



> *Re: Must or have to - modal verbs exercise - now with added POLL!!*


----------



## Porteño

One very important point that has not been raised is with regard to the negative - '*mustn't*' and '_*don't have to*_' where the meanings are the opposite; 'mustn't' meaning that it is prohibited - '_You *mustn't* smoke here_!' whereas 'don't have to' means there is no obligation - '_Children *don't have to* wear school uniforms nowadays_'.
In the positive too, while they are often interchangeable, there are many occasions when they are not, as have been mentioned in other threads.


----------



## gaer

Porteño said:


> One very important point that has not been raised is with regard to the negative - '*mustn't*' and '_*don't have to*_' where the meanings are the opposite; 'mustn't' meaning that it is prohibited - '_You *mustn't* smoke here_!' whereas 'don't have to' means there is no obligation - '_Children *don't have to* wear school uniforms nowadays_'.
> In the positive too, while they are often interchangeable, there are many occasions when they are not, as have been mentioned in other threads.


That's why I voted "no" for "must" and "have to" being totally interchangeable.

But it also shows why the poll itself is useless. The question itself is too vague. 

Gaer


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> In a forum dedicated to discussion of the English language, one must wonder about the purpose of this bit of information. Do we have to understand English by noting cultural habits in Slavic languages? In English, the use of an exclamation mark at the end of a post or letter generally indicates the desire of the writer to give emphasis to a statement. That statement may be endearing, sweet, tender, or intentionally sardonic. The exclamation mark does not make it polite or otherwise! I suspect that piles of grammar books will, must, and have to note that the purpose of said mark in English is to make a statement emphatic.
> 
> I suppose that the attraction of this thread to some native speakers of Polish is that it appears, according to the statement above, doubly impolite:


Do I hear the quiet crump of a petard hoisting a couple of !! in the direction of some strangely argumentative posts?

I must have seen it coming!
I have to know it is coming!
You must not listen well!
You have to know how to learn!

.,,


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Porteño said:


> '_Children *don't have to* wear school uniforms nowadays_'.



Would it be any different from "_Children *don't need to* wear school uniforms nowadays ?_


----------



## Opop

Could a little Frog try to give his proposal ? 

I would say that "have to" is used when it deals with a "moral obligation" or when it depends on a "moral responsability".

I would use "must" when an order is implied... 

Above all, I would say like Socrate: "I know that I do not know..."


----------



## Porteño

Opop said:


> Could a little Frog try to give his proposal ?
> 
> I would say that "have to" is used when it deals with a "moral obligation" or when it depends on a "moral respons*i*bility".
> 
> I would use "must" when an order is implied...
> 
> Above all, I would say like Socrate*s*: "I know that I do not know..."


 
Just a couple of glitches*!*

In general I would agree with that definition.


----------



## Porteño

Yes, Paul, it means exactly the same.

I don't have to go to school tomorrow.
I needn't go to school tomorrow.


----------



## cuchuflete

Opop said:


> I would say that "have to" is used when it deals with a "moral obligation" or when it depends on a "moral responsability".
> 
> I would use "must" when an order is implied...



I don't disagree with what you have said, but many uses of "have to" are not related to moral responsibilities:

_You have to eat something if you don't want to get hunger pangs.

You have to clean your shoes or take them off before coming into the house.

_Of course you could use 'must' in both those sentences, but the meaning does not change, only the tone.  The "have to" usage is colloquial.


----------



## Porteño

cuchuflete said:


> I don't disagree with what you have said, but many uses of "have to" are not related to moral responsibilities:
> 
> _You have to eat something if you don't want to get hunger pangs._
> 
> _You have to clean your shoes or take them off before coming into the house._
> 
> Of course you could use 'must' in both those sentences, but the meaning does not change, only the tone. The "have to" usage is colloquial.


 
But cuchuflete I think in both the examples you gave 'have to' is not the right expression to use, they should both use '*should*', the first one being a question of advice and the second a question of moral responsiiblity


----------



## jimreilly

Please, spare us the polls! Especially when they ask us to make a false choice.

I have to agree with others that "must" and "have to" are very often, but not always, interchangeable.

And I must say that it makes me uncomfortable when students of English are asked to make choices on the basis of "rules" which do not exist for most native speakers of English; this is certainly not the fault of the students who are put in such an unfortunate position! I know the Forum exists to help people answer questions, and no one wants to see anyone fail to pass an exam--but there is also a responsibility to tell the truth about the way the English is actually used.


----------



## mirx

Must and have to, are not always interchangable but most of us do use them interchangebly. I am sure that I usually don't use must, unless I'm quoting a rule or regulation. However I have noticed that foreing students tend to use Must more often than have to, even though they may be interchangable it stills sounds somehow wierd to me when i hear them say, "You must tell me, what you think" or "I must go to the store", "I must clean my room".

Feels like if I were in a XVIII theater play.

Most of us agree that they can be interchangable but I also think that most poeple would prefer have to instead of must, obviously with the exceptions of compund tenses. *She must have been late*.


----------



## .   1

Porteño said:


> But cuchuflete I think in both the examples you gave 'have to' is not the right expression to use, they should both use '*should*', the first one being a question of advice and the second a question of moral responsiiblity


The concept of moral responsibility has no connection with either must or have to or should.  
Such words when relating to moral responsibilities require context.

Neither of cuchuflete's examples have anything to do with moral responsibility.

.,,


----------



## Iona

- in my Michael Swann grammar book it says that *must* expresses the feelings and wishes of the speaker/hearer and *have to* expresses obligations that come from elsewhere -I suppose this means that  a British child will say 'I *have to* wear a uniform to school' it means that the obligation comes from elsewhere ... 'I *must* clean the carpet ,it's filthy ' -indicates that this is your own wish..or let's say a personal obligation !In a nutshell I think it's true that they can be interchangeable but that it's a  question of nuance i.e how the speaker feels in a given situation - I *have to* visit my mother-in-law (obligation from the family in-law)I *must*  visit my mother-in-law (personal obligation) the listener maybe understands the nuance  without actually realising it ...hope this makes sense ..I am a native speaker who cannot find her glasses so my typing might not be tip-top this morning!(sorry about the exclamation mark -I'm feeling flippant !)


----------



## Porteño

Hi! mirx,

You may find those phrases using 'must' rather wierd but in fact they are perfectly acceptable and very common (see Iona's thread). 'You must tell me' is very often used between gossiping ladies as a form of emphasis, especially when there is a hint of scandal.

Hi! ... I would be interested to know how you would define moral responsibility and why you feel there is a need for more context to apply 'should', 'must' and 'have to' to that concept.


----------



## gaer

Iona said:


> - in my Michael Swann grammar book it says that *must* expresses the feelings and wishes of the speaker/hearer and *have to* expresses obligations that come from elsewhere[…]


I think those rules are going to break down in many situations.

1) In speech, tone of voice, gestures and facial expressions are far more important than the choice of "must" vs."have to".

If I say, "I must remember to do that," it might be very thoughtful. I might raise an eyebrow and stroke my chin, almost whispering to myself.

If I say, "I *have to* remember to do that!" then I'm expressing something very important.

The difference is in the sound and my intention, not the wording.

2) The moment tense changes, "must" is no longer possible.


> 'I *have to* wear a uniform to school' it means that the obligation comes from elsewhere ...


Put it in past tense: 

'I *had to* wear a uniform to school' [must won't work]


> 'I *must* clean the carpet,it's filthy ' -indicates that this is your own wish..


Again, put it in past tense:

"I had to clean the carpet,it was filthy."

Or future:

"I will have to clean the carpet, it is filthy."

Again, "must" won't work because there is no past or future tense, no subjunctive form. This makes "must" a very strange modal verb, and this weirdness is peculiar to English. Other modal verbs (can for instance) have a past tense/subjuntive form (could), but even there future has to be formed with "will be able to".

3) There are idioms in which "have to" will work. I'm not sure if there are examples in which only "must" will work. Can you think of any?

"You either have to laugh or cry. I prefer to laugh."

By the way, I think this applies to the result of trying to find logical, convenient rules for English grammar. 

Gaer


----------



## cuchuflete

Porteño said:


> But cuchuflete I think in both the examples you gave 'have to' is not the right expression to use, they should both use '*should*', the first one being a question of advice and the second a question of moral responsiiblity



Hi Porteño,
We have an honest disagreement.  I hear echoes of my mother, and the mothers of all my childhood friends, asking us rowdy, muddy boys to avoid tracking mud on the newly cleaned floors.  That's a common sense request, and a parental imperative.  To impute moral responsibility to it is a bit of a stretch from the mundane to the ethereal.  

Perhaps other moms tell their charging, muddy six year olds that they "should" do something.  I won't generalize about the way mothers speak--that would be silly.   As to your flat declaration that both sentences "should" use "should", I ask you if that directive is moral, imperative, or a personal stylistic choice.  

"Should" might work in either sentence, but the meaning would not be the same as with the other two options we are discussing.  The same is true of "ought to", "ought to consider" and a few other expressions.  Digressions from "have to" and "must" should be saved, I think, for another thread.


----------



## Porteño

Good morning, cuchuflete,

When I suggested that your phrases would have been better with 'should' I was not considering them as direct orders, but rather things that ought to be done in general. 

With regard to the first one, I still hold that the only modal that could be used is 'should', but in the second case, if we are talking from the mother's point of view, the verb could only be 'must' in her directive. If she is talking to another mother about how she deals with the problem of muddy feet, then she would probably use 'have to'.

_In my home the children *have to* take off their shoes before coming inside.'_

However, if one of the mother's children is talking to one of his friends to alert him to the rules of the household, then he would use 'to have to' or maybe 'must'.

'_Hey, Bill, remember you *have to/must* take your shoes off when we go inside, otherwise Mum will kill you!'_

Reviewing the matter from the question of moral or other responsibility, perhaps I strayed off the mark (it was about 2 a.m.), and on reflection I think that it does not enter into the discussion of these phrases at all. My aplogies for having been rather dictatorial.


----------



## suzi br

gaer said:


> By the way, I think this applies to the result of trying to find logical, convenient rules for English grammar.
> 
> Gaer


 
I must agree with you! (punctuation NOT used in a Polish sense!) This is, after all, the problem with tricky things like modals, they DO NOT respond well to narrow definitions. 

 As a teacher of native speakers I often give them a list of modal verbs and set them the task of articulating the differences.  They find it very challenging, although they will use them on daily basis without a second thought.


----------



## Iona

The examples I gave were for the present simple only as  must does not exist in the past /future/present perfect etc and 'have to' is used instead, so the 'must' 'have to' debate is no longer valid...


----------



## gaer

Iona said:


> The examples I gave were for the present simple only as must does not exist in the past /future/present perfect etc and 'have to' is used instead, so the 'must' 'have to' debate is no longer valid...


But of course it is valid. You are trying to restrict arbitrary, illogical and pedantic rules to one tense. The fact that the narrow definitions presented here can't be applied in the past or in the future points out just how ridiculous these rules are.


----------



## gaer

suzi br said:


> I must agree with you! (punctuation NOT used in a Polish sense!) This is, after all, the problem with tricky things like modals, they DO NOT respond well to narrow definitions.
> 
> As a teacher of native speakers I often give them a list of modal verbs and set them the task of articulating the differences. They find it very challenging, although they will use them on daily basis without a second thought.


I could not agree with you more. 

Gaer


----------



## Edgardg

gaer said:


> But of course it is valid. You are trying to restrict arbitrary, illogical and pedantic rules to one tense. The fact that the narrow definitions presented here can't be applied in the past or in the future points out just how ridiculous these rules are.



 I've never heard any native (no matter of what language) say that some rules of his/her language are ridiculous. But I think that the emoticon suggests that you're joking . Anyway I would like to thank Majlo for starting this thread because after analysing all your responses, it seems that there is a difference in terms of subjective vs objective. Although some of you claimed that you use *have to/must* interchangeably, some said that there are external or internal factors involved (or maybe I overanalysed it  ) My teachers taught me that there is deontic, epistemic *must *and epistemically there is a little difference between *must* and *have to*.Deontic *have* isn't strong, while *must* is and that's why we often can hear a sentence like "He must be at home now." My teacher told us that if you are attentive to nuances and shades of meaning, *must/have to* are not so easily interchangeable, especially in writing. Of course the biggest difference is  the fact that  *must *doesn't appear in future  and past. 

Your posts taught me that people may feel different things about the modals, some see differences, some don't. However, no one should categorically say that there is no difference, and if they say so, they should add "to me".


----------



## foxfirebrand

Edgardg said:


> I've never heard any native (no matter of what language) say that some rules of his/her language are ridiculous.


1. No other language changes as fast as English-- we view change in a positive way, almost as though it were essential to the vitality of the language.

2. We don't *have* rules.  We have never had an Academy.  There is a miscellany of self-appointed rules-makers, usually professors at universities, people whose peers speak a language very different from the part of the population that works instead of living out their lives as scholars.  All of these language and linguistics profs have studied ancient languages, and have developed a reverence for the complex structure of these now-defunct tongues, and their amenability to expressing exquisite distinctions of the sort people with hurried lives don't have to make.

The academicians sometimes go beyond descriptive grammatical rules and indulge their yearning to "mold" English into a more orderly language.  Their attempts sometimes get out of hand, even though the student populations lorded over by such people are constrained to adopt their "rules."  Often, these student types do so in order to distinguish themselves from the "uneducated," who of course do just fine without them.

3. The political development of English-speaking peoples has been one of inventing and field-testing a democratic tradition that goes back to the 17th century.  We take pride in breaking our ties with the authoritarian models of Medieval times, and the Classic "golden age" prior to that.  This aversion to authority comes out in our attitude toward rules.

Would-be Academicians, it must be said, sometimes show a contempt for this tradition, and yearn for a time when people like themselves laid down the law.  Well, some of them ignore the part the accident of birth played in the old days-- the say-so wasn't exactly the birthright of the intelligentsia, after all.

4.  Rulebooks don't change when popular usage does, so the older they are, the less descriptive they are of English the way it is actually spoken.  So rules don't gain authority as they age, they tend to lose it.

And any posture of authority that is "out of touch with reality" will warrant ridicule.

I realize that rules are useful for learning a new language, but in English they pose problems, once you have mastered the basic ones and have progressed to a the study of idomatic usage and the evolution of colloquialisms into "standard" forms.
.


----------



## jimreilly

I'm with _foxfirebrand_. The "rules" are descriptive and they can certainly help someone learn a language. The thing they describe--the language--is changing every day. Yes, that's confusing, frustrating, and subversive of authority, and all the more interesting for being those things.

Other languages change too. Try to pin down the rules about French liaison, for example! Even if one could completely and accurately describe French liaison today, it would be different than it was 100 years ago. What's one to do? Speak the way people spoke 100 years ago, based on a rule book from that time? 

It'a also worth noting that while rule-bound education and the upper classes often walk hand in hand to the altar of a permanent relationship, creativity promiscuously strolls where it will with just about anyone. Sometimes the children born of such relationships are slang, new vocabulary, rude language, and other "undesirables", but that is one of the reasons the population (i.e. the number of words in the English language) is so high!

So....my sympathy to all English students the world over who have to put up with this!


----------



## gaer

Edgardg said:


> I've never heard any native (no matter of what language) say that some rules of his/her language are ridiculous. But I think that the emoticon suggests that you're joking.


Yes and no. In this case, I think some of the rules that have been stated here _are_ ridiculous because, as always, specific individuals have attempted to tell other people what is and is not correct English when these same rules, in my opinion, do not correspond to usage, according to my experience.

It is the inflexibility of the rules and the willingness of some people to follow them blindly that is ridiculous to me.

There is a great deal of difference between expressing preference in terms of style, which I think is always fine, and attempting to enforce rules through rigid grammar handbooks and tests that reflect those handbooks. Let me tell you what I do think has merit.


> _My teacher told us that if you are attentive to nuances and shades of meaning, *must/have to* are not so easily interchangeable, especially in writing._


What is important here? Be attentive! Pay attention! Read, read, read. Note which books are written by writers from the UK, from the US, from Australia, from India. Examine every sentence you see with "must" or with "have to". Make up your own mind.

I promise you that you will find variation from author to author and from country to country. It is up to you, as a thinker, to observe who writes in a manner that most appeals to you personally, and as you continue to read, study and express yourself, your views or preferences may change. That is fine too.

I believe, for instance, that at least many UK (specifically English) authors use "must" in a way slightly different from US authors. I'm basing this opinion on a lifetime of reading and careful observation. Rather than continuing to engage in an argument that I think is circular and therefore leading nowhere, why not find examples? Pick ten of your favorite authors and see if you are able to discern a difference in usage based on country and on the time in which they wrote (or are currently writing).

I could immediately mention at least 50 minor difference I have discovered between the writing of English and US authors, but listing them would take too much space and would be entirely off topic. 


> However, no one should categorically say that there is no difference, and if they say so, they should add "to me".


For the record, I said that I think there ARE differences, and of course what I am saying here is my opinion. Furthermore, I believe that the differences are so subtle as to defy thorough analysis.

Gaer


----------



## .   1

gaer said:


> It is the inflexibility of the rules and the willingness of some people to follow them blindly that is ridiculous to me.
> 
> For the record, I said that I think there ARE differences, and of course what I am saying here is my opinion. Furthermore, I believe that the differences are so subtle as to defy thorough analysis.
> 
> Gaer


Something worth saying well said.
I must have missed out on the lesson showing what I must have to know to show have to and must are different at all.

.,,


----------



## foxfirebrand

Hear hear, gaer.

Let's explode this subject a little by introducing the negative form and past tense.  We'll find idiom emerging as an incontrovertible force here.

Must do (obligation) = have to do (obligation)

Must not do (obligation, probability)

"You mustn't do that" (prohibitive)
"You don't have to do that"  (permissive)

Here they mean the opposite!  "You mustn't" means you have to avoid an action, "you don't have to" means you _can_ avoid.

"You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" doesn't mean you are forbidden to be a weatherman.

"You don't have to come here" means you are free to avoid the place.
"You must not come here (very often)" is a supposition of simple probability, nothing to do with obligation.

You must be free, white, male and 21 to vote. (restrictive obligation, but a little obsolete)

One thing I can tell you is you have to be free.  (libertarian exhortation, and timeless)
.


----------



## Iona

gaer said:


> But of course it is valid. You are trying to restrict arbitrary, illogical and pedantic rules to one tense. The fact that the narrow definitions presented here can't be applied in the past or in the future points out just how ridiculous these rules are.


 
  Why the aggression ?  - I am sorry if I was unclear I shall put it another way ..I merely meant that as the word must   does not exist in the future or past  because must as a  sense of obligation converts to have to in other tenses e.g 'I'll have to' ,'I'm going to have to', 'I've had to' or 'I had to' - the have to /must debate is no longer valid (in future and past)I am however open for correction  but please -  I am allowed to voice an opinion surely ..moreover, dare I say it  I believe grammar books are necessary ( and not all written by pedants)because grammar rules do exist, in written and speaking forms.I also believe that must and have to in the examples originally given (present simple) are not interchangeable and for me it is a question of how a situation is seen /felt by the speaker that we subconsciously decide which of the two we use.


----------



## Edgardg

I just wanted to put in my two cents.
   Foxfirebrand, how do you know that English is the fastest growing language?  There are about (according to some sources) 6, 500 languages in the world. Are there any statistics? While some say that English is _probably_ the fastest growing language in the world, others claim that it is Spanish.

   Since you have no “Academy of English” there is much more – I guess – uncertainty than flexibility. As there is no “authority” to appeal to you must rely on custom rather than on personal preferences. Any language is a breathing thing, it evolved with time, but even though it’s not an arbitrary system. I wouldn’t say that the academicians “go beyond descriptive grammatical rules and indulge their yearning to "mold" English into a more orderly language”, to me they use a language shaped by historic growth.


----------



## foxfirebrand

By "fastest growing" I don't really mean that more people are learning English than Spanish, but that English grows no matter who speaks it-- gains vocabulary in particular, but also expands its grammar to accommodate all the new "stuff" there is, and all the new things there are to do with it.

Are the billion or so (apiece) in China and India (to name two examples) learning Spanish?

My statement was a leap of faith I have no qualms about making-- but it also conforms to a lifetime of observations I've made about the language.

And I admit being a protagonist in the active propagation of English, when and wherever I can-- an English-language chauvinist if you will.  So my observations are anything but objective-- but are they incorrect?
.


----------



## Iona

Hello Foxfirebrand
Are you talking in terms of the quantity of English speakers or how adaptable English is ? your answer to Edgardg is unclear (to me) I would just like to add that learning Japanese and Chinese is becoming more and more popular in Europe (I can't speak for other areas in the world) so it's not just a question of Chinese and Japanese learning English (or Spanish ) it's becoming a two-way thing ... and why not ?


----------



## panjandrum

As this thread appears to be searching for (and finding) things to talk about that are not related to must or have to, I think it is appropriate to draw it to a close.


----------

