# tener que = must/have to



## miguel07

¿En estos casos *must/have to* son intercambiables?
-*Tienes que abrir eso.* (You must open that)
_indica una obligación que ha dado una persona externa _
_  uso de 'have to'_

-*Tienes que volver antes de las 11.* (You must be back before by 11)
_  alguién dió una orden para que vuelva antes de las 11_
_  obligacion externa---uso de have to_

_Lo que aprendí es que cuando la orden lo da una persona externa,norma o ley debe usarse 'have to'.Thank friends!_


----------



## unicito

En Ingles hablado creo que si se pueden intercambiar talvez para escrito no.


----------



## softouch_me

MUST es deber...
HAVE es tener...


----------



## bmxican47

Creo que aquí se ve una de las diferencias entre el inglés americano y el de reino unido. En general se prefiere el uso de "must" en el británico, mientras se emplearía el "have'' en USA. De mi modo de ver son completamente intercambiables las dos palabras.


----------



## NewdestinyX

miguel07 said:


> ¿En estos casos *must/have to* son intercambiables?
> -*Tienes que abrir eso.* (You must open that)
> _indica una obligación que ha dado una persona externa _
> _  uso de 'have to'_
> 
> -*Tienes que volver antes de las 11.* (You must be back before by 11)
> _  alguién dió una orden para que vuelva antes de las 11_
> _  obligacion externa---uso de have to_
> 
> _Lo que aprendí es que cuando la orden lo da una persona externa,norma o ley debe usarse 'have to'.Thank friends!_



Son casi intercambiables en inglés. "Must" es un poco más internal -- un sentido de 'deber' y un poco menos de 'obligación'. 

*tener que* = have to; have/has got to

* debo* = I must 
* debería/debiera* - I should
* deberé *= I should
* debía/debí* = I should have + participio pasado/I needed to
..*que deba* = ...that I should
..*que debiera* = ...that I should have/...that I needed to/...that I would need to


----------



## NewdestinyX

softouch_me said:


> MUST es deber...
> HAVE es tener...



Es un poco más difícil que eso. "Must" solo es «deber» en el presente.


----------



## bmxican47

Coincido totalmente con lo que has dicho sobre la traducción de "tener que" y "deber" al inglés. Lo has pillado perfectamente. ¿Qué opinas respecto a lo que he dicho sobre "must"? Me da que se usa menos en el inglés hablado de la USA. Por ejemplo, yo nunca diría algo como ... you mustn't go in there... de hecho, ni sé si así se escribe. Me suena británico.


----------



## miguel07

ah ok!...Yo pensé que me ivan a contestar que 'a' y 'b' sólo se deben usar con ''must'' porque así la orden la dea una persona externa no está especificada o algo por el estilo.Resumiendo entonces si son intercambiables tendría que ser solamente en el 'presente simple' y justamente en este tiempo olvidarme de las diferencias de obligación externa y porque uno quiere hacerlo y así expresarme como si lo haría en español. 
it is right? Thank friends!


----------



## NewdestinyX

bmxican47 said:


> Coincido totalmente con lo que has dicho sobre la traducción de "tener que" y "deber" al inglés. Lo has pillado perfectamente. ¿Qué opinas respecto a lo que he dicho sobre "must"? Me da que se usa menos en el inglés hablado de la USA. Por ejemplo, yo nunca diría algo como ... you mustn't go in there... de hecho, ni sé si así se escribe. Me suena británico.



Sí, sí -- totalmente de acuerdo. Suena más británico lo de "mustn't" y de "must" por lo general. Pero sí hay casos en los que "must" es tan fuerte como "have to" y sí se usa en el inlgés de EE.UU. también.


----------



## NewdestinyX

miguel07 said:


> ah ok!...Yo pensé que me ivan iban a contestar que 'a' y 'b' sólo se deben usar con ''must'' porque así la orden la dea (dea ????) una persona externa no está especificada o algo por el estilo. Resumiendo entonces si son intercambiables tendría que ser solamente en el 'presente simple' y justamente en este tiempo olvidarme (olvidarme ?????) de las diferencias de obligación externa y porque uno quiere hacerlo y así expresarme como si lo haría en español.
> it is right? Thank friends!



Lo siento mucho, Miguel. No entiendo tu pregunta. Creo que entiendo tu español pero no la pregunta. Por favor pregúntame en una manera diferente.


----------



## geostan

bmxican47 said:


> Coincido totalmente con lo que has dicho sobre la traducción de "tener que" y "deber" al inglés. Lo has pillado perfectamente. ¿Qué opinas respecto a lo que he dicho sobre "must"? Me da que se usa menos en el inglés hablado de la USA. Por ejemplo, yo nunca diría algo como ... you mustn't go in there... de hecho, ni sé si así se escribe. Me suena británico.



What would you say? "You are not allowed to go in there?"  I find nothing odd about "You mustn't go in there."

Cheers!


----------



## stooge1970

bmxican47 said:


> Coincido totalmente con lo que has dicho sobre la traducción de "tener que" y "deber" al inglés. Lo has pillado perfectamente. ¿Qué opinas respecto a lo que he dicho sobre "must"? Me da que se usa menos en el inglés hablado de la USA. Por ejemplo, yo nunca diría algo como ... you mustn't go in there... de hecho, ni sé si así se escribe. Me suena británico.



 Estoy de acuerdo contigo, nunca empleo “must” en el presente porque me suena muy británico y formal.  Nada más quería resaltar que los americanos empleamos “must” muy frecuentemente en tales casos (y sí, ya sé que no has dicho nada acerca del uso de “must” en todos casos, así que no te estoy corrigiendo para nada):  

  They must have left early/Se debieron haber ido temprano. 
  They had to have left early = _menos frecuente_

  They must have eaten everything/Se debieron haber comido todo.
  They had to have eaten everything = _menos frecuente_

  Saludos.


----------



## stooge1970

geostan said:


> What would you say? "You are not allowed to go in there?"  I find nothing odd about "You mustn't go in there."
> 
> Cheers!



It sounds really odd to me, albeit perfectly comprehensible and grammatically correct. I would say "You can't go in there" (I guess it would technically be more correct to say "You may not go in there" but that's not how we generally speak) or "You're not allowed to go in there".

Perhaps it's more of an American thing than a North American thing.


----------



## bmxican47

Obviamente depende del contexto, pero me parece más natural decir...

You can´t go in there. 

o

One should not go in there.

Como dijo otro compañero la primera opción es poco formal. La segunda, para mi, es muy formal y no la diría nunca, pero sí que la escribiría. Interesante tema.


----------



## NewdestinyX

geostan said:


> What would you say? "You are not allowed to go in there?"  I find nothing odd about "You mustn't go in there."
> 
> Cheers!



"You shouldn't go in there" is the most common in America. We don't use "mustn't" usually. Do you? If you want the stronger voicing of "mustn't" then use: "You can't go in there"


----------



## hfpardue

NewdestinyX said:


> Son casi intercambiables en inglés. "Must" es un poco más internal -- un sentido de 'deber' y un poco menos de 'obligación'.
> 
> *tener que* = have to; have/has got to
> 
> *debo* = I must
> *debería/debiera* - I should
> *deberé *= I should
> *debía/debí* = I should have + participio pasado/I needed to
> ..*que deba* = ...that I should
> ..*que debiera* = ...that I should have/...that I needed to/...that I would need to


 
No, no, no. This is not correct.

*Debo = I must / I have to / OR I should. It all depends on the context. A lot of Spanish speakers say "debo" and they are not saying "tengo que...", they are saying "should". This depends completely on context. Debería is not common in many countries. It is understandable and correct, but you may hear "debo" much more often with the meaning of "I should".*
*Deberé = I will have to... This does not mean should by any means.*
*Deberé estudiar para aprobar el examen. = I will have to / NOT SHOULD/ study in order to pass the test.*
*debía/debí = I should have OR I should. Me dije que debía trabajar duro. = I told myself that I SHOULD work hard.*


----------



## geostan

NewdestinyX said:


> "You shouldn't go in there" is the most common in America. We don't use "mustn't" usually. Do you? If you want the stronger voicing of "mustn't" then use: "You can't go in there"



Several alternatives have been posted to replace "mustn't," but none of them is as forceful. I would use any or all of them, but I would also use the form "mustn't."


----------



## NewdestinyX

hfpardue said:


> No, no, no. This is not correct.
> 
> *Debo = I must / I have to / OR I should. It all depends on the context. A lot of Spanish speakers say "debo" and they are not saying "tengo que...", they are saying "should". This depends completely on context. Debería is not common in many countries. It is understandable and correct, but you may hear "debo" much more often with the meaning of "I should".*
> *Deberé = I will have to... This does not mean should by any means.*
> *Deberé estudiar para aprobar el examen. = I will have to / NOT SHOULD/ study in order to pass the test.*
> *debía/debí = I should have OR I should. Me dije que debía trabajar duro. = I told myself that I SHOULD work hard.*



Hola Hf,
I'm sorry to disagree. I have been studying DEBER a very long time and discussing its use with natives on many message boards. And my translations match their experience as bilinguals and my own and are also supported in several grammars I have -- not to mention time I spend weekly speaking the language with natives and writing it. 

What you've asserted is not entirely wrong. Debo -- indeed is often a soft 'should' in the present -- but it is just as often 'must' and pretty strong. If you read the first 40 or so entries in any Google search of DEBO + anything you'll see what I'm saying is correct. But you're wrong in several places:

1) when you assert that "debería" is uncommon. That is completely false and I'd like to know where you got that notion. It's totally wrong. "Debería" is the most common 'go to' for what English would use as 'should'.

2) "Deber" always refers to an "internal sense of duty" with little if any outside obligation or pressure and therefore your translation for 'deberé' is also not accurate. "Have to", in English, expresses an outside obligation or pressure to do something and is 'tener que' in Spanish and never 'deber'. Now if you want a more purely 'future' wording for 'deberé' and I understand your desire for accuracy in translation -- I share that passion with you -- you could say: I will need to.. and that would still refer to an internal sense of duty.  But "I will *have* to" is "tendré que" in Spanish. "Should" is also toward future in English and translates 'deberé' just fine.

3) Now, in everyday speech in English we say Should for present and future -- but not past. The modal verb 'should' in English is defective and cannot transmit into the past without 'have'. That's why I can't accept your example for 'debía' as "should" either.

So in conclusion I do agree with you that 'deber' in the present can often be 'should' in the present. I don't usually present that as common as it is and I should. So I accept your correction there. I think it confuses students of English and that's why I left it out to this English learner. 

But Deberé is not "I will have to" which is "Tendré que". And Debería is by no means uncommon. Add in your example with debía, the proper English can only be, "I told myself that I should have worked". In "I told myself I should work" -- you are saying that you should work in the future or in the present. "Should" can only refer to the present or future, never the past. This is verifiable in American Heritage Modern English Usage and other grammars you can look up.

If you have some sources to support your translations I'd love to read them. Here's the RAE's definition of 'deber' :
As you can see in several instances there are even obligations pulling toward 'tener que' but not going all the way there.

*deber**1**.* (Del lat. _debēre_).
* 1.     * tr. Estar obligado a algo por la ley divina, natural o positiva. U. t. c. prnl. _Deberse a la patria._
* 2.     * tr. Tener obligación de corresponder a alguien en lo moral.
* 3.     * tr. Cumplir obligaciones nacidas de respeto, gratitud u otros motivos.
* 4.     * tr. *adeudar*      (‖ tener una deuda material con alguien). _Pedro debe mil pesetas a Juan._
* 5.     * tr. Tener por causa, ser consecuencia de. U. t. c. prnl. _La escasez de los pastos se debe a la sequía._
* 6.     * tr. U. como auxiliar en las perífrasis, en las que añade una nota de inseguridad o probabilidad al verbo principal. _Debe __DE__ hacer frío._ _Debieron __DE__ salir a pelear._

Regards,
Grant


----------



## hfpardue

I will not argue with you. Your explanation proves that you have spent no significant amount of time in any Spanish speaking country. Go to Mexico and say "deberia". Tell me how often you hear it from a Mexican. I'm saying it depends on context. You are consumed in your books and don't realize how the language is really spoken. Go to South America and Spain and you will wake up. Deber, its meaning, and its frequency vary considerably from country to country. The language is not as simple as a textbook. I challenge any Spanish native speaker to prove my translations wrong. Your Spanish is straight from message boards and the internet. Spend a few years abroad.


----------



## NewdestinyX

hfpardue said:


> I will not argue with you. Your explanation proves that you have spent no significant amount of time in any Spanish speaking country. Go to Mexico and say "deberia". Tell me how often you hear it from a Mexican. I'm saying it depends on context. You are consumed in your books and don't realize how the language is really spoken. Go to South America and Spain and you will wake up. Deber, its meaning, and its frequency vary considerably from country to country. The language is not as simple as a textbook. I challenge any Spanish native speaker to prove my translations wrong. Your Spanish is straight from message boards and the internet. Spend a few years abroad.



Please be careful how you speak to someone you don't know, Hf. I spend a little over a month and a half every year since 2000 in every major city in Spain with work I do there amongst professionals in the arts and education sectors. Additionally I work in recording studios in America and work with many Latin American musicians with whom I can speak naturally and comfortably. Granted not many of them are from Mexico. But they are from Cuba, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia. If you would like to assert that in Mexico you've noticed more 'debo' than 'debería' I will accept your experience. But I would ask you to not make assertions about me that aren't based in any truth or make assumptions about my level of skill and experience with Spanish. You don't know me.

Let's see what others say. We're both students. Let's keep learning.

Have a good day,
Grant


----------



## bmxican47

Dios ¡cómo se ha puesto esto! Mi opinión, por lo que valga, es que vosotros dos os lo habéis currado bien. Sólo quiero añadir que aquí en España (andalucía) se dice debería frecuentemente. Hasta diría yo que es más común que debo. A ver qué opinan nuestros compañeros del norte...


----------



## NewdestinyX

bmxican47 said:


> Dios ¡cómo se ha puesto esto! Mi opinión, por lo que valga, es que vosotros dos os lo habéis currado bien. Sólo quiero añadir que aquí en España (andalucía) se dice debería frecuentemente. Hasta diría yo que es más común que debo. A ver qué opinan nuestros compañeros del norte...



Mi trabajo en España es más en el centro y norte; Madrid, León, Zaragoza, Santander, Xátiva y también oigo más 'debería' que 'debo' -- pero debo también es común. Pero España es solo un país.

Grant


----------



## stooge1970

hfpardue said:


> I will not argue with you. Your explanation proves that you have spent no significant amount of time in any Spanish speaking country. Go to Mexico and say "deberia". Tell me how often you hear it from a Mexican. I'm saying it depends on context. You are consumed in your books and don't realize how the language is really spoken. Go to South America and Spain and you will wake up. Deber, its meaning, and its frequency vary considerably from country to country. The language is not as simple as a textbook. I challenge any Spanish native speaker to prove my translations wrong. Your Spanish is straight from message boards and the internet. Spend a few years abroad.



 I've spent a significant amount of time in Spain, Mexico, and Nicaragua (and a bit in Costa Rica and Ecuador too), and I would not call “debería” uncommon. And even if you have found it to be uncommon in certain areas of some countries (the language varies greatly within countries too), there is no reason for such usage (infrequent employment of debería) to be more “correct” or “authentic” than a different usage (frequent employment of debería) from a certain Spanish-speaking area of the world that you haven’t visited. I guess if you were from Argentina you could argue that “tú” is actually uncommon but looking at the Spanish language as a whole you really wouldn’t be correct.  Since I don’t know you I have no idea which countries you have visited but I am assuming that you haven’t been to every single Spanish-speaking area of the world. However, it is possible, and I apologize if I am mistaken. Regardless, I don’t understand why you would be brash enough to challenge any native speaker to prove your translations wrong when you yourself have already admitted that meaning varies with location.

  Please, let’s try to keep this a friendly place.

  Saludos.


----------



## hfpardue

I am not saying that deberia is infrequent everywhere. I lived in Spain last year and it seemed like everyone said it. I loved it. It was an easy translation for should, and a correct one. I am just saying that the verb changes considerably from country to country and so does its meaning and usage. Think about this, "Ellos no trabajan como deben." They don't work as/like they should. That is the present indicative tense of deber and it translates to should. All I'm saying is that deber is not as simple as you originally put it. Your explanation was very good, but it needed some editing.  That's all.


----------



## NewdestinyX

hfpardue said:


> All I'm saying is that deber is not as simple as you originally put it. Your explanation was very good, but it needed some editing.  That's all.



And I graciously accepted your editing. You were very right to point out that 'debo' is also should. It was a very appropriate correction --- but if you look at your first post you said 'No, no, no -- that's not correct'. You threw the first punch at my 'whole' post.

And then you made several other translations in your post back to me that my experience tells me are inaccurate. You haven't addressed those to acknowledge you could be in error. You basically implied my whole post to the original poster was incorrect. That was overstated and it was offensive to me for you to posture the way you did. I tried to stay calm after the affront. You can read about 'should' being defective and unable to transmit the past without 'have' here: http://www.englishpage.com/modals/should.html

Regards, Hf,
Grant


----------



## bellotojuanfra

miguel07 said:


> ¿En estos casos *must/have to* son intercambiables?
> 
> Sometimes it doesn't matter which one you use, but there are some differences:
> 
> *Must: *I't's personal. We use must when we give our personal feelings
> "She is a really nice person. You must meet her"
> 
> *Have to: *It's impersonal. We use have to for facts, not four our personal feelings.
> "George can't come out with us this evening. He has to work"
> 
> Compare:
> 
> "I must get up early tomorrow. There are a lot of things i want to do".
> 
> "I have to get up early tomorrow. I'm going away and my train leaves at 7.30."
> 
> Saludos.


----------



## NewdestinyX

bellotojuanfra said:


> miguel07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ¿En estos casos *must/have to* son intercambiables?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it doesn't matter which one you use, but there are some differences:
> 
> *Must: *I't's personal. We use must when we give our personal feelings
> "She is a really nice person. You must meet her"
> 
> *Have to: *It's impersonal. We use have to for facts, not four our personal feelings.
> "George can't come out with us this evening. He has to work"
> 
> Compare:
> 
> "I must get up early tomorrow. There are a lot of things i want to do".
> 
> "I have to get up early tomorrow. I'm going away and my train leaves at 7.30."
> 
> Saludos.
Click to expand...


Nice explanation! I had never thought of it that way -- though in the strictest sense the other choice could work in both your sentences but I do agree that we cold tend toward must for the personal. Thanks!


----------



## softouch_me

Please guys is understable your points of view.. Do not take it personal.. Just enjoy the forum
if you  or any other one do not agree .. pass -- as We say in a game card
take care.....
Is almost the common in some of this discussions... 
Please let's try not to turn aside each other of the topic 
PEACE folks!!!


----------



## tandelol

I would never use "mustn't" in the following sentence:

"You guys shouldn't argue like this."

If someone's life depended on it, I'd say:

"You guys can't argue likes this."

"Mustn't" sounds very British to me.


----------



## NewdestinyX

tandelol said:


> I would never use "mustn't" in the following sentence:
> 
> "You guys shouldn't argue like this."
> 
> If someone's life depended on it, I'd say:
> 
> "You guys can't argue likes this."
> 
> "Mustn't" sounds very British to me.



I agree 100%. "Mustn't" (and for that matter "Needn't") are more British. Rarely heard in America from my vista.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Miguel,
After a great and exhausting interchange with Hfpardue in private messaging over the last 24 hours I am willing to make a couple revisions to my original translation list for you of 'deber' over into English. It's not a simple topic at all and I oversimplified it too much. So here is a new list which acknowledges the key points Hfpardue was also mentioning. Only on one point are we totally at odd. In English grammar 'should' is a defective verb (un verbo como 'soler' y 'acabar de' en español) which can be used to transmit the past tense without adding the auxiliary verb 'have'. Hf still maintains it can. English grammar sources say it can not.

So:
*tener que* = have to; have/has got to

* debo* = I must (si la transmisión es fuerte)/ I should (si la transmisión es solo un sentido de deber internal)
* debería/debiera* - I should
* deberé *= I should/I will need to/I will have to
* debía/debí* (cuando se refieren a un sentido de deber internal en el pasado)= I should have + participio pasado/I needed to
* debía *(cuando quiere decir 'debería' hacia el futuro) = I should
..*que deba* = ...that I should
..*que debiera* = ...that I should have/...that I needed to/...that I would need to

I hope that helps. 

Important interchange and I learned a lot. Thanks to all!

Regards,
Grant


----------

