about grammar have/has to and must

[hakancan06]

hello I'm an English teacher in Turkiye .we have some trouble about teaching the difference between have/has to and must. In some of the grammar book they say 'when we are talking about written rules we use must' in some of them they say 'have to' i also think that there isn't very much difference between them am I right?

[Johan[@CLT]]

Originally Posted by hakancan06

hello I'm an English teacher in Turkiye .we have some trouble about teaching the difference between have/has to and must. In some of the grammar book they say 'when we are talking about written rules we use must' in some of them they say 'have to' i also think that there isn't very much difference between them am I right?

The thing that my teachers taught me on this subject is; That must is the strongest here, so it is stronger than have to.
eg: You have to see that movie, it's really good !
eg: You must see that movie, it's really good ! This sentence is more strong than the one with have. With must you almost oblige the other person to go see that movie and it also points out that the movie really is a must-see movie, that it is a masterpiece.
They also taught me that, you have to be aware of the usage of must because people (native English speaking) can feel offended by it as well, although you don't mean it of course.

eg: When somebody has a toothache, you can say: Well, then you have to go to the dentist.

eg: with must: Well, then you must go to the dentist.

For as far as I'm concerned I would go for the have to here, because at the end you can't oblige somebody to go to the dentist. So, the other person might feel offended by it as well.


Kind Regards

[Tdol]

Very often they can be used interchangeably. 'Must' is regarded, as Johan says, as stronger- used for absolutes. Also, some people distinguish between the source of authority:
You must do it (I am the authority)
You have to do it (I am not the authority, but am teling you about an obligation)