[General] have to arrive = have got to arrive

[vil]

Dear teachers,

There are three sentences from a guided practice for speaking English concerning the matter with “expressing obligation”:

You must arrive here no later than 5 o'clock.
You have to arrive here no later than 5 o'clock.
You have got to arrive here no later than 5 o'clock.

Would you be kind enough to tell me whether there is something wrong in the third sentence?

I know that “get to” = “arrive at”. In that case there is 100% an availability of redundance or to be more precise- a striking tautalogy.

It goes without saying that I know the rule that in colloquial English and especially in American English “have got + Infinitive” is often used in the same meaning as “have + Infinitive”.

“Well, we’ve got to do it” said Val.

Okay, we’ll beat them to it. Dick’ we’ve got to keep awake, we’ve got to watch things and be ready.

There is a tendency in Modern English to use “got + Infinitive” in the same meaning:

You can smile away till you split your cheecks, but you still got to do a day’s work to earn a day’s wages, and apples don’t grow on monkey-trees.

Thank you for your efforts.

Regards,

V.

[bhaisahab]

Vil, I hate the use of 'got' in that fashion, as you correctly say 'You have got to arrive.' and 'You have to arrive.' mean exactly the same. 'Got' is redundant.

[abaka]

I think the various verbs of obligation can be summarized as follows. I'll put them in a direct address (pronoun "you"), but the meaning is largely the same if the pronoun is "I", "he", "she", "it", or "they".

Commands:

You shall do it <-- Command to do something, a kind of imperative, extremely cold and formal, probably affected. Can be issued both by those who have the power to command and those who do not. Don't use it.

You will do it <-- A command to do it (and originally a command for you to want to do it). Issued by those who have the power to command: parents, teachers, military officers. Quite rude, in fact.

Statements of fact:

You are to do it

You must do it <--- You are required to do it, not necessarily a command. None of these necessarily carry any emotional or moral overtones, or necessarily hint directly at the consequences of failing to act. "Are to" is stronger than "must", which is stronger than "should".

You should do it <--- Weaker. The ultimate choice is yours.

Note that the negative of everything above is still a requirement NOT to do it

Statements with moral overtones or other implications:

You have got to do it, usually contracted you've got to or even you gotta (informal conversation only); illiterately you got to and negated you don't got to. Proper negative "haven't got to" is not very common. <--- reasonably strong. You are required to do it, because there may be potentially bad consequences if you do not. "got" is an intensifier. More suited for conversation.

You have to do it <--- Like "have got to"; but without the "got", very slightly weaker. Better in writing than "have got to". Usual negative in American/Canadian English is "do not have to".

You ought to do it <--- Weaker. It would be better to do it (for moral reasons), but the ultimate choice is yours.

For the last three, the negative form means full freedom of action: there is no requirement to do anything.

[2006]

Originally Posted by abaka

commands:


you have got to do it, usually contracted you've got to or even you gotta (informal conversation only); illiterately spelled you got to and negated you don't got to <--- reasonably strong. You are required to do it, because there may be potentially bad consequences if you do not. "got" is an intensifier.

you have to do it <--- weaker. It would be better to do it (for whatever reason), but the ultimate choice may be yours.
i don't agree at all! The description directly above is that of 'should' and 'ought to'.
and i agree with bhaisahab that "got" should not be used with 'have to'.

you ought to do it <--- weakest of all. The imperative to act is purely moral.

2006

[abaka]

Sorry, you're right. I moved the verbs around a bit and forgot to move the descriptions properly. Will change.

"Have got" in the contracted form "'ve got" is used so commonly that I would never proscribe it. You're right that "have" without the "got" is more literary, while "have got" is conversational.