must vs. have to

Status
Not open for further replies.

CarloSsS

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Czech
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
In grammar books, I read that "must" is most often used when the obligation comes from the speaker, while "have (got) to" is used when somebody else is the source of the obligation. However, listening to everyday AmE, I get the impression that native speakers (mostly AmE) don't differentiate between "must" and "have to" and use "have (got) to" most of the time whatever the source of the obligation. "Must" seems to be used mostly in formal contexts. Is that true? Do you see any differences between the following sentences? I don't differentiate between them much, and in normal speech I just use "have to" (I'm told most Americans do that too). I'm especially interested in AmE, but BrE point of view is welcomed too.

I have (got) to clean my bedroom. (somebody else wants me to?)
I must clean my bedroom. (I want to?)
(do you see any difference between the two above?)

Must you be making that noise? (formally "Do you have to be making that noise"?)
Romeo must die. (formally "there's a need for Romeo to be dead?")

Just to be clear, I have in mind the present or future affirmative meaning of "must" and "have to". I'm not talking about meanings like "I must have done it" or "I must not go there" etc.
 

abaka

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
I would say in the language I speak and hear daily there are three differences:

(1) In the affirmative, "must" is stronger than "have to".

(2) In the negative, "must not" denotes an obligation not to do something, while "does not have to" denotes an absence of obligation to do something, in other words leaves the choice free.

(3) The register of "must" is higher, more formal, than "have to", which should probably be avoided in formal writing. If you need something weaker than "must", say "ought to".

PS. All your sentences are correct. The last two do sound literary, very cultivated. In the first two the "must clean" is the stronger, as I have said. By the way, "have got to" is even more casual than "have to", and if you want to descend to illiteracy, you could, I suppose, omit the "have" and say "I got to". In this case the contraction "I gotta" actually seems less illiterate, for it clearly marks a careless pronunciation and little else.
 
Last edited:

CarloSsS

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Czech
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I would say in the language I speak and hear daily there are three differences:

(1) In the affirmative, "must" is stronger than "have to".

(2) In the negative, "must not" denotes an obligation not to do something, while "does not have to" denotes an absence of obligation to do something, in other words leaves the choice free.

(3) The register of "must" is higher, more formal, than "have to", which should probably be avoided in formal writing. If you need something weaker than "must", say "ought to".

Thank you. Please, could you (or somebody else) apply the logic (or their own logic) to the sentences I gave? What about the other things I asked, such as "I have to" = "Somebody else wants me to"? or "I must" = "I want to"?
 
Last edited:

abaka

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
I've added a postscript that answers some of your questions.

"I must" and "I have to" say nothing about who assigned the obligation.

"I am to" is a clear assignment given to you by someone else.

"I ought to" marks a moral obligation and therefore originates with you.

"I want to" and "I will" are not obligations, but desires. There's a difference. The second one is a desire you are going to take action on -- which is why it's the future tense.

"I shall" is a slightly old-fashioned way of stating an obligation that is going to be carried out, and is the other half of the English future tense.

PS "I would" and "I should" are the conditional, subjunctive, and past forms of "will" and "shall" respectively, and so have a weaker, less emphatic modal sense than "shall" and "will". Therefore "I should" is very close to "I ought", and "I would" can be a very soft way of saying "I want to".
 
Last edited:

CarloSsS

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Czech
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Thank you, that answers exactly what I wanted to know. That makes me wonder though, why some grammarians (like Swan or Murphy) say, that "must" means that the obligation is on the side of the speaker, while "have to" means that somebody else wants the speaker to do something. Does anybody have and idea why that is so? Did I misunderstand Swan and Murphy? Or is it because their point of view is a British one?
 

tzfujimino

Key Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
Hello.:-D

In the third edition (Practical English Usage - Michael Swan), on page 336, he says:
"In statements about obligation with must the obligation most often comes from the speaker (and in questions, from the hearer). To talk about an obligation that comes from 'outside' (for instance a regulation, or an order from somebody else), we usually prefer have to."
He also says:
"Have to can also be used to talk about obligation coming from the speaker or hearer, in the same way as must. This is normal in American English (which uses must less often in this sense), and is becoming very common in British English."
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
[FONT=&quot]Here is the BrE system as I see it:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A. ‘Must’ suggests an internally felt obligation/necessity, ‘have to’ an externally imposed one:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mother to son:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You must do your homework[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. (I say you must)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You have to do your homework[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. (Your teacher and/or your future success require this)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Swan and Murphy are British, which is why they say something similar.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Neither verb is inherently stronger or more formal than the other.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Three factors complicate the issue:

1. With first person 'I', people sometimes use 'have to' when there is in fact an inner necessity or self requirement. They do this to suggest that the requirement comes from an outside authority, in order to give the impression that they are reluctant to do what is required:

I have enjoyed talking to you, but I have to go.

2. Some people seem to switch in speech from one form to a stressed verison of the other in order to add emphasis. This is why you occasionally hear/see, "Must is stronger than have to" and "Have to is stronger than must". It's no wonder that learners are sometimes confused.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. The negative forms of the two verbs convey very clearly different messages, as abaka pointed out. This difference in meanings is not present in the affirmative.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. ‘Must’ has no past tense form. We frequently use ‘had to’ when one is required, blurring the difference in the present tense for some people.[/FONT]
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
Thank you, that answers exactly what I wanted to know. That makes me wonder though, why some grammarians (like Swan or Murphy) say, that "must" means that the obligation is on the side of the speaker, while "have to" means that somebody else wants the speaker to do something. Does anybody have and idea why that is so? Did I misunderstand Swan and Murphy? Or is it because their point of view is a British one?
In general, 'must' means 'have to'. I don't agree that 'must' is necessarily stronger than 'have to' - I would need to see the context.
In the context you've given:
I have (got) to clean my bedroom. (somebody else wants me to?)
I must clean my bedroom. (I want to?)
Not necessarily 'want to', but you feel obliged to.
I'd say that "have to" is stronger. And yes there is, at least in AusE, some tendency toward the meanings you've given.
Given that tendency, the obligation to clean your bedroom is probably stronger if someone in authority is making you do it, and intends punishing you if you don't.
"Must" can be very weak. "Hmm, I'm gaining weight; I must stop eating ice cream." This type of 'must' has virtually no obligation attached to it.

Without looking at Swan or Murphy, I'd guess that they don't say exactly what you've written, and that you've left out some qualifications. Can you give me the page number of Swan?
 

CarloSsS

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Czech
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Thank you 5, it helped me a lot.
Neither verb is inherently stronger or more formal than the other.


LDOCE says this:

In everyday English, people usually say someone has to or has to to so something rather than say they must do something, which can sound slightly formal or emphatic.

What should I make of that? That sometimes for some speakers "must" is actually more formal?
 
Last edited:

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
What should I make of that? That sometimes for some speakers "must" is actually more formal?
I make of it that it's a generalization that is more or less true, but not very useful - as you've already found.
Yes, if a person is talking about another person (3rd person), "He must go to work tomorrow" does sound less natural (perhaps formal - though I wouldn't call it that) than "He has to go to work tomorrow".
 

CarloSsS

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Czech
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Without looking at Swan or Murphy, I'd guess that they don't say exactly what you've written, and that you've left out some qualifications. Can you give me the page number of Swan?

361.1 (p. 336 in the 3rd edition)

Note though, that not all of what I wrote is from Swan and/or Murphy. I also used other sources, such as LDOCE, OALD and my notes from a course of grammar I took at university.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Note though, that not all of what I wrote is from Swan and/or Murphy. I also used other sources, such as LDOCE, OALD ...
All British sources. What they (and I) say may not be true of speakers of American or Australian English, but it is true of most speakers of British English.
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
361.1 (p. 336 in the 3rd edition)

Note though, that not all of what I wrote is from Swan and/or Murphy. I also used other sources, such as LDOCE, OALD and my notes from a course of grammar I took at university.
My copy includes the words "usually prefer have to".
I agree with Swan. I would prefer "He has to go to work" to "He must go to work".
But neither Swan nor I (nor, I'd speculate, any of your sources) would say that "have to means A" while "must means ... B"
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
But neither Swan nor I (nor, I'd speculate, any of your sources) would say that "have to means A" while "must means ... B"
I agree. I used the word 'suggests'.
 

abaka

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
I think the following points are fair:

(1) There are indeed dialectal differences in the subtle modalities of the various modal verbs.

(2) The usage of the modal verbs does continue to evolve. The decline of the shall-future is one example, but only the most obvious one among many.

I am not going to quarrel with the British grammar books, but I note at least one North American (konungursvia) has supported my sense of "must" vs. "have to".

To our learners: please tread carefully on this, and please don't assume your audience will necessarily understand any subtle meaning you intend from just one word.
 

CarloSsS

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Czech
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
My copy includes the words "usually prefer have to".
I agree with Swan. I would prefer "He has to go to work" to "He must go to work".
But neither Swan nor I (nor, I'd speculate, any of your sources) would say that "have to means A" while "must means ... B"

Yes, none of the resources are prescriptive and they do use words like "suggest", "usually" and so on. Having a technical background, I just like to (unconsciously?) simplify things and do so by omitting certain words. It's been pointed out to me on this forum that I do that. I'll try to avoid it.

What I was interested in was find out whether speakers of both AmE and BrE differentiate between the meaning of "have to" and "must". So far, based on what abaka wrote, in NAmE they tend not to, while in BrE, there usually is a difference.

What do you think about the usage of "need to" in similar contexts, e.i. an expression of an obligation? Again, I'd like to know both BrE and AmE point of view.

We need to leave now = We have to leave now = We ought to leave now? (I understand that "we ought to" is more like "we must", so from BrE point of view they're not usually the same)
 

abaka

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
So far, based on what abaka wrote, in NAmE they tend not to, while in BrE, there usually is a difference.

I did say "must" seemed stronger than "have to" -- and depending on context also more formal, literary or cultivated.

What do you think about the usage of "need to" in similar contexts, e.i. an expression of an obligation?

I'd say "need to" is somewhat stronger than "have to", and may sometimes denote a longer-term need rather than a momentary necessity.
 

CarloSsS

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Czech
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I did say "must" seemed stronger than "have to" -- and depending on context also more formal, literary or cultivated.
I apologize for the misunderstanding, I meant it as far as the originator of the obligation is concerned.

I'd say "need to" is somewhat stronger than "have to", and may sometimes denote a longer-term need rather than a momentary necessity.
What about the originator of the obligation? I guess there's no difference and it can be either the speaker or somebody else.
 

abaka

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
As to origin, I can see no difference. Let me say that the important point is: try not to convey subtle meanings like who demanded what by using a particular modal verb, and nothing else. You may be misunderstood. None of these distinctions are so strong as to be incontrovertible.
 
Last edited:

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
What I was interested in was find out whether speakers of both AmE and BrE differentiate between the meaning of "have to" and "must". So far, based on what abaka wrote, in NAmE they tend not to, while in BrE, there usually is a difference.
I don't think there's much disagreement on the meaning - just the usage in different contexts.

What do you think about the usage of "need to" in similar contexts, e.i. an expression of an obligation? Again, I'd like to know both BrE and AmE point of view.

We need to leave now = We have to leave now = We ought to leave now? (I understand that "we ought to" is more like "we must", so from BrE point of view they're not usually the same)
It's impossible to say without a context that 'must' means 'have to' and that it is used in the same way, or that it isn't.
abaka says that 'must' is stronger than 'have to'; and I gave an example where 'must' is quite weak. This is more a question of context than it is of AusE/BrE/AmE meanings of the terms.

The same applies to a lot of modal verbs.

PS: Perhaps you should start a new thread if you want to introduce "ought" and "should" and "need to" etc. or it's going to get extremely complicated. It would be better to leave this thread for the title words. If you want to write some concrete sentences with 'must' or 'have to' and ask which are better, I'd be happy to answer further. Discussing them out of context is misleading and confusing - probably to all of us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top