"No one must know that Daisy was driving."

[Annabel Lee]

"No one must know that Daisy was driving."

This line is spoken by Leonardo DiCaprio as Jay Gatsby toward the end of the 2013 film rendition of F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. Although the sentence clearly expresses Gatsby's wish that it remain unknown by everyone that Daisy was driving (the car that struck and killed Myrtle), the sentence didn't sit entirely well with me from a grammatical standpoint.

I suppose that the sentence is ambiguous, that it can be used to express either of the following ideas:

1. There is nobody for whom it is necessary that they know that Daisy was driving.​

2. Everybody must not know that Daisy was driving.​

It is the second paraphrase that corresponds to the intended meaning, of course. I just can't take my mind off the fact that the first paraphrase seems to be most straightforward literal reading of the sentence! I have an easier time hearing the (2)-ish meaning with should ("No one should know that Daisy was driving") than with must for some reason.

Maybe the "issue," if there is any issue here, has partly to do with the future meaning intended in each example (DiCaprio's and my should variant). We are talking about the importance of people's not finding out and thence knowing that fact, not about the importance of their not presently being aware of it.

Are both readings possible?

Thank you.

 

[SoothingDave]

I think the context makes it clear.

 

[jutfrank]

Without the context, I hadn't even considered the first reading until you mentioned it. I suppose it's because of the strength of the phrase no one must know to mean that a secret must be kept.

 

[5jj]

"No one must know that Daisy was driving."

[...]

the sentence didn't sit entirely well with me from a grammatical standpoint.

It caused me no problems.

1. There is nobody for whom it is necessary that they know that Daisy was driving. 2. Everybody must not know that Daisy was driving.

Those appear like the sentences that logicians construct to to make their meaning clear. They generally fail.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Without the context, I hadn't even considered the first reading until you mentioned it.

I'm not surprised. I guess the (1) reading really only stands out if must is stressed:

No one MUST know that Daisy was driving.​

I'm just not accustomed to using (or seeing or hearing) must with a grammatically negative subject, whereas I commonly use, see, and hear semi-modal have to with a grammatically negative subject:

No one has to know that Daisy was driving.​

I think this is a case where recourse should not be made in backshifted indirect speech to had to. Must must be kept:

Gatsby said that no one must know that Daisy was driving. [(2) meaning likely]​

Gatsby said that no one had to know that Daisy was driving. [(1) meaning only]​

​

It's interesting, too, I think, that we don't meet with must (or meet with it very often) in the context of a grammatically negative subject in everyday cases of stated rules and laws:

Do not park here.​

No one shall park here.​

No one can park here.​

No one should park here.​

No one ought to park here.​

? No one must park here.​

​

Doesn't that last example seem rather old-fashioned? Of course, the character of Gatsby does speak in old-fashioned ways!

Thank you very much, old sports.

 

[emsr2d2]

I agree that "No one must park here" sounds very old-fashioned and I wouldn't expect to hear it these days. I generally tell my students not to try using "must" with "no one" except in the set phrase "No one must know" for keeping a secret.

As always, though, context is everything. It would tell us whether that sentence meant "There are no people for whom it is absolutely imperative that they park here" (No one is obliged to park here, in which case the spoken stress would be on "must") or "No one is allowed to park here", which is the way I'd reword it rather than "shall/can/should/ought".

 

[jutfrank]

a) No one must know that Miss Daisy was driving.

Here, must is used for prohibition, I assume. Gatsby's telling someone not to do something, right? (I haven't seen the film.)

'Must' does prohibition very well. The grammatical subject of a prohibition is almost always going to be the prohibitee, so a negative subject such as this is unusual, I agree.

b) No one has to know that Miss Daisy was driving.

This is not really direct prohibition. It's probably most easily read as obligation, or lack thereof. Or possibly lack of necessity.

? No one must park here.​

​

Doesn't that last example seem rather old-fashioned?

I don't think this is quite as odd as you do, but that could be a cultural thing. I'm often told that Americans use 'must' less frequently than others. I would also think that it's more common in certain registers too, and among particular social groups, both present and past.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Here, must is used for prohibition, I assume. Gatsby's telling someone not to do something, right?

Yes, in context, the implication is, "You must not tell anyone." I'd paraphrase the sentence with "No one can find out . . . ."

'Must' does prohibition very well. The grammatical subject of a prohibition is almost always going to be the prohibitee, so a negative subject such as this is unusual, I agree.

I appreciate how you've clarified that point.

I don't think this is quite as odd as you do, but that could be a cultural thing. I'm often told that Americans use 'must' less frequently than others. I would also think that it's more common in certain registers too, and among particular social groups, both present and past.

I agree; my finding it odd is probably a matter of AmE vs. BrE. Truth be told, part of me finds the sentence elegant! That's why I thought the question worth asking. Thanks again.