|
|
 #2 (permalink) Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:24 am Have to/must |
|
|
Good question! The difference is that must is a little too strong in this context and have to is better here because it suggests I have no alternative.
_________________
English as a Second Language
You can read my ESL story Present Simple |
|
Alan
Co-founder
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
Posts: 17284
Location: UK
|
|
| #3 (permalink) Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:08 am Have to vs. must? |
|
|
When I did this test, my answer was 'must', then I received my score "correct". May be that an error in the test?
Thanks Alan for your explanation!! |
|
Alex Anna
I'm new here and I like it ;-)
Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 29
|
 |
| #4 (permalink) Sat Nov 18, 2006 13:10 pm Have to vs. must? |
|
|
| Alex Anna wrote: | | When I did this test, my answer was 'must', then I received my score "correct". May be that an error in the test? |
Yes, I've just got the same result.
must as the correct answer for the Test No. incompl/elem-7 "Modals", question 3.
_________________
It’s impossible to learn swimming without entering the water… |
|
Tamara
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1577
Location: UK
|
|
| #5 (permalink) Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:09 am My opinion |
|
|
I feel that there is no difference in meaning between "must" and "have to".
Some people argue that one is stronger than the other or that one is for when referring to yourself and the other is for when referring to other people, but I am not convinced. To me, both mean "I have no alternative." "Have to" is much more commonly used in North America. Maybe one can say that "must" is more formal. |
|
 Canadian45
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1043
Location: Canada
|
|
| #6 (permalink) Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:28 am My opinion |
|
|
| canadian45 wrote: | | I feel that there is no difference in meaning between "must" and "have to". |
I feel I must disagree with that statement as it stands. (Linguistic urges are compelling me to do so.) 8)
There are differences between must and have to, ranging from little or none to significant. It depends on the context. In addition, we mustn't forget that must and have to end up with essentially opposite meanings when negated. ;)
In the context of the test sentence, I feel the only natural choice is have to.
I've also taken a look at the test, and apparently the possible answers (choices) were changed at some point.
'Have to' is no longer an option at all, :!: though it should be!
As the test stands today, the options are:
(a) must
(b) had
(c) have
The best option has been removed, leaving us with (a) must as the only choice that is grammatically possible.
Amy
_________________
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." ~ Abraham Lincoln |
|
Yankee
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 8325
Location: USA
|
|
| #7 (permalink) Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:30 am Have to vs. must? |
|
|
Amy
1...What is the difference in meaning? (I am only talking about their function as auxiliary verbs.)
2...How are you making them negative? Must not is not the only negative meaning of must. The negative meaning of the test sentence would be I (don't have to) (need not) go now ........... not late for class.
In a different sentence, both negatives would again have the same meaning. You must not think of it that way. You have to not think of it that way."
That's the way I see it. |
|
Canadian45
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1043
Location: Canada
|
|
| #8 (permalink) Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:38 am Have to vs. must? |
|
|
| canadian45 wrote: | | In a different sentence, both negatives would again have the same meaning. You must not think of it that way. You have to not think of it that way." |
Must not vs. do/does not have to have different meanings. (You must be aware of that). ;)
Amy
Edit:
You edited your post after I'd already posted my reply.
For the record: My original objection was that you'd made a blanket statement that there is "no difference" whatsoever between have to and must. I continue to disagree with that.
_________________
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." ~ Abraham Lincoln |
|
Yankee
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 8325
Location: USA
|
|
| #9 (permalink) Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:56 am Have to vs. must? |
|
|
.
My two cents again: I'm glad that the answers were amended to avoid the have to / must choice here. I agree (with someone above?) that they are often distinct in use, but also very often they are interchanged nowadays, especially in generalized contexts. When I mouth them, I am often tongue-tied as to which to choose as more natural-- as in the present case.
I have to go now-- I really must!
.
_________________
Native English teacher at Mister Micawber's |
|
Mister Micawber
Language Coach
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 13018
|
|
| #10 (permalink) Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:56 am Have to vs. must? |
|
|
Hi,
For the record I have now edited out (I hope) the mistake in the test so that 'have to' appears as an option and is regarded as the correct choice.
A
_________________
English as a Foreign Language
You can read my EFL story Progressive Forms |
|
Alan
Co-founder
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
Posts: 17284
Location: UK
|
|
| #11 (permalink) Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:20 am Have to vs. must? |
|
|
| Yankee wrote: | | (You must be aware of that). ;) |
Hi Canadian
Just out of curiosity, do you see any difference in meaning between the two affirmative sentences below? Any differences in the four negative sentences?
You must be aware of that.
You have to be aware of that.
You mustn't be aware of that.
You must not be aware of that.
You have to not be aware of that.
You don't have to be aware of that.
Amy
_________________
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." ~ Abraham Lincoln |
|
Yankee
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 8325
Location: USA
|
|
| #12 (permalink) Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:17 pm Have to vs. must? |
|
|
| Alan wrote: | | For the record I have now edited out (I hope) the mistake in the test so that 'have to' appears as an option and is regarded as the correct choice. |
Hi Alan
When I look at the test now, it is still showing must, had and have as the options. I refreshed my browser thinking that might be the reason I don't see a change, but I still see the same options I saw earlier this morning.
Just thought I'd let you know.
_________________
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." ~ Abraham Lincoln |
|
Yankee
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 8325
Location: USA
|
|
| #13 (permalink) Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:57 pm Have to vs. must? |
|
|
Hi Amy,
Thanks for that. I have received an automated reply saying it's being changed but it takes a certain time to percolate through. It's rather like paying in a cheque in a UK bank!
A
_________________
English as a Second Language
You can read my ESL story Passive Voice |
|
Alan
Co-founder
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
Posts: 17284
Location: UK
|
|
| #14 (permalink) Sun Nov 19, 2006 20:43 pm Have to vs. must? |
|
|
Hi Amy
A few things....
1...You will notice that I edited my post 2 minutes after your reply and what I did was change the underlining to isolate must and have to from not. I hadn't read your post before editing mine.
2..Speaking of your post, this is not the first time you have missed or ignored the point of what I said. If you read my post carefully, you will be quite aware of the fact that I know that must not and does not have to have different meanings. The point is that the negative meaning of the test question is not must not; it is do not have to.
3...Regarding your following post, the affirmative pair has two meanings in common. The first common meaning is 'you are not aware of that but you (have to) (must) become aware of that'.
The second common meaning is 'you say you are not aware of that but I don't believe you'.
The negative pairs are irrelevant, but I already said that 'negative must' has two different meanings, must not and need not. (need not=don't have to).
4...Going back to the test question affirmative form, I remain unconvinced that the two have any difference in meaning. |
|
Canadian45
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1043
Location: Canada
|
|
| #15 (permalink) Sun Nov 19, 2006 21:08 pm Have to vs. must? |
|
|
| canadian45 wrote: | | 2..Speaking of your post, this is not the first time you have missed or ignored the point of what I said. If you read my post carefully, you will be quite aware of the fact that I know that must not and does not have to have different meanings. The point is that the negative meaning of the test question is not must not; it is do not have to. |
It's actually quite difficult to read the editing of a post carefully before before it's been edited. But, if you've got tips on how to do that, I'm all ears.
_________________
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." ~ Abraham Lincoln |
|
Yankee
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 8325
Location: USA
|
|
|
| Conditional tense I | The use of grounds |
