1

As far as I know, When you speak about yourself and you refer to your own feeling of necessity of doing something you use must and not to have to. If I am talking about outside command or necessity I should use have to. But what when you are talking about someone else (the third person singular or plural)? Eg. She has to take this pill, She has to go to doctor, she has to study better, etc which would be a better choice 'must' or 'have to'? How to show that you are talking about either one's own feeling of necessity or about outside command when you speak about a third person and not about yourself?

I must be at the meeting at 10:10. (I require myself-must should be used and not to have to) I have to be at the meeting. (I am required to be there by someone else, only to have to and not must shoud be used here)

My textbook says that when you are not talking about your opinion you shoudn't use 'must'. When you refer to a fact have to is used but not must. At the same time I came across this example; 'Students must pass an entrance examination to study at this school.' This is not someone's opinion, but a fact and if so have to should be used here instead of must I would be grateful for explanations.

Monica
  • 1,320
  • 5
    Sorry, no. Your textbook is, like most English grammar textbooks, simply wrong. That's not the way modals work at all. They're far more complex than that. And I've already answered this question here at least three times. – John Lawler Mar 28 '13 at 16:28
  • 2
    As John says, pretty much all of what you’ve written there — which I presume comes from some textbook — is wrong. – tchrist Mar 28 '13 at 16:34
  • 1
    What @John/tchrist said. But I'm intrigued that Barrie's answer on the earlier question says that *Have to ... usually expresses an obligation imposed by someone other than the speaker. I've never noticed any such tendency, and in the absence of any other context, I must/have to say that, for example, "I have to eat"* doesn't imply someone else requiring me to eat any more than "I must eat" (or indeed, someone else requiring me to write those words! :) – FumbleFingers Mar 28 '13 at 16:44
  • @FumbleFingers Yes, exactly. Consider “I have to go to the store now” or “I really have to take a leak.” – tchrist Mar 28 '13 at 17:02
  • Please tell us which textbook you used (if any), Monica. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 28 '13 at 17:04
  • 1
    @tchrist: Now you've got me postulating scenarios where a nurse at the STI/STD clinic waves a specimen bottle, saying "You really must* take a leak in this!". Perhaps the infected pedant would reply "That should be have to, not must, Nurse!"* – FumbleFingers Mar 28 '13 at 17:07
  • I am using Raymond Murphy English Grammar in Use. And I also read on a forum 'The theory is that 'have to' refers to outside command or necessity while 'must' refers to inward compulsion, one's own feeling of necessity.' One of the answers to my question. – Monica Mar 28 '13 at 17:37
  • In the circles I speak in (I often speak in circles), must is usually epistemic (with gotta substituted for emphasis) and gotta is usually deontic (with must for emphasis); except musta (or must of) is generally preferred in perfect constructions. – StoneyB on hiatus Mar 28 '13 at 19:17

0 Answers0