| What would an AE speaker see as the difference ... |
|
... system must adapt... : more formal / official way of saying
... system has to adapt ... "Official" because it's printed in a newspaper.
... must go ...: Not said this way in AmE. Can't relate to it. We'd substitute
... should go ... To me this sounds like a case of British exaggeration. The core intended meaning is the
should of advisability, not the
must of obligation. (
It is highly/really advisable that John go to the doctor's. Not:
It is highly/really mandatory that John go to the doctor's.) I think that the British speaker tends to overstate these, using
must where
should is sufficient and actually more accurate. The word
really is the give-away.
must in its core meaning would not require
really since it's already absolute. (Note the weirdness of the paraphrase
highly/really mandatory above.)
By the way the so-called overstatement I speak of above extends to various other "British-sounding" (to us)
musts,
usually first-person and usually self-effacing concessions of some
sort:
I really must admit ... You must admit ... I must
confess ... I must concede ... I must say ... I must make a note of that. But then there are also these overstatements out of 'politeness', usually second-person:
You must come and visit us. You must call me and we'll do dinner one of these days. We Americans
have either borrowed these or kept them historically because they are
heard from time to time.
CJ