Learn English and meet people on the world’s largest EFL social network

We have partnered with TradePub to bring you free industry magazines and resources - no coupons or credit cards required!

Visit: englishforums.tradepub.com


1 2 3 4 5 6
Share this topic:
MrPedantic  +  594513 Tue, 25 Nov 08 06:16 PM

Anonymous
“Could you post it?

"I have to see you again." – RLS.

MrP

Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004
Veteran Member 13,616
...opella forensis / adducit febris...
Anonymous, 347 days ago
MrPedantic

"I have to see you again." – RLS.

MrP

Could you tell us which letter it is from and could you post the wider context?

MrPedantic  +  598087 Fri, 28 Nov 08 10:36 PM

Certainly; when I find it again.

But in any case, even if it was originally an "American import", which I very much doubt, why should that affect the meaning of the phrase now, in everyday use, in BrE?

MrP

 

 

Anonymous, 344 days ago
<Certainly; when I find it again.>

You mean you remembered that single occurence of "have to" without knowing which letter it came from? I'm impressed.

<But in any case, even if it was originally an "American import", which I very much doubt, why should that affect the meaning of the phrase now, in everyday use, in BrE?>

Well, the use may not yet have reached the majority of speakers of BrEng or may not yet be the preferred/protoypical use in the context we are discussing.

Anonymous, 344 days ago
Could someone please answer this?

Are obligative "must" and "have to" now on an equal footing in standard British English? Is "must" as common as "have to" when expressing subjective modality?
MrPedantic  +  598626 Sat, 29 Nov 08 11:25 AM

Anonymous
“You mean you remembered that single occurence of "have to" without knowing which letter it came from? ”

I found; I transcribed; I departed.

Anonymous

Are obligative "must" and "have to" now on an equal footing in standard British English? Is "must" as common as "have to" when expressing subjective modality?

The question embodies a number of doubtful assumptions: that "subjective modality" is a phrase with any meaning; that the relationship between "must" and "have to" is of the kind that lends itself to an "equal footing", or a comparison in terms of common-ness; that their relationship "now" is somehow necessarily different from e.g. 20 years ago.

MrP

 

Mike in Japan  +  598740 Sat, 29 Nov 08 02:05 PM
I must/have to say; I'm impressed. I don't understand half the stuff you guys are debating, but the half I do is very impressive!


  

Joined on Tue, Aug 19 2003
Senior Member 4,588
I do like to be beside the seaside
Anonymous, 343 days ago
MrPedantic

Anonymous
“You mean you remembered that single occurence of "have to" without knowing which letter it came from? ”

I found; I transcribed; I departed.

Anonymous

Are obligative "must" and "have to" now on an equal footing in standard British English? Is "must" as common as "have to" when expressing subjective modality?

The question embodies a number of doubtful assumptions: that "subjective modality" is a phrase with any meaning; that the relationship between "must" and "have to" is of the kind that lends itself to an "equal footing", or a comparison in terms of common-ness; that their relationship "now" is somehow necessarily different from e.g. 20 years ago.

MrP


I see. So your underlying message is:

1. I don't accept the category "subjective modality".
2. The expression "equal footing" has no function or meaning in discussions on usage.
3. "Have to" in examples such as "I've had a wonderful evening. I have to see you again" is not recent in British English and is probably not an import or language used by young people.

Tell me, do you accept the terms "epistemic" and "deontic" (and dynamic) when used in reference to modality?

Anonymous, 343 days ago
And, MrP, your #4: You do not know whether "must" in "I've had a wonderful evening. I must see you again." is more the default or prototypical form when compared to the "have to" in I've had a wonderful evening. I have to see you again."

Have I got you right on all those points?
1 2 3 4 5 6
© MediaCet Ltd. 2009, v5.0.3598.39794. All content posted by our users is a contribution to the public domain, this does not include imported usenet posts.*
For web related enquires please contact us on webmaster@mediacet.com, status updates are available at status.mediacet.com.
*Usenet post removal: Use 'X-No-Archive'. You may not have understood that your posts would end up in the public domain. Please send proof of the poster's email, we will remove immediately.