http://www.englishforums.com/English/LinguisticsDiscussionForum/Forum35.htmGet into the nitty-gritty of the language.enXMOD (Build: 3598.39794)http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/6/hrqbj/Post.htm#600742Fri, 08 May 2009 10:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:600742Anonymous0http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/6/hrqbj/Post.htm#600742http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-600742.xmlMrP, it would be impossible for me to agree with something that I have no knowledge of. You feel that "have to", in any of its BrEng uses is not an import or the language of young people. Simply that.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/6/hrqbj/Post.htm#600402Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:600402MrPedantic1http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/6/hrqbj/Post.htm#600402http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-600402.xmlI certainly didn't suggest that young people would say either of those sentences . Then we are in agreement on at least the second half (underlined) of the "message" you mention here: I see. So your underlying message is: ... 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 . MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/6/hrqbj/Post.htm#600113Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:600113Anonymous2http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/6/hrqbj/Post.htm#600113http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-600113.xmlEdit of above post: I said that some people feel that "have to", in some of its uses is an American import or is the speech of young people .http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/6/hrqbj/Post.htm#600053Fri, 08 May 2009 10:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:600053Anonymous3http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/6/hrqbj/Post.htm#600053http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-600053.xmlI 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! But do you understand the thread question, Mike? Can you comment on it?http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/6/hrqbj/Post.htm#600052Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:600052Anonymous4http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/6/hrqbj/Post.htm#600052http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-600052.xml<Both examples sound a little "stagey" to me. Certainly they don't sound like something "young people" (as you put it) might say. > I certainly didn't suggest that young people would say either of those sentences . I said that some people feel that "have to", in some of it's uses is an American import or is the speech of young people. You invented the "have to" version. Are you losng your memory, old thing?http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/6/hrqbj/Post.htm#599327Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:599327MrPedantic5http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/6/hrqbj/Post.htm#599327http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-599327.xmlHave I got you right on all those points? No, not at all. 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." Both examples sound a little "stagey" to me. Certainly they don't sound like something "young people" (as you put it) might say. I would be more inclined to expect them from a middle-aged speaker with a theatrical background (perhaps in British theatre of the 1930s). All the best, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/5/hrqbj/Post.htm#598918Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:598918Anonymous6http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/5/hrqbj/Post.htm#598918http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-598918.xmlAnd, 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?http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/5/hrqbj/Post.htm#598915Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:598915Anonymous7http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/5/hrqbj/Post.htm#598915http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-598915.xmlYou mean you remembered that single occurence of "have to" without knowing which letter it came from? I found; I transcribed; I departed. 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...http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/5/hrqbj/Post.htm#598740Fri, 08 May 2009 10:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:598740Mike in Japan8http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/5/hrqbj/Post.htm#598740http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-598740.xmlI 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!http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/5/hrqbj/Post.htm#598626Fri, 08 May 2009 10:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:598626MrPedantic9http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/5/hrqbj/Post.htm#598626http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-598626.xmlYou mean you remembered that single occurence of "have to" without knowing which letter it came from? I found; I transcribed; I departed. 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...http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/5/hrqbj/Post.htm#598501Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:598501Anonymous10http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/5/hrqbj/Post.htm#598501http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-598501.xmlCould 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?http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/5/hrqbj/Post.htm#598488Fri, 08 May 2009 10:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:598488Anonymous11http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/5/hrqbj/Post.htm#598488http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-598488.xml<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.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/5/hrqbj/Post.htm#598087Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:598087MrPedantic12http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/5/hrqbj/Post.htm#598087http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-598087.xmlCertainly; 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? MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/5/hrqbj/Post.htm#594724Fri, 08 May 2009 10:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:594724Anonymous13http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/5/hrqbj/Post.htm#594724http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-594724.xml"I have to see you again." – RLS. MrP Could you tell us which letter it is from and could you post the wider context?http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/5/hrqbj/Post.htm#594513Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:594513MrPedantic14http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/5/hrqbj/Post.htm#594513http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-594513.xmlCould you post it? "I have to see you again." – RLS. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/4/hrqbj/Post.htm#594481Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:594481Anonymous15http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/4/hrqbj/Post.htm#594481http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-594481.xml< but an example can be found in the letters of R. L. > Could you post it? <I'm not sure why you call it "epistemic", old chap;> Isn't it? That use of "have to" is odd for me, so you'll have to tell me what kind of modality it is.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/4/hrqbj/Post.htm#594121Fri, 08 May 2009 10:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:594121MrPedantic16http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/4/hrqbj/Post.htm#594121http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-594121.xml<<I've had a wonderful evening. I have to see you again.?>> Isn't that an American import? I mean, how long has that epistemic use of have to existed in British English? I'm not sure why you call it "epistemic", old chap; but an example can be found in the letters of R. L. Stevenson; so the business about "American import" looks like a misapprehension. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/4/hrqbj/Post.htm#593089Fri, 08 May 2009 10:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:593089Anonymous17http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/4/hrqbj/Post.htm#593089http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-593089.xmlCalJim in Feb 06, wrote: 'Actually, the subjective/objective distinction is of extremely little importance to American speakers. Typically "must" is used as an epistemic modal almost exclusively in ordinary conversation, and "have to" as a deontic modal. That is, "must" is used to show logical necessity; "have to" is used to show situational requirements (objective, possibly?) or social obligation (subjective, possibly?). The two are interchanged at times but these interchanges are the variants, not the usual usage.' http://www.englishforums.com/English/HasToAsAHelpingVerb/2/czjzl/Post.htmhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/4/hrqbj/Post.htm#593058Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:593058Anonymous18http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/4/hrqbj/Post.htm#593058http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-593058.xmlFolks, do you read these as semantically and pragmatically interchangeable? If you simply must see me again, I will agree to another meeting. If you simply have to see me again, I will agree to another meeting.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/4/hrqbj/Post.htm#593038Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:37:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:593038Anonymous19http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/4/hrqbj/Post.htm#593038http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-593038.xmlFolks, are both these (epistemic modality) examples xsOK in your variety of English? What's wrong with you? Did she say something to you? She must have said something to you for you to behave in this way. What's wrong with you? Did she say something to you? She has to have said something to you for you to behave in this way.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/4/hrqbj/Post.htm#593030Fri, 08 May 2009 10:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:593030Anonymous20http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/4/hrqbj/Post.htm#593030http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-593030.xml<<I've had a wonderful evening. I have to see you again.?>> Isn't that an American import? I mean, how long has that epistemic use of have to existed in British English?http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/4/hrqbj/Post.htm#593027Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:593027Anonymous21http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/4/hrqbj/Post.htm#593027http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-593027.xmlYour like with like example does not answer the question/s about this comment "every obligation is naturally a combination of subjective and objective requirements.". I think it is you who seaches for pure dualism, MrP, but I see things on a cline, a scale. Your like with like epistemic examples, show that there seems to be little difference between epistemic must and have to , and that's fine. Try the same with a few deontic examples. Please could you tell us where the speaker expresses subjective obligation here? He made me do it!http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/4/hrqbj/Post.htm#592931Fri, 08 May 2009 10:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:592931MrPedantic22http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/4/hrqbj/Post.htm#592931http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-592931.xmlYou would do better to compare like with like: 1. I've had a wonderful evening. I must see you again. Can I have your number? 2. I've had a wonderful evening. I have to see you again. Can I have your number? How does the (rather prescriptively dualistic) "objective/subjective modality" approach work here? MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/4/hrqbj/Post.htm#592486Fri, 08 May 2009 10:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:592486Anonymous23http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/4/hrqbj/Post.htm#592486http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-592486.xmlMrP is saying that the "subjective/objective" distinction is fallacious: every obligation is naturally a combination of subjective and objective requirements. MrP Is it the intention of each speaker here to indicate both subjective and objective modality in each case? 1. I've had wonderful evening. I must see you again. can I have your number? 2. Jack, my husband, has been on a tour of duty in Afghanistan for six months now. I was expecting him home for Christmas, but, apparently, he must stay until the end of January due to unrest the north of the country.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/3/hrqbj/Post.htm#592456Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:592456Anonymous24http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/3/hrqbj/Post.htm#592456http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-592456.xmlMrP is saying that the "subjective/objective" distinction is fallacious: every obligation is naturally a combination of subjective and objective requirements. MrP Yes, we all know about reality, but we are talking about language use. Does the speaker, when choosing a modal verb, wish to indicate that "every obligation is naturally a combination of subjective and objective requirements"? If the speaker wishes to indicate the source of the obligation, what does he/she do?http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/3/hrqbj/Post.htm#592374Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:592374MrPedantic25http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/3/hrqbj/Post.htm#592374http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-592374.xmlMrP is saying that the "subjective/objective" distinction is fallacious: every obligation is naturally a combination of subjective and objective requirements. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/3/hrqbj/Post.htm#592343Fri, 08 May 2009 10:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:592343Anonymous26http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/3/hrqbj/Post.htm#592343http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-592343.xmlSo I guess that MrP is saying that all these can express deontic modality and are acceptible in his variety. I have to do my homework before I go to bed. I must do my homework before I go to bed. — subjective: the speaker has imposed an obligation on himself. I have to do my homework before I go to bed. I must do my homework before I go to bed. — objective : the teacher has imposed the obligation on the schoolboy.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/3/hrqbj/Post.htm#591190Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:591190MrPedantic27http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/3/hrqbj/Post.htm#591190http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-591190.xml<You mean the teacher has imposed the task?> If your student is, rather poorly, reporting the speech of the teacher, yes. A similar situation would be the child who has had this sentence drummed into his head by his parents: You must not tell lies! Each time the child feels a lie coming on, he could repeatedly mutter "I must not tell lies" to himself. So we get a "report" of subjective modality, mebbe. Are you saying that when homework is inflicted on a schoolgirl, and the schoolgirl says to herself, the night before the homework is due, "I must finish my homework before I go to bed!", that schoolgirl is "rather poorly reporting the speech of the teacher"? MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/3/hrqbj/Post.htm#590726Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590726Anonymous28http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/3/hrqbj/Post.htm#590726http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590726.xml<No; there is no necessity for me to write to Visser; and there is no external command or direction. I say "I have to" because I want to write to Visser.> But some would say that "want to" is becoming an auxilary and expresses modality.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/3/hrqbj/Post.htm#590608Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590608Anonymous29http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/3/hrqbj/Post.htm#590608http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590608.xml<1. Ah, so you're using "have to" epistemically there, are you? > ]Sorry, no, old chap. It was perfectly deontic.> I see. Commissive? Volitive? Other? <Neither. They simply have emails in their inboxes.> So the e-mails don't need replying to, right? The writers of those e-mails do not " expect" a reply, right? <You mean the teacher has imposed the task?> If your student is, rather poorly, reporting the speech of the teacher, yes. A similar situation would be the child who has had this sentence drummed into his head by his parents: You must not tell lies! Each time the child feels a lie coming on, he could repeatedly mutter "I must not tell lies" to himself. So we get a...http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/3/hrqbj/Post.htm#590473Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590473MrPedantic30http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/3/hrqbj/Post.htm#590473http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590473.xml1. Ah, so you're using "have to" epistemically there, are you? Sorry, no, old chap. It was perfectly deontic. 2. So when staff say "I have several emails to answer", you'd say that they are not necessarily expessing doentic modality, but may be expressing epistemic modality, would you? Neither. They simply have emails in their inboxes. 3. But that could only be derived from an extended context/cotext, right? e.g. " The teachers said/says I must do my homework before I go to bed." You mean the teacher has imposed the task? 4. You said that where it occurs in the UK, it is seen as an Americanism. I've often heard it "occurring", but...http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/3/hrqbj/Post.htm#590285Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590285Anonymous31http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/3/hrqbj/Post.htm#590285http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590285.xmlSo, can we modify the thread statement about "have to" with this? 'When an obligation is clearly speaker-oriented must is a clear choice. When an obligation is clearly external, the choice is have to . But there are many times when a situation is neither “clearly external” nor “clearly speaker-oriented” and here in this “neutral” area many native speakers use must and have to more or less indiscriminately (Palmer, 1990).' http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/modalsinteaching.htmlhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/3/hrqbj/Post.htm#590271Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590271Anonymous32http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/3/hrqbj/Post.htm#590271http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590271.xmlBalance: The simple explanation of Americanization also does not apply to all cases. Strangest of all is the observation that the semi-modals, which have been strongly associated with American English, are observed to less common in American than in British English in both sets of corpora. Hence there can be no easy conclusion to the effect that American English, championing the semi-modals, is causing their extended use in British English. http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/ucrel/floblob.htmlhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/2/hrqbj/Post.htm#590269Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590269Anonymous33http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/2/hrqbj/Post.htm#590269http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590269.xmlAside: Americans, does this comment vex you? "The 'Americanization' of British English is suggested by the modal auxiliary profiles: here British English appears to follow American English, where the decline of modals is further advanced both in the 1961 and the 1991 data. In addition to American influence, another general trend of 'colloquialization' appears to explain some changes." http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/ucrel/floblob.htmlhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/2/hrqbj/Post.htm#590254Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590254Anonymous34http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/2/hrqbj/Post.htm#590254http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590254.xml<<No; there is no necessity for me to write to Visser; and there is no external command or direction. I say "I have to" because I want to write to Visser. >> Ah, so you're using "have to" epistemically there, are you? I was focusing more on the deontic sense of have to/have + object + to + V". Isn't the epstemic sense of "have to" quite rare, or at least fairly new, in British English? I more expect to hear 'I say "I must " because I want to write to Visser' in that variety. <<(It's called "Friday afternoon in any workplace".)>> So when staff say "I have several emails to answer", you'd say that they are not necessarily...http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/2/hrqbj/Post.htm#590074Fri, 08 May 2009 10:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590074MrPedantic35http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/2/hrqbj/Post.htm#590074http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590074.xmlBut that would be "necessity" and not "obligation", would it? No; there is no necessity for me to write to Visser; and there is no external command or direction. I say "I have to" because I want to write to Visser. Not necessarily" allows "possibly", doesn't it? To falsify your hypothesis, we need only find one exception. So for you, MrP, this is possible "I have several e-mails to answer, but I feel no obligation or pressure to do so.", is it? Even better: 1. I have several emails to answer; but I feel no obligation, necessity, pressure, or constraint (external or internal) to do so. (It's called "Friday afternoon in any workplace".) And by...http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/2/hrqbj/Post.htm#590070Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590070Anonymous36http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/2/hrqbj/Post.htm#590070http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590070.xmlHow would American English and British English speakers interpret these? a. My children must eat an apple after their meals. b. My children have to eat an apple after their meals.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/2/hrqbj/Post.htm#590064Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590064Anonymous37http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/2/hrqbj/Post.htm#590064http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590064.xmlSo, MrP, 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?http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/2/hrqbj/Post.htm#590040Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590040Anonymous38http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/2/hrqbj/Post.htm#590040http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590040.xml<And by the way I am afraid that distinction is not even universal in the UK . I remember reading some MrP's posts where he seemed to suggest it's not a distinction to take too strictly, if I am not mistaken. > I'm told that where it does occur in the UK, it is seen as an Americanism, i.e. as an import, or as the speech of young people.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/2/hrqbj/Post.htm#590031Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590031Kooyeen39http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/2/hrqbj/Post.htm#590031http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590031.xmlHow does AmEng differentiate between objective and subjective obligation? Americans? My understanding is they don't, and don't seem to be too concerned about their inability to do so. And by the way I am afraid that distinction is not even universal in the UK. I remember reading some MrP's posts where he seemed to suggest it's not a distinction to take too strictly, if I am not mistaken. And then, considering the huge regional variations in the UK, and the influence of American English on the younger generation, I believe that distinction might have lost its importance in many dialects nowadays. But I am just guessing... I ain't know nothing about you blokes over there in the UK.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/2/hrqbj/Post.htm#589794Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:589794Anonymous40http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/2/hrqbj/Post.htm#589794http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-589794.xmlSo for you, MrP, this is possible "I have several e-mails to answer, but I feel no obligation or pressure to do so.", is it?http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/2/hrqbj/Post.htm#589793Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:589793Anonymous41http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/2/hrqbj/Post.htm#589793http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-589793.xml<<— not necessarily. Looking at my inbox now, for instance, I see that I have several posts to answer. It isn't a task; it isn't a burden; and I certainly don't feel it "incumbent" upon myself to reply.>> "Not necessarily" allows "possibly", doesn't it?http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/hrqbj/post.htm#589791Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:589791Anonymous42http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/hrqbj/post.htm#589791http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-589791.xml<<1. I have to write a letter . (The obligation is the result of another’s direct command or direction.) — not necessarily. I really do have to write that letter to Visser this weekend – the one that points out all the flaws in the "another's direct command" argument.>> But that would be "necessity" and not "obligation", would it?http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/hrqbj/post.htm#589569Fri, 08 May 2009 10:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:589569MrPedantic43http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/hrqbj/post.htm#589569http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-589569.xml1. I have to write a letter. (The obligation is the result of another’s direct command or direction.) — not necessarily. I really do have to write that letter to Visser this weekend – the one that points out all the flaws in the "another's direct command" argument. 2. I have a letter to write. (The obligation does not result from the command of another, but rather is a self-imposed task: it means ‘to be burdened with’ or ‘to feel it incumbent on oneself’.) — not necessarily. Looking at my inbox now, for instance, I see that I have several posts to answer. It isn't a task; it isn't a burden; and I certainly don't feel it "incumbent" upon myself to reply. Indeed, it may well turn out to be a...http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/hrqbj/post.htm#589560Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:589560Anonymous44http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/hrqbj/post.htm#589560http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-589560.xml<<I think the version with "have something to do" kind of suggests you "have" (possession, or experience of something)>> How can you have possession of something which is not yet written?http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/hrqbj/post.htm#589558Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:589558Anonymous45http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/hrqbj/post.htm#589558http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-589558.xmlAnd by the way, in American English, the difference between "must" and "have to" is just a matter of register... and "gotta" is yet another alternative, the most informal one. How does AmEng differentiate between objective and subjective obligation?http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/hrqbj/post.htm#589518Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:589518Kooyeen46http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/hrqbj/post.htm#589518http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-589518.xmlWhat do you think of this? Not true, generally speaking. I think the version with "have something to do" kind of suggests you "have" (possession, or experience of something) something, and you need/have to/are expected to/ etc. do something with it. Maybe, somehow. And by the way, in American English, the difference between "must" and "have to" is just a matter of register... and "gotta" is yet another alternative, the most informal one.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/hrqbj/post.htm#589471Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:589471Anonymous47http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/hrqbj/post.htm#589471http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-589471.xmlSorry, GG, this is what I meant to post: Do you agree that, in their obligative readings, "must" is generally subjective while "have to" is always objective?http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/hrqbj/post.htm#589470Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:589470Anonymous48http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/hrqbj/post.htm#589470http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-589470.xmlI can't see how you would know from the first one whether it's self-imposed or externally imposed. This weekend, I have to pay bills. No one has called me and said "This weekend, you must pay bills!" It's just a chore that needs to be completed. If it were self-imposed, I'd expect to hear "must". What would happen if you didn't pay those bills? Do you read the use of have to in the above example, as deontic modality, or as or epistemic modality? Did you see this post? <<Do you agree that, in their obligative readings, "must" is generally subjective while "have to" is always subjective?>>http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/hrqbj/post.htm#589374Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:37:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:589374Grammar Geek49http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveToVersusHaveObjectToV/hrqbj/post.htm#589374http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-589374.xmlI can't see how you would know from the first one whether it's self-imposed or externally imposed. This weekend, I have to pay bills. No one has called me and said "This weekend, you must pay bills!" It's just a chore that needs to be completed.