Would you please explain to me the difference in meaning?
1-1. He must be (the) manager in this restaurant.
1-2. He should be manager in this restaurant.
1-3. He has to be manager in this restaurant.
1-4. He ought to be manager in this restaurant.
2-1. He must be tired after all that traveling.
2-2. He should be tired after all that traveling.
2-3. He has to be tired after all that traveling.
2-4. He ought to be tired after all that traveling.
Thank you very much.
This is my attempt at an explanation.
Imagine this situation: you are sitting at a restaurant table with a friend of yours, and a man wearing a uniform walks past you. You say one of the following phrases to your friend:
1-1. He must be the manager in this restaurant.
1-3. He has to be the manager in this restaurant.
You are judging that, because the man is wearing a uniform, he is the manager of the restaurant. 1-1 and 1-3 have the same meaning, but 1-3 is more often used in "spoken English" rather than "written English." This is because 1-3 requires emphasis to be placed on "have" for the phrase to make sense.
So: use 1-1 in an formal situation, such as when writing an essay or when speaking to a teacher. Use 1-3 when speaking to a friend or when writing a letter to a pen pal.
The man wearing a uniform is very polite, and even offers you free coffee when you finish your meal. When you ask him what his position is, he replies by saying that he is a waiter. You turn to your friend and say one of the following phrases:
1-2. He should be the manager in this restaurant.
1-4. He ought to be the manager in this restaurant.
These phrases have the same meaning, the only difference being that "ought to" is often considered to be old-fashioned, or is only ever used in formal English.
Note: in spoken English, by putting emphasis on "he" in "he should" or "he ought to," you expressing preference over something else -- in this case the current restaurant manager, or another waiter.
Hope this helped.
Looking for ESL work?: Try our EFL / TOEFL / ESL Jobs Section!
1) The only possible conclusion from the evidence is that he is
2) He is obliged to be; It is his duty to be
Choose according to context. In both sets of examples, the first interpretation is indicated.
he has to be: same as 'he must be' (less used alternate, in my opinion)
(B) he should be:
1) It is probable that he is
2) It is advisable that he be
Choose according to context. In the first set, the second interpretation is indicated. In the second, the first interpretation.
he ought to be: same as 'he should be' (less used alternate, in my opinion)
Group B is essentially parallel to Group A, but Group B illustrates the weaker forms of the same basic ideas.
Anonymous:One thing to note about 1-2 and 1-4: Should is a form of shall, which is similar to will. Ought is derived from the same word as obliged or obligated. Although they are almost the same meaning, the usage is slightly different. Ought is used when there is some obligation directing it. For example, 'He ought to apologise for his mistake.' Should is used when no obligation directs it. For example, 'I want to keep him from quitting his job, I should give him a pay raise.' In the first case, 'He' made an error, and owes an apology for it; in the second case, the boss does not owe the employee anything.
People are waiting to help.
Related forum topics: