A question arose in the staff room today because of something I found on one of the more popular resources sites for ESOL teachers.

I won't give any examples because I don't want to prejudice the outcome.

Here's the question.


Is there any difference of usage or meaning between

I must...

and

I have to...

?

Opinions?

"Must" sometimes implies a moral obligation, "I must treat her better," where "I have to" often says an external compulsion, "I have to pay that fine"

I don't really think there's any difference and they could be used interchangeably. Both imply an element of compulsion, legal, moral, or whatever.

If there were there some element of choice in the matter, perhaps ought should (or ought to) be used?

If a Hottentot taught a Hottentot tot
To talk ere the tot could totter,
Ought the tot be taught
To say, aught or naught,
Or, really, what ought be taught 'er?

If to hoot and to toot
The Hottentot tot ought be taught
By the Hottentot tutor,
Ought the tutor get hot
If the Hottentot tot
Hoot and toot at the Hottentot tutor?

If you is must-y then you kinda smell bad.

If you is have to-y then you can play wif it.

(Seriously, no difference to me.)

I had always understand that the infinitive of "must" is "to be obliged to" - which is very similar to the expression "to have to".

I consider "must" to be more obligatory, but I can't base it on anything.

It reminds me of some recommendations we once wrote. Our committee wrote them as: "Nursing programs should...." Our members had to approve them and before they'd do so, they asked us to change the recommendations to read: "Nursing programs shall...." To them, the "shall" was stronger.

quote:

Nursing programs shall...." To them, the "shall" was stronger.

It's not a question of strength it's a question of meaning. "should" is conditional; a desirable outcome that might possibly not happen. "Shall" means that it is definite; that is what will occur.

Which is the more appropriate or accurate will depend on the situation. Since nothing is certain in life (except death and taxes), I would usually prefer "should" to "shall".

The text books sometimes give the distinction cited by dale - "must" for moral obligation and "have to" for externally imposed obligation but I pondered for a long time in trying to decide whether this distiction is worth teaching to my second language students.

In the end I decided not to as I couldn't think of a single example where I wouldn't be prepared to substitute the other phrase for the one being used although I could think of examples where I'd have a preference.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I consider "must" to be more obligatory, but I can't base it on anything.

It reminds me of some recommendations we once wrote. Our committee wrote them as: "Nursing programs should...." Our members had to approve them and before they'd do so, they asked us to change the recommendations to read: "Nursing programs shall...." To them, the "shall" was stronger.

I agree with Richard. Changing "should" to "shall" in these circumstances changes it from a recommendation to an order with the implication that bad stuff will happen to you if you don't obey.

IANAL but I think this issue comes up in legal writing. Some states, for example, say a sheriff "shall issue" a permit under certain conditions, while others say a sheriff "may issue" such a permit. In the first case the sheriff is obligated, in the second the sheriff can use his discretion and refuse to issue the permit even though the conditions were fulfilled.

While I have evidence to the contrary, I do tend to agree with Bob and Richard here. Neveu, you are correct about legal writing, and these were recommendations that were intended to be written into law. In fact, when we presented these recommendations to our members, their reasoning for changing from should to shall had nothing to do with grammar and everything to do with "what's usually done in regulatory law."

Here is my contrary evidence that that validates the use of should in this context:

From Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2006), online:

"3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that."

Also, as part of their usage note: "Because the main function of should in modern American English is to express duty, necessity, etc. (You should get your flu shot before winter comes), its use for other purposes, as to form a subjunctive, can produce ambiguity, at least initially: I should get my flu shot if I were you."