They are both different ways of expressing compulsion, and are both followed by the bare infinitive (I have to be/I must be).
Have to is slightly more colloquial.
I have to go to the shop.
(this is something important - food is needed for dinner)
I must go to the shop.
(this is something urgent - food is needed now)
However, the two verb phrases are used interchangeably.
There is a slight preferrence for must with more complex forms of the verb:
I must be going mad!
I have to be going mad!
However, here the first phrase is suggesting a compelling truth rather than a compulsion. The second phrase is almost suggesting that the speaker feels compelled to go mad!
Another, similar verb is need to which suggests general necessity rather than a specific compulsion.
I need to eat.
(or else I shall die)
I must eat.
(because I’m feeling so hungry)
Another verb is should which suggests obligation, but allows for some doubt.
I must go to college.
(or else I will not learn anything)
I should go to college.
(but sunbathing seems far more appealing).
Again, to be polite, English uses more epistemic verbs to imply a deontic meaning.
You may go now, thank you.
(I’m too polite to tell you you must go)
Many languages do not distinguish between must, ought to or have to as described by Garzo above. This is more a characteristic of the Teutonic (Germanic languages). In the Romance languages Spanish uses just Tengo que as in Tengo que salir (‘I have to leave/go; I must leave/go). Romanian likewise uses just Trebuie sã as in Trebuie sã plec (I have to leave/go; must leave/go etc. As far as I know, French use "devoir" to cover these functions.
Any successful international language project in the future would probably be one that also omits these distinctions. In fact, Esperanto already does as in Vi devas vidi "You have to see, You must see, You ought to see.
When I saw the subject, I was immediately reminded of the phrase "needs must", which is typically only encountered in poetry:
...the idioms needs must and must needs, which mean "must of necessity, must necessarily" and are examples of hyperbole, as in She must needs [needs must] listen to him, even though she’d rather not. The form of needs is unchanging in these uses.
(From The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, 1993.)
Garzo, as usual, has hit the nail on the head, so no further explanation is required there.
I seem to recall the following from high school Spanish [maybe dama or Sitran or espanolauna can provide corrections]:
deber - to owe
- Can be used to express "must" or "should" or "ought to".
I should eat now. Debo comer ahorra.
You ought to see me now. Tú debería verme ahorra.
You should leave. Tú debes partirte.
tener que - to have to
- Can also be used to express "must" or "should".
You should have said so before! ¡Tendrías que haberlo dicho antes!
Deontic modality has many shades in English. This spectrum can often be largely reduntant, as in the distinction between must and have to. However, the use of auxilliary and semi-auxilliary verbs can easily allow for far more semantic colour than a purely inflexional morphology. That doesn’t mean that it does: just that there is a marked tendency. French, Spanish, Romanian and Esperanto are more highly inflected than English, and consequently use auxilliaries less frequently. These languages tend to avoid stressing modality by inflexion and auxilliaries.
As the modality of one language can never translate directly to that of another, it is misleading, to say the least, to define English modality in terms of another language.
Use either "have to" (used more colloquially) or "must" (used more for a sense of urgency or determination).
But whatever you do, don’t use "gotta" (short for "got to"): I gotta do this, or I gotta go here. And especially not I gotta go!—because that could mean one, you must leave wherever you are now, or two, you must make a quick trip to the washroom.
Thanks everybody and thank you Garzo. Don’t you want some help with Polish language in exchange of your help with English? ; Thanks a lot - and one more thing as I’m rather an inquiring person- why GOTTA can’t be used? I heard it quite a lot….
Oh yes, Polish lessons would be very nice, thank you!
I’ve overlooked something about must and have to. Must is uninflected, whereas have to can show tense.
Present Simple: I have to go.
Past Simple: I had to go.
Future Simple: I shall have to go.
Must can only take the present tense: the obligation has to be current.
Have to can take the progressive aspect, but not the perfect.
Present Progressive: I have to be going.
Past Progressive: I had to be going.
Future Progressive: I shall have to be going.
The connexion of the progressive here with time is tenuous. The perfect isn’t used, except in very casual speech, because it sounds uncomfortable (Present Perfect: I have to have gone), and must can be used to say the same thing much better.
When must is used with the progressive and perfect aspects the level of obligation is reduced; this is particularly so with the perfect.
Progressive: I must be going.
Perfect: I must have gone.
In the perfect there is often no sense of obligation at all, but a sense of realisation.
"Now, when I think back to my days at school, I must have been quite a happy child."
This is often the case with the present also.
"Is it a bird? Is it a plane? I must be seeing things!"
Present Progressive: I have to be going.
Past Progressive: I had to be going.
Future Progressive: I shall have to be going.
The connexion of the progressive here with time is tenuous. The perfect isn’t used, except in very casual speech, because it sounds uncomfortable (Present Perfect: I have to have gone), and must can be used to say the same thing much better.
The present, past and future progressives that you give here, do have the sense of the progressive, but it is not a true progressive.
In a (true) progressive doesn’t the conjugated verb change to "be+ing." Here it is the following infinitive that is progressive:
"I have to be going."
The "normal" progressive for "I have to go!" would be:
"I am having to go (over there everyday to stop the fighting)!
Past Progressive:
"I was having to go (over there everyday to stop the fighting)!"
Future Progressive:
"I will be having to go (over there everyday to stop the fighting)!"
Admittedly, this Future Progressive sounds somewhat stilted, but this because a modal is used for the future tense. "Must" or "may" would have the same stilting effect!
"I must be having to go…." or "I may be having to go…"
(Although I think I hear such sentenses) Modals do not conjugate and cannot form a progressive like other verbs:
Re Garzo, as usual, has hit the nail on the head, so no further explanation is required there.
‘Tengo que’ is the Spanish equivalent of the English phrases "I must, I have to, I gotta". There are no others that I know of. Romanian does the same thing with Trebuie sã and Irish does it with Caithfid me (Pronounced Kah-hij may). You really need only one phrase for it and the multiplicity of phrases that English and the other Germanic languages have is arbitrary.
[quote author=Sitran link=board=grammar;num=1085493993;start=0#9 date=05/26/04 at 17:14:30]The present, past and future progressives that you give here, do have the sense of the progressive, but it is not a true progressive.
Thank you, Sitran. You are, of course, right. I provided have to with progressive infinitives rather than using the truly progressive be having to. This represents a repeated obligation, but I don’t see this written very much.
I am having to go there everyday.
I have to go there everyday.
In fact, the progressive looks quite clumsy here. I think it’s still okay to use it, but it doesn’t seem to add anything.
[quote author=Kasia25 link=board=grammar;num=1085493993;start=0#7 date=05/26/04 at 01:13:51]and one more thing as I’m rather an inquiring person- why GOTTA can’t be used? I heard it quite a lot….
Gotta is a popular spelling, from pronunciation, of (have) got to. The use of the word got (strictly the past tense of get) is completely unnecessary, and so using gotta isn’t strictly right. However, many people use it as an equivalent to must or have to. Perhaps I’m just being fussy.
[quote author=brian_costello link=board=grammar;num=1085493993;start=0#10 date=05/26/04 at 19:22:54]‘Tengo que’ is the Spanish equivalent of the English phrases "I must, I have to, I gotta". There are no others that I know of. ... You really need only one phrase for it and the multiplicity of phrases that English and the other Germanic languages have is arbitrary.
In my previous post I gave examples that I learned in high school that dispute the first part of your statement. And if I learned them in high school, in a school that did not have an extravagant budget, then surely a native Spanish speaker knows more than what I was able to reproduce.
The second part of your statement is quite inflammatory and based solely on opinion. I, for one, relish the "multiplicity of phrases" that a speaker can use to communicate. Just because English is somewhat of a mongrel language doesn’t mean we have the market cornered on choice of words.
In fact, the progressive looks quite clumsy here. I think it’s still okay to use it, but it doesn’t seem to add anything.
I am having to go there everyday.
Yes, I agree. Often the context is hard to come up with when trying to flesh out a grammatical sentense.
"With the last renters, I had to go over there every once in a while to collect the rent, but with these new renters I’m having to go over there every month to get my money!"
"How often are you having to change the bandages now?"
I agree, it doesn’t add much, but it shows a change in the frequency that the action has been going on when compared with the frequency that the action is going on now.
Thanks a lot - and one more thing as I’m rather an inquiring person- why GOTTA can’t be used? I heard it quite a lot….
