Mothers don’t say, “Go wash your hands” anymore. It’s “Tommy, you NEED TO wash your hands. ” It’s not “You have to register to vote”. It’s “You NEED TO register.” Not ” You’ll have to earn 5 more credits this semester.” It’s “You’ll NEED to earn 5 more credits this semester.” (My NEEDS are described to me even before they occur.)
This of course reflects the prevailing attitude of “Nobody has to to anything”. You have no obligations, no responsibiliy, no commitments. You only have NEEDS. What you committed to yesterday is no longer binding because your NEEDS have changed.
Language often reflects attitudes, but it can also change them. I invite you to ressuscitate the imperative mood and verbs like MUST, HAVE TO, SHOULD. They might help bring back a sense of duty and responsibility.
Language often reflects attitudes, but it can also change them. I invite you to ressuscitate the imperative mood and verbs like MUST, HAVE TO, SHOULD. They might help bring back a sense of duty and responsibility.
Verbum
Why do you think this is? Afraid of stepping on someone’s toes? Political correct speach? Some inverted form of what therapists
are telling us: “use ‘I’ statement”, i.e. “in my opinion, I think you need to wash your hands”.
Parents wanting to be friends with their children, instead of parents? ‘Wash you hands, because they are dirty.”
Curious thoughts, thanks for bringing them to the forum.
YourDictionary states that when ‘need’ is used as an auxiliary (as in your examples), it means ‘to be obliged, must’. I think this is correct. If I say “You need to be punctual”, I mean that punctuality is an obligation, not that it will satisfy your needs. I mean that it is necessary, i.e. compulsory, for you to be punctual.
‘Necessary’ (which corresponds to ‘need’) is actually quite a strong word. ‘Necessary truths’ are statements that have to be true. ‘Necessary action’ is action that must be taken.
Good thoughts ACB = necessary truths are statements that have to be true. But is it that what is true for me, also true for you? Who makes the standard
by which these are judged, the standard to which they are held to be true?
True, a meaning of “need” (perhaps even the original meaning) is to be obliged as exemplified in the phrase “You need not answer”. But the saturation of use it has reached in latter years in all contexts leads me to think that it is generally not understood this way, since most other ways of stating obligation are falling by the wayside.
True, a meaning of “need” (perhaps even the original meaning) is to be obliged as exemplified in the phrase “You need not answer”. But the saturation of use it has reached in latter years in all contexts leads me to think that it is generally not understood this way, since most other ways of stating obligation are falling by the wayside.
Verbum
And why do you suppose obligation is falling by the wayside along with the need to express it? Or is the need to express it
killing off the obligation?
For necessary truths, the standard is reason and logic. Such truths are true for everyone who understands the words, because they cannot be denied without self-contradiction. Examples:
2 + 2 = 4.
All circles are round.
If I am ascending, I am going up.
Something exists.
Non-necessary (i.e. contingent) truths are a different matter; there is no contradiction in denying them. If I say ‘The world exists’, a sceptic can reply: ‘No, it is just a figment of your imagination’. I can say the world is round, but someone else can say it is flat. The standard of truth here is observation and experience, which can be fallible.
There is one particular point I would like to take up. You use the expressions ‘true for me’ and ‘true for you’. Are these just synonyms for ‘believed by me’ and ‘believed by you’? If so, I think it is clearer to use ‘believed’ here, and to reserve the word ‘true’ for the absolute sense (e.g. ‘I am not sure whether this theory is true’). I always think ‘true for me’ sounds rather closed-minded, as if to say ‘this is what I think, and I’m not interested in any opposing views!’ Whereas ‘I [currently] believe it’ sounds more reasonable.
Perhaps it would be worth starting a new thread entitled ‘Truth and Belief’.
Inflection has a role as well. In ACB’s example, “You need to be punctual” has the import that you are not punctual when others are, whereas “You need to be punctual” suggests that punctuality is an essential quality that is presently lacking.
“You need to be punctual” puts all the emphasis on punctuality, with the preface merely giving it a point of address.
quote author=“ACB” date=“1230847869”]LukeJavan8 - Regarding your comments at reply #3:
For necessary truths, the standard is reason and logic. Such truths are true for everyone who understands the words, because they cannot be denied without self-contradiction. Examples:
2 + 2 = 4.
All circles are round.
If I am ascending, I am going up.
Something exists.
Non-necessary (i.e. contingent) truths are a different matter; there is no contradiction in denying them. If I say ‘The world exists’, a sceptic can reply: ‘No, it is just a figment of your imagination’. I can say the world is round, but someone else can say it is flat. The standard of truth here is observation and experience, which can be fallible.
There is one particular point I would like to take up. You use the expressions ‘true for me’ and ‘true for you’. Are these just synonyms for ‘believed by me’ and ‘believed by you’? If so, I think it is clearer to use ‘believed’ here, and to reserve the word ‘true’ for the absolute sense (e.g. ‘I am not sure whether this theory is true’). I always think ‘true for me’ sounds rather closed-minded, as if to say ‘this is what I think, and I’m not interested in any opposing views!’ Whereas ‘I [currently] believe it’ sounds more reasonable.
Perhaps
it would be worth starting a new thread entitled ‘Truth and Belief’.
Thank for responding. So often these threads just seem to die out.
My intention was strictly to get discussion. Your comments regarding the fact they exist is good for me.
I think the point I was making is the difference between subjective and objective reality, in the true for me/ you comment.
What is true for one may not be true for another, to wit, Galileo and the Church and just what is the center of the universe?
But a new thread here would be welcome, and maybe attract some others. Again thanks, and Happy New Year.
Luke
PS, the ‘true for me’ does sound rather ‘closed-minded’, thanks for the thought.
And why do you suppose obligation is falling by the wayside along with the need to express it? Or is the need to express it killing off the obligation?
Yes , I think obligation is falling by the wayside. Individualism fosters obligation to oneself only. As it affects language, language feeds it as well.
You could look at this in a different way. If ‘need’ is used to soften a command, it could be for politeness, like adding ‘please’.
‘Do this!’ (= ‘you must do this’).
‘Please do this’ (literally = ‘be pleased to do this’ or ‘do this if it pleases you’ - compare s’il vous plaît in French).
The latter is still a kind of command, but we soften it by pretending to make the action optional.
I think there is a balance to be struck between courtesy and firmness. Explaining to a child the reasons for a command (e.g. it is for your own good, your own needs) may motivate him/her to perform the required action next time without being told. In case of disobedience, however, you certainly need the imperative!
You could look at this in a different way. If ‘need’ is used to soften a command, it could be for politeness, like adding ‘please’.
‘Do this!’ (= ‘you must do this’).
‘Please do this’ (literally = ‘be pleased to do this’ or ‘do this if it pleases you’ - compare s’il vous plaît in French).
The latter is still a kind of command, but we soften it by pretending to make the action optional.
I think there is a balance to be struck between courtesy and firmness. Explaining to a child the reasons for a command (e.g. it is for your own good, your own needs) may motivate him/her to perform the required action next time without being told. In case of disobedience, however, you certainly need the imperative!
Your whole statement make really good sense. Something, I think, adults often forget, especially when dealing with children.
Explaining things to them remembering they are not simply some robot or something, e.g. “it is for your own good”. Disobedience
has its consequences, but the child should be given some chance at explanation, I think, and then if it is inadequate, consequences, but
maybe less severe. Moral imperatives (Live Free or Die,e.g.) create a new and different set of circumstances, however.
