In effetti mi premeva capire la differenza fra "I've got to" e "I must to" (o "I have to") e capire se alle differenti formulazioni corrisponde o meno un utilizzo più corretto di una o dell'altra a seconda del contesto in cui sono usate.
I've got to is very colloquial and not really "proper" English (I wouldn't write it in anything but an informal e-mail, but it's very common in American speech).
I think the distinction is becoming quite blurred nowadays. In Australia we tend to use both pretty well interchangeably, with have to as a preference. I just say what feels comfortable. Besides, not all grammarians will agree on a rule.Very interesting Charles! I am not convinced there is a subjective/objective difference. The site says "must" is not a real obligation but in BE we would equally say "In France you must drive on the right" and that is not a subjective personal decision.
I do agree that in general must expresses personal obligation but it is also used here objectively.
Sleepingleopard is correct.
Also in the negative "You mustn't drink too much" is used commonly while the negative of the others is difficult to express. If you don't teach the word "must" the only alternatives are "You can't (or shouldn't) drink too much" which have a different meaning.
We ought not / oughtn't be late for the wedding - the bride will never forgive us!
I ought not / oughtn't do any heavy drinking the night before my final exams...
Many thanks, Charles and Robert
I just can't understand why a teacher would choose not to teach must to his/her students.
To use any other verb costruction to express this would be difficult, at least in my opinion. I have heard people say didn't ought to, but to my ears this sounds terrible, even putting aside questions regarding its technical accuracy. The following examples should demonstrate how clunky it sounds:
We didn't ought to be late for the wedding - the bride will never forgive us!
I didn't ought to do any heavy drinking the night before my final exams...
But mustn't is purely British, and we don't say it
So you wouldn't even say he mustn't find out what we did, meaning it's imperative that he doesn't find out?
What about must in the sense of deduction? Would you say something like he must have found out by now in AE?
A lot of people say, He has to be at home, his car is in front of the house. In this situation there is no ambiguity because of his car is in front of the house.I wonder what people who don't use must use in cases when it expresses deduction. Like in the following:
He must be at home, his car is in front of the house.
Would you just say "I think he is at home...?"
Do you feel any difference?
I agree that 'must' does seem to be a very strong obligation, and I can see where you are coming from about the 'official' origins - I'd never really thought that hard about it before!
I think I called it an obligation coming from the speaker. But in this case "laws" are not necessarily the first things to think about, rather some personal "urgency"/(strong) need.However, what about cases like "You must stay! I will not allow you to leave!" - possibly it is because you are 'creating' your own 'law'?
Do you think it has the connotations of 'andare + p.p', but in an active sort of way?
As for the 'deduction' idea, I was struggling in trying to translate that...
Zsanna said:It is true that you are fairly sure of what you are saying when you use must to express deduction. I suppose this is why it is replaced by "have to" in some cases as was mentioned above... (But not in BE.)
I'm not sure if it would work with 'You must see this film!' - 'Certamente questo film va guardato!'? And I doubt that it would work with the deduction version.
But I'm guessing it does not work for meaning 3) - deduction. For example, 'John must not be hungry (as he has already eaten several packets of crisps)'
Aah, that's pretty cool then! So 'andare + p.p' works for the first 2 meanings of 'must' - i.e. 1) one is instructed to do something (p.es. "In un'aula di tribunale, la verità va sempre raccontata"), and 2) one is strongly advised to do something (p.es. "È una canzone che va ascoltata a tutti i costi").
But I'm guessing it does not work for meaning 3) - deduction.
For example, 'John must not be hungry (as he has already eaten several packets of crisps)', probably cannot be translated with 'John va senza fame', as it probably makes little sense or means something different, and is not a passive sentence anyway, so is not of the same construction?
By the way, I just want to check - does 'dovere' work with the idea of deduction as above?
A pranzo ha mangiato come un bue: ora non deve avere più fame (no sense of guess here, only obligation!)
By the way, would the location of the word 'non' make a difference, or is there only one place you can put 'non'? E.g. 'Non credo che sia felice' as compared to 'Credo che non sia felice' (...)
Does one of these not work in Italian?
E.g. 'Non credo che sia felice' as compared to 'Credo che non sia felice', where in English, the first would suggest that you don't think that he/she is happy - either because you think him/her not to be, or because you know that he/she is, for example. However, the second in English would only suggest that you don't think he/she is happy.
Oh, I'm not going to give it up as easily, Montesacro!
In the conditional even in English you'd say it otherwise:
... he wouldn't be hungry.
He+ should had a special use in the previous!