CiaoIn 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 agree - at least, my primary school teacher told me I should never use the word "got" in my writing!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.
Taking this point a bit further, if you say 'you must not', it is necessary that you don't do something - i.e. 'non devi/deve ...'.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.
EDIT: Just a quick note - 'ought not' can have exactly the same meanings as 'must not', apart from the one of deduction. But I would still stick to 'must not' - 'ought' in itself is rarely used.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...
This is unfathomable to me too! Must is a versatile verb, and certainly more versatile in its negative form than "have to".Many thanks, Charles and Robert
I just can't understand why a teacher would choose not to teach must to his/her students.
In American English, we use have to not, saying something like: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...
So you wouldn't even say he mustn't find out what we did, meaning it's imperative that he doesn't find out?But mustn't is purely British, and we don't say it
Hi giovannino,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 did it - maybe only? - while I was learning English as a foreign language and my attention was drawn to it (by books, teachers, etc.).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 mean something like this: You must see this film - Vai visto questo film.? Sorry, I never met this construction. You must have meant something else.Do you think it has the connotations of 'andare + p.p', but in an active sort of way?
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.)As for the 'deduction' idea, I was struggling in trying to translate that...
Well, because of the influence of AE on BE, the use of have (got) to for deduction has become common in BE. The following quote is from 1995: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 was actually thinking more along the lines of 'La zuppa va servita fredda' - 'The soup must/should be served cold', in reference to the obligatory definition of must. Although it's a passive form of obligation?
Actually it would indeed work, Wobby: è un film che va visto (a tutti i costi), or è un film da vedere.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.
Isn't the negative form of deduction: John cannot be hungry (because he's already eaten...)?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").
You guessed right: “andare + participio passato” cannot be used to express deduction.But I'm guessing it does not work for meaning 3) - deduction.
No, this sentence makes no sense (and the past participle is missing…)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?
Mmh, after musing profoundly over the mysteries of Italian usage, I’ve come to the conclusion that “dovere” works well with the idea of deduction only in affirmative sentences with the (auxiliary) verb “essere” :By the way, I just want to check - does 'dovere' work with the idea of deduction as above?
If this sentence could be translated as : ... now he shouldn't be hungry or he shouldn't be hungry anymore then there is no obligation.A pranzo ha mangiato come un bue: ora non deve avere più fame (no sense of guess here, only obligation!)
Both sentences work in Italian: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?
The same as 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.
Zsanna, the problem lies in the definition of “conditional tense”, which is inevitably different in the two languages.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!