Hello! I'd like to ask native speakers if it is correct to say to somebody who is a brilliant and hard worker They have to give you a rise? Or should it be rather They must give you a rise or They should give you a rise or They ought to give you a rise? Which options would sound natural to you? (I take note it's 'raise' in NAmE)
They have to give you a rise. [AE: raise]
- Thread starter Europadia
- Start date
Do you have more context? Are you addressing someone who hasn't got a raise though he'd been working well and had spent a significant time in the organisation? Or are you just talking of what you expect to happen at the next appraisal?
All those sentences could work but which one is the most appropriate depends on the situation.
All those sentences could work but which one is the most appropriate depends on the situation.
As far as I know it's "raise" in all varieties of English when referring to an increase in salary.
Rise is normal in Britain.
must = have to = should = ought to
All of the verbs you’ve used make sense.
All of the verbs you’ve used make sense.
These two are correct. They have to suggests there is no choice, it is obligatory, which it seldom, if ever, is.
They should give you a raise. It's the right/proper thing to do in this situation.
They must or They have to give you a raise. I will kill them if they don't. or There is a law that forces them to.
"They ought to" can mean "They should" or "I think it's likely that they will".
They must or They have to give you a raise. I will kill them if they don't. or There is a law that forces them to.
"They ought to" can mean "They should" or "I think it's likely that they will".
Context is important, and we require it for every question. For instance, in this case, the verb may vary according to whether the speaker means that they have a moral obligation to increase the salary or that a union or some regulation will compel them to pay more money.
"They have to" could work, to mean "It's important that they give you a raise".
Context is important as it often determines what word will be used, and does, in this case. Without context there are many other words that could fit and sound natural in addition to the ones in your OP - can, could, will, may, might, want, etc.
Context is important as it often determines what word will be used, and does, in this case. Without context there are many other words that could fit and sound natural in addition to the ones in your OP - can, could, will, may, might, want, etc.
That context given in #9 is no different from what we were told in the OP. The context we need is who you’re saying this to and in what circumstances. There’s a difference between what you might say to your friend simply to affirm that you strongly believe they deserve a rise in pay, and what you might say to their boss. You’d be unlikely to command their boss to give them a rise, which is what you’d be doing if you said “You MUST give him/her a rise”.
So all you really mean is “I think you definitely deserve a rise” — which you can express using any of those verbs, though obviously must and have to do not mean the same as should and ought to.
Must and have to convey obligation.
Should and ought to convey recommendation.
Should and ought to convey recommendation.
They mean the same.
In AE, there are two different meanings for the five words:
"Have to" and "must" and "are required to" mean they cannot choose not to. Perhaps there is a law requiring it.
"Should" and "ought to" are opinion. I think they should do this. But they make the decision, not me.
I agree with post #15 and #17. It is the same in AE. There is no difference between "have to", "must", "are required to". There is no difference between "should" and "ought to".