Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This question already has an answer here:

I am trying to teach the difference between the use have to or must. But my students do not understand anything. Could you help me?

share|improve this question
    
Alice, thank you for your salutations, but you might be interested in our new proposal designed specifically for those who want to learn the English language: English Language Learners (ell.stackexchange.com). On EL&U this kind of questions are considered at best too basic and this might explain the reason why you have already got two downvotes, but on ELL they are welcome. Please, take a look now or, however, be aware that that proposal exists. Thank you again. –  user19148 Mar 18 '13 at 19:14
add comment

marked as duplicate by tchrist, TimLymington, aedia λ, MετάEd, RegDwigнt Mar 19 '13 at 7:49

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

1 Answer

Must and have to are synonymous, though some may prefer one or the other for certain purposes; this always happens with periphrastic modals, but these are merely individual preferences, not usage guides -- there is no consensus.

Must, as everyone knows, is a modal auxiliary verb.
One of the many peculiarities of such modals is that they only have one uninflected form, with
- no past tense form (so you can't say *Yesterday I musted do that)
- no infinitive form (so you can't say *Yesterday I didn't must do that, either)
- no gerund form (so you can't say *He hates musting do that)

So, when one needs to say things like these -- these are ungrammatical, but not unmeaningful after all -- one uses a periphrastic modal construction. Most modals have standard paraphrases that can be used in past and participial forms (be able to for alethic can, be allowed to for deontic may, ought to for should, etc).

The standard paraphrase for must turns out to be have to. Not only that, but there's a special pronunciation. This modal sense of the present tense phrases have to and has to
are not pronounced /hæv tu/ and /hæz tu/
but rather /'hæftu/ and /'hæstu/
or, most likely, /'hæftə/ and /'hæstə/.
Always with a voiceless /ft/ or /st/ cluster, never with a /v/ or a /z/.
Quite irregular, like a modal.
Furthermore, any form of have to has to be followed by an infinitive phrase, just like a real modal.

So what you can say instead of the starred sentences above is
- Yesterday I had to do that (/'hædtə/, past tense)
- Yesterday I didn't have to do that (/'hæftə/, infinitive)
- He hates having to do that (/'hævɪŋtə/, gerund)

But there's no meaning difference between them.
There are idioms, however, and that is sometimes enough.

share|improve this answer
1  
Don’t forget I’ll have to do that tomorrow for *I’ll must do that tomorrow. –  tchrist Mar 18 '13 at 23:18
    
Something has to be left as an exercise for the student, nu? –  John Lawler Mar 18 '13 at 23:23
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.