English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

You gotta be very angry.

From an American movie.

My intuation is that is to say you are really very angry or it seems you are angry.

Why the guy used gotta here. gotta implies force, like saying you have to be very angry that means ** you do not have any other choices**

I have my doubts if the speaker ment something like that!

share|improve this question
'Have got to' has both the meanings you mention (as does 'must'): You must / gotta try harder, Joe! // You must / You've got to feel devastated, your team being beaten 7 - 0. >> I assume 'gotta' can be used in place of 'have got to' in both senses; it's uncommon here in Britain. – Edwin Ashworth May 3 '14 at 9:12
@Edwin, absolutely it can. The most common expression I can think of where gotta is used in this sense is, “Oooh, that's gotta hurt/sting/burn/etc.”. – Janus Bahs Jacquet May 3 '14 at 10:41

Just like must, gotta (and longer forms, such as have got to) may be used in an epistemic sense relating to logical inference:

You gotta be angry =
I infer [perhaps from your demeanour or intonation or from your foregoing narrative—this is not specified], with a high degree of certainty, that you are angry.

It is not the addressee who is “compelled” to suffer the passion described but the the speaker who is “compelled” to draw this conclusion.

share|improve this answer
Yes, it's interesting to consider how other modals pattern in this sentence: You hafta be angry, You must be angry, You should be angry, You oughta be angry are usable in different situations, with different inferences about how the conclusion was reached by the speaker. – John Lawler Jan 30 '15 at 17:21

It's hard to say without more context, but I read that as:

You would have to be very angry [... to do something only an angry person would do].

So, rather than forcing or commanding, the speaker is speculating about the subject's mind-state.

If the full context is something like:

A: They blew up Bob's house!

B: You gotta be very angry to do something like that.

Then rendering the sentence in more formal English would produce something like:

B: You would have to be very angry to do something like that.

(This is paraphrasing, as StoneyB points out. It's not the only interpretation that makes sense, by any means.)

share|improve this answer
Good call, you're right. Adjusted to make that clearer,. – Beejamin May 4 '14 at 23:49

Since you use the word "correct" in your title we do need to say that "gotta" is not "correct" English in any context. The "correct" English expression is "have got to".

share|improve this answer
You gotta is entirely "correct" in US colloquial registers, and the spelling is a "standard" symbolization of colloquial speech. – StoneyB May 3 '14 at 14:59
We could debate what, if anything, “correct” means with regard to language. As I said, it is not I who brought up the question of correctness. – fdb May 3 '14 at 17:45

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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