Timeline for Can I say "We don't must", any alternative using a modal verb if I can't?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 11, 2011 at 19:45 | vote | accept | Vinko Vrsalovic | ||
| Sep 10, 2011 at 3:04 | comment | added | tdhsmith | Well I wanted to demonstrate that you couldn't use "must" to achieve the meaning desired because 1) nothing can occur before it to modify it (and things afterward cannot modify it, generally), 2) negating it does not produce the right meaning, and 3) adding another modal forces "must" to have a different, undesired interpretation. In a sense this is just the conundrum of meaning as you say, but I wanted to demonstrate explicitly why there weren't other options. It was probably a little over-the-top, yes. ;) | |
| Sep 9, 2011 at 7:50 | comment | added | Louis Rhys | I don't see how the ordering of auxiliaries are related to this. As far as I can see the main issue is only the conundrum of meaning | |
| Sep 9, 2011 at 2:37 | comment | added | tdhsmith | I would avoid using both must and have to. I'm not an expert on semantics, so I can't explain very well how they work together, but usually the result is messy. Now I have no evidence or knowledge to back this up but I hypothesize that when you use them both, have to represents the necessity and must is forced to be interpreted as a marker of certainty (see 5b at thefreedictionary.com/must) In any case, I would interpret that sentence as "It seems to me that it is necessary for us to not play," which is close to the original "We must not play". | |
| Sep 9, 2011 at 1:30 | comment | added | Kit Z. Fox♦ | A very nice and thorough answer. How about "We must have to not play a game"? :) | |
| Sep 9, 2011 at 1:13 | history | answered | tdhsmith | CC BY-SA 3.0 |