Actually, I'm confused about the structure:"have to be" As the title mentioned, Can anybody explain for me the such difference.
7
-
1Aware is a predicate adjective (like asleep) and therefore needs an auxiliary form of be. After the modal idiom have to, which requires an infinitive, that form is in fact the infinitive form be. Therefore is/was/are/am/were/be/being aware is the required form.– John LawlerNov 30, 2013 at 17:51
-
1As for have to, it's an idiom and a modal paraphrase and means the same thing as must. It has a special pronunciation; it's /'hæftə/ or /'hæftu/, never /'hævtə/ or /'hævtu/.– John LawlerNov 30, 2013 at 17:56
-
Thanks you very much. I can't vote for your comment because of comment position.– BinhPHTNov 30, 2013 at 18:02
-
1Thanks anyway, but don't worry about it. I have almost enough points now to get a cup of coffee, if I add some money.– John LawlerNov 30, 2013 at 18:03
-
1@johnLawler On this side of the Pond I don't think your pronunciation advice holds true.– George StirlingNov 30, 2013 at 18:18
|
Show 2 more comments
1 Answer
In this context "have to be" is synonymous with "must be". "Have to aware" makes no sense.
-
Actually, I cannot realize what the role of "be" in phrase" have to be". I hope it will be clear for me– BinhPHTNov 30, 2013 at 17:37
-
2There is no role of "be", since there is no phrase "have to be"; the construction is "have to" + "be aware". "I breathe" → "I have to breathe". "I am aware" → "I have to be aware". Nov 30, 2013 at 18:26