0

Actually, I'm confused about the structure:"have to be" As the title mentioned, Can anybody explain for me the such difference.

7
  • 1
    Aware 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. Commented Nov 30, 2013 at 17:51
  • 1
    As 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/. Commented Nov 30, 2013 at 17:56
  • Thanks you very much. I can't vote for your comment because of comment position.
    – BinhPHT
    Commented Nov 30, 2013 at 18:02
  • 1
    Thanks anyway, but don't worry about it. I have almost enough points now to get a cup of coffee, if I add some money. Commented Nov 30, 2013 at 18:03
  • 1
    @johnLawler On this side of the Pond I don't think your pronunciation advice holds true. Commented Nov 30, 2013 at 18:18

1 Answer 1

3

In this context "have to be" is synonymous with "must be". "Have to aware" makes no sense.

2
  • Actually, I cannot realize what the role of "be" in phrase" have to be". I hope it will be clear for me
    – BinhPHT
    Commented Nov 30, 2013 at 17:37
  • 2
    There 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". Commented Nov 30, 2013 at 18:26

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