I was just wondering what the difference is between these sentences:
- Instruments are to be machined...
- Instruments have to be machined...
I would be highly glad if anyone helps by giving intellectual reasoning of the difference.
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
"Instruments are to be machined" suggests that the machining is done as some form of duty or agreement, or as part of a job. You'd likely hear it from a boss or some kind of authority figure who is instructing an employee or someone over whom he or she has power. "Are to be" doesn't have the connotation of necessity that "have to" has. It simply suggests that this is the way things are done, not because they must be, but because that is what has been decided or scheduled.
"Instruments have to be machined," on the other hand, suggests that there is some reason, aside from someone's preference or decision, that the instruments must be machined--for example, if they're not, they'll stop working.
In short, the first suggests that the instruments should be, or are intended to be, machined, whereas the second suggests that the instruments must be machined.
Both have similar meanings with only a subtle difference.
"Are to be" is another way of saying "should be", which is instructive (passive command) rather than urgent and forceful.
On the other hand, "have to be" is like "must be", which implies necessity and requirement with more urgency than "are to be".