1

I am a non-native speaker. I understand that both sentences below have the same meaning. However, I feel that the use of the word "must" isn't suitable for a document such as a questionnaire or a step by step guide document. I feel that it sounds more authoritarian and harsh than "required to". Am I correct?

  1. The user is required to fill out this form.
  2. The user must fill out this form.
Improve this question
2
  • 1
    Try the UK Highway Code for drivers and other road users issued by the government. It uses must in contrast to should, for example in rule 97. The aim to is to get road users to obey the law and behave well.
    – Henry
    Commented May 8 at 13:11
  • This concern of being too bossy is characteristic of Boomers suspicious of authority. But it's not. Must is clear, that's all. However, using third person user walks the writer into this trap, whereas second person avoids it all, including he/she, his/her: Fill out, Complete, Click OK.
    – Yosef Baskin
    Commented May 8 at 13:28

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

I'd say that the only real difference is one of register; 'is required to' is more formal than 'must' and is arguably more appropriate here. In conversation, 'must' or 'has to' is more idiomatic.

True, 'must' is polysemous, but only the deontic (subclass directive) sense (ie 'is required [by the authorities / laws obtaining / ...] to'!) is reasonable here.

(Contrast the epistemic usage of 'must':

  • "Best must score!" (ie I consider the probability of him failing to do so near zero)

  • "That must be John at the door now." (ie I consider it highly likely that it's him.)

  • Potassium must be kept under oil or in a vacuum. (ie it will certainly not last long in air / a damp environment / ...)).

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .