have to

Question

Hi there teachers!How could we combine the idea expressed by 'have to' and the idea expressed by present [simple, continuous, perfect, perfect continuous] tenses, please? Here are some examples: 1). I have to do it. [This means that I am obliged to/bound to/forced to do it. Right teachers?. But As a stand alone sentence, without any time indicator such as now or later etc., what time does it express (present? or future?) ]2). I am having to do it. (is it a correct construction grammatically, please? Can we use "have to" this way?)3). I have been having to do it for 10 years. (Can we express the idea of "have to" together with the idea expressed by "present perfect continuous" this way, please? )4). I have had to do it. (Is it possible, please? And is it in present perfect tense?) Thank you.

GPY · Accepted Answer

"have to (do something)" can in principle be used in all the tenses, but some of them, e.g. the more elaborate continuous tenses, may become unwieldy.

1) Grammatically present tense, but can express a present, future or continuing obligation, depending on context.

2) Reasonably OK, usually for something that you must do regularly.

3) Verging towards the unwieldy, I would say, though tolerable in conversational English.

4) OK; yes, present perfect.

Anonymous · Answer

I may be wrong but as far as I know, "have (got) to" is not normally used in progressive tenses. At least, I have never seen such a thing and would consider it weird.

As long as your sentences are considered:
#1: It is correct and you understand it pretty right. It means some obligation, of course you should understand the difference between must, have (got) to and should/ought to. It is the Simple Present tense although it can express the present and the future as well, depending on the context. It is OK to say: "I have to do it now" and "She has to leave the apartment next week". The latter can be replaced with: "She will have to leave the apartment next week" but Simple Past is also OK, especially if some steps have been taken to do the thing we're talking about.

#2 and #3: I don't think they're correct. A necessity, an obligation, etc. which can be expressed with "have to" is static, so I wouldn't use this verb that way.

#4. Grammatically flawless and is the Present Perfect Simple tense indeed. On the other hand, I can't come up with any example of a sentence in which it would be used. I suppose that "I had to do it" is used more frequently.

CalifJim · Answer

Laborious1). I have to do it. ... without any time indicator such as now or later etc., what time does it express (present? or future?) ]

Don't confuse the two times that are implied with "have to". There is the time when the obligation is incurred and the time when the obligation is fulfilled. The time when the obligation is incurred is what you want to focus on. Here it is a present obligation. I have (the obligation) to do it (now). That doesn't mean that I am doing it now. I will do it later, in the future, and at that point I will fulfill the obligation. The action of doing it is in the future, but that's not the time of the obligation itself.

Laborious2). I am having to do it. (is it a correct construction grammatically, please? Can we use "have to" this way?)

Generally speaking, the semi-modal "have to" is non-progressive, i.e., it cannot be used in the continuous tenses. Even so, you will hear people use it from time to time, perhaps in cases where an obligation is incurred repeatedly and only temporarily. The kitchen faucet is broken so I'm having to wash dishes in the bathroom until the faucet is repaired. Here the non-continuous form is just as good. ... so I have to wash dishes ....

Laborious3). I have been having to do it for 10 years. (Can we express the idea of "have to" together with the idea expressed by "present perfect continuous" this way, please? )

Because "have to" is normally non-progressive, this is unidiomatic to my ear. "I have had to ..." is the expected form.

Laborious4). I have had to do it. (Is it possible, please? And is it in present perfect tense?)

It is possible, and it is present perfect. I do not like to attend funerals, but I have had to do it from time to time.

CJ

GPY · Answer

AnonymousI may be wrong but as far as I know, "have (got) to" is not normally used in progressive tenses. At least, I have never seen such a thing and would consider it weird.

It's easy to find numerous examples of "having to (do something)" from competent native speakers. Could there be regional differences?

Laborious · Answer

Dear GPY and Calif Jim, heartily thanks to both of you, for your helpful replies.

Dear CJ, I'd like to ask a few things from the explanation(s) you have given, please.

CalifJim I have (the obligation) to do it (now). That doesn't mean that I am doing it now. I will do it later, in the future, and at that point I will fulfill the obligation. The action of doing it is in the future, but that's not the time of the obligation itself.

So it means that if I say I have to (do something) without any time reference, I am already under a certain obligation; but without any time reference we don't know when I am going to fulfill this obligation. Have I understood your above quoted explanation clearly enough, CJ?

Can we say that while using have to in a sentence, mentioning / giving a time reference is very important to make the meaning more clear?

Would there be any difference in meanings of "I have to do it tomorrow" and "I will have to do it tomorrow", please?

With "I have to do it tomorrow", I am already under an obligation to do it tomorrow and this obligation will be fulfilled within tomorrow. Is it also true for the "I will have to do it tomorrow" that the person or the speaker is already under certain obligation, but will fulfill it within the time period "tomorrow"?

I think I have more things to ask (from your explanation, CJ), but I think it won't be appropriate to ask so many things in one post. May I ask about them in my next post, please?

Thank you once again!

CalifJim · Answer

CalifJim: I have (the obligation) to do it (now). That doesn't mean that I am doing it now. I will do it later, in the future, and at that point I will fulfill the obligation. The action of doing it is in the future, but that's not the time of the obligation itself.Laborious So it means that if I say I have to (do something) without any time reference, I am already under a certain obligation; but without any time reference we don't know when I am going to fulfill this obligation. Have I understood your above quoted explanation clearly enough, CJ?

Correct. Even with an adverb of time we don't know, of course, when I am going to fulfill the obligation because we can never know the future.

I have to buy potatoes tomorrow. ~ (Now) I have to | buy potatoes tomorrow.

I am under an obligation to do something tomorrow, but intervening events may make it impossible to fulfill this obligation. It may turn out that I will not buy potatoes tomorrow. In that case I fail to fulfill the obligation.

I should have made it more clear: We don't know when or if I am going to fulfill the obligation, time reference or not. The time reference (like tomorrow in the example above) is merely one of the terms of the obligation. It is not a certainty.

LaboriousCan we say that while using have to in a sentence, mentioning / giving a time reference is very important to make the meaning more clear?

As explained above, no, except as needed to specify additional terms of the obligation.

LaboriousWould there be any difference in meanings of "I have to do it tomorrow" and "I will have to do it tomorrow"

Yes. The future tense (will have to) is used in different circumstances. It can imply that I can't do it today, I can't do it any sooner than tomorrow.

— This work has to be done. Can you do it today?
— No. There isn't enough time. I'll have to do it tomorrow. (It must be postponed until tomorrow.)

LaboriousWith "I have to do it tomorrow", I am already under an obligation to do it tomorrow and this obligation will be fulfilled within tomorrow. Is it also true for the "I will have to do it tomorrow" that the person or the speaker is already under certain obligation, but will fulfill it within the time period "tomorrow"?

It can be that, more or less, yes, but not always. It is well to analyze such things as a logician, but don't neglect the possibility that speakers choose a certain tense (or any other combination of words) partially on the basis of a cultural tradition that encodes certain extra meanings within the choice, and these additional nuances cannot be derived from the mere surface structure of the sentences. That's why you ask us the questions.

Here's another example. Here I foresee incidents that may happen in the future. An incident that may happen may also cause me to incur an obligation, thus:

— On our trip to England, we should see if we can get those tickets to ride the underground at a cheaper tourist rate.
— If we want to do that, they'll require a photo.
— OK. That's easy. We can do that. We'll just have to pack an extra photo in our suitcases before we leave.

The narrative is about the future, so the envisioned requirement and the envisioned obligation are also placed in the future.

LaboriousI think I have more things to ask ... I think it won't be appropriate to ask so many things in one post. May I ask ... ?

Correct. Long lists of questions are intimidating. Better to ask questions in small batches. I'll have to check the forum tomorrow to see what new questions you have. (I don't feel the obligation to check anything now, but I will tomorrow. It's like saying I'll make a mental note to myself to do this tomorrow.)

CJ

Grammarfreak · Answer

I second that ! # 1 is most common and accepted. # 4 is possible with the right context. 2 and 3 sounded to me like someone singing off key. <img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/98.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/98.gif' alt='Emotion: rofl'/>

Laborious · Answer

Hi again, CJ

First of all, thank you very much for the detailed explanation with examples. I really feel obliged to you, CJ.
Now it seems to be much more clear to me. Just to make sure I have understood what I have learnt so far perfectly, could you confirm if I am right about what I've said in the brackets below, please?

With have to we are, at the moment/point/time of speaking, under an obligation to do something. For example, if I say "I have to log in tomorrow again to see what CJ posts", [I (now/at the time of speaking) feel like being obliged to or being required to do this (log in again) tomorrow again. Now I know that I have an obligation (to log in) to be fulfilled tomorrow. But no one knows if this will really be fulfilled.]

(If I say the above example with 'will have to' as "I will have to log in tomorrow again to see what CJ posts", will it mean the same thing as above in the brackets, please?)

Here's an example with 'will have to':
You will have to show your ticket before you enter the hall. (This is saying that you are (now/at the time of speaking) under an obligation (to show the ticket) before entering the hall. And this obligation will be or is fulfilled whenever we go to the hall.)

Would it make any difference in meaning if I said "You have to show your ticket before you enter the hall" instead. (Since this could be a strict rule for entering the hall and rules could be permanent.) So, would saying 'have to' instead of 'will have to' be more appropriate here?

Thank you once again!

GPY · Answer

grammarfreakI second that ! # 1 is most common and accepted. # 4 is possible with the right context. 2 and 3 sounded to me like someone singing off key.

How do you feel about these?

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/may/18/students-university-applications-challenge

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4761216/duncan-bannatyne-making-staff-redundant-to-pay-for-divorce.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/10/02/obama-im-having-to-cancel-some-public-appearances/

CalifJim · Answer

LaboriousWith have to we are, at the moment/point/time of speaking, under an obligation to do something. For example, if I say "I have to log in tomorrow again to see what CJ posts", [I (now/at the time of speaking) feel ~~like being~~ obliged to or ~~being~~ required to do this (log in again) tomorrow again. Now I know that I have an obligation (to log in) to be fulfilled tomorrow. But no one knows if this will really be fulfilled.]

Correct. Note that we are speaking of a self-imposed obligation. It's your own feeling of obligation that you are experiencing as you say this.

Laborious(If I say the above example with 'will have to' as "I will have to log in tomorrow again to see what CJ posts", will it mean the same thing as above in the brackets, please?)

Not exactly. By placing the obligation in the future, you are absolving yourself from any obligation in the present. You are postponing the obligation. You don't intend to impose any obligation on yourself until tomorrow.

Also, along the lines of the nuances discussed earlier, you can say that you will have to log in tomorrow because you can't log in today (if that is the situation you find yourself in). Maybe the site is down today, or your computer is malfunctioning.

will have to creates a gap between the present and the future time, time period, or event which triggers the obligation. This is much easier to do with self-imposed obligations.

LaboriousHere's an example with 'will have to':You will have to show your ticket before you enter the hall. (This is saying that you are (now/at the time of speaking) under an obligation (to show the ticket) before entering the hall. And this obligation will be or is fulfilled whenever we go to the hall.)

Not exactly. The obligation in incurred at the time of entering the hall, so you are not really under any obligation to show your ticket now. You seem to be mixing two time periods — now and before entering the hall. The general obligation that you have now is merely "to follow the rules", but that's a vacuous obligation and certainly not the crux of the sentence. The sentence that you are paraphrasing simply says that under certain circumstances that are expected to occur in the future (e.g., you are at the hall, and you are about to enter), you will incur the obligation to show your ticket. This is not a general statement about the policy of those who administer the events that take place in that hall.

LaboriousWould it make any difference in meaning if I said "You have to show your ticket before you enter the hall" instead.

Yes. That would be a statement of a general fact about the policies and procedures of the venue in question. You use the present to state these kinds of rules.

CJ

have to

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions