0
Milky Posted 20 years ago
Grammar
have to/must, again,
Which one should I use and why?
Europe has therefore to assume a positive role to be master of its future.
Europe must therefore assume a positive role to be master of its future.
Europe has therefore to assume a positive role to be master of its future.
Europe must therefore assume a positive role to be master of its future.
Top answer
Which one should I use and why? Europe has therefore to assume a positive role to be master of its future. Europe must therefore assume a positive role to be master of its future.
- Which one should I use and why?
- Europe has therefore to assume a positive role to be master of its future.
- Europe must therefore assume a positive role to be master of its future.
- To me both are correct.
- The word 'must' is more emphatic than 'has'.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
9 Answers
0
Which one should I use and why?
Europe has therefore to assume a positive role to be master of its future.
Europe must therefore assume a positive role to be master of its future.
To me both are correct. The word 'must' is more emphatic than 'has'.
Europe has therefore to assume a positive role to be master of its future.
Europe must therefore assume a positive role to be master of its future.
To me both are correct. The word 'must' is more emphatic than 'has'.
00
<Europe has therefore to assume a positive role to be master of its future.>
NB:
Europe has therefore to assume a positive role to be master of its future. (has to)
NB:
Europe has therefore to assume a positive role to be master of its future. (has to)
00
"Warning": American English viewpoint.
Not to be flippant, but the first one, with its intervening therefore, is really the more stylish of the two.
Not to be flippant, but the first one, with its intervening therefore, is really the more stylish of the two.
00
< And I think that that kind of must (the one that means have to) can sometimes sound awfully stuffy to Americans.>
What's the difference between stuffy language and formal language for Americans?
What's the difference between stuffy language and formal language for Americans?
00
0
awfully is more like slang for very here.
You wouldn't think it was stuffy if you lived here. I'm awfully sorry you feel that way because it's awfully common here. (It's way common here.)
You wouldn't think it was stuffy if you lived here. I'm awfully sorry you feel that way because it's awfully common here. (It's way common here.)
00
< like your grandparents probably talked.>
Not mine, they were of Yorkshire miner stock.
They spoke in this way:
"If tha knows nowt, say nowt an appen ***'dy 'll notice."
Not mine, they were of Yorkshire miner stock.
They spoke in this way:
"If tha knows nowt, say nowt an appen ***'dy 'll notice."
0
0
Hi,
I think the sentence itself is stuffy. Therefore, 'has to' renders the style better; as if it were historically inevitable and had nothing to do with likes and dislikes.
Regards,
Slava
I think the sentence itself is stuffy. Therefore, 'has to' renders the style better; as if it were historically inevitable and had nothing to do with likes and dislikes.
Regards,
Slava
0
Related Questions