"must" for rules, obligations. The usual differentiation is that 'must' refers to an inward compulsion, while 'have to' refers to a command from an authority outside oneself. Most native speakers, however, are unaware of this guideline, and many are liable to use either, with 'have to' dominating because the past tense of 'must' is 'had to', while the past of 'have to' (meaning necessity) is 'mustn't'.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
AnonymousI've read in a book that: "have to" is used for rules and obligations or to say something is necessary."must" for rules, obligations.The usual differentiation is that 'must' refers to an inward compulsion, while 'have to' refers to a command from an authority outside oneself. Most native speakers, however, are unaware of this guideline, and many are
Mister MicawberThe usual differentiation is that 'must' refers to an inward compulsion, while 'have to' refers to a command from an authority outside oneself.Whereas signage in the U.S. works just the reverse:
CalifJimWhereas signage in the U.S. works just the reverse:RIGHT LANE MUST EXIT (Traffic authority)Ah, yes. The difference in meaning is often used to psychologically shift responsibility.
Mister MicawberThe difference in meaning is often used to psychologically shift responsibility.I'll take your word for it. I've never understood this inner and outer thing anyway with have to and must, let alone using them to shift responsibility.
CalifJim using them to shift responsibilityJust my perception, CJ. I've always thought that 'right lane must', etc., subtly makes the driver consider himself responsible for the decision instead of just obeying a command from the department of transportation. Some gummint sign designer 'way back when noticed that signage could do that.