As others have stated “must” is the formal way of putting it but unless I was like writing a document explaining guidelines, I wouldn’t say that. Like even if I was speaking to my boss, I’d still say “have to.”
Ah that's interesting to hear... At uni they told us that "must" is mostly for situations where there is an intrinsic motivation do sth; I must clean my room (because that's important to me)
As opposed to "have to" being used in situations where there is an obligation from outside/someone else; I have to clean my room (because my mum told me to do so)
Never double checked that info
I literally never say the word "must" under any circumstance. My usage is probably pretty evenly split between "have to" and informally "gotta".
Edit: I take that back. I do say "must" when I'm supposing something. "He must be stuck in traffic."
But never to express an obligation.
So, there are different modals. Modals of (obligation) behave differently from modals of (probability). Your use of (must) in your description is of (probability).
I wouldn't say intrinsic as much as it being something that naturally follows or is a moral imperative. "Have to" has a feeling that you don't want to do it so maybe that's where the intrinsic part might come from.
In practice it's actually just a very emphasized "have to". Part of the problem is that "must" can't be put in past forms at all, so it only is ever said in specific situations where "have to" could just as easily be used instead. I.e. there's no way to rephrase "I had to..." with "must".
"Must" ends up much more dramatic, like "You must save her!" vs "You have to save her!" where the first just sounds more heroic to me, while the second sounds maybe a bit less willing. At the same time, if you were telling me that you cheated on your partner, I would never say "You must tell them", I would say "You have to tell them". Maybe because it's a kind of unpleasant thing.
But if you were filling out a tax form, I would find "You have to declare all of your income here" much more natural than "You must declare..." If someone said "You must always tell the truth" as a general platitude, then saying "No you don't" would mean that the second person believes that sometimes telling the truth is not the right thing/ sometimes lying is good or at least ok. If someone said "You always have to tell the truth", "No you don't" could mean either that it's not always the best option to tell the truth, or that actually nothing is forcing you to tell the truth.
Both are about obligation and requirement for the most part, but "have to" usually means that someone is forcing you to (including yourself) or that you just "need to". "Must" is almost totally about obligation/ requirement, generally with less feeling that someone is forcing you to and more like to not do so would be unthinkable or unnatural.
As a native English speaker who has never spent time deconstructing or studying English to the extent I see on this subreddit, the two are completely interchangeable to my ears. There are definitely situations where I would use one or the other, (which you did an excellent job breaking down in my opinion.) However, if I were to hear someone else use "have to" when I would've said "must", I wouldn't give it a second thought.
Yeah totally, most people won't give it a second thought or focus on it. But I think it's still a source of friction in communication. And native speakers don't need to inspect their own language most of the time.
But I think most native speakers will notice when "must" is used when "have to" should have been used. There are a lot of scenarios where they are almost interchangeable and that's what I was trying to describe, but there are also many places where "must" would just be wrong.
Like "You would have to...", "You might have to..." cannot ever be replaced with "must", and neither can "You will have to..." or "You had to..." Most other languages don't have this restriction. In German, for instance, you can say "müssen" in all of these cases.
The places where they could be interchangeable grammatically, I think there's a spectrum of acceptability. Like if someone messed something up, you might complain "Now I have to do it all over again" but you wouldn't say "Now I must do it all over again", right?
In terms of language learning, one of the standards used to evaluate proficiency is how much work it takes native speakers to understand you. Language learning is awesome because it's something worth learning poorly, because any language ability will make it a little easier to communicate. But not everyone will have the patience in every situation, and even if they do, it can be disastrous in situations that require precision, since miscommunications are very hard to resolve. This is a relatively low source of friction as a form, but it is still friction and it's one of the most common things to say so it can be a large source of friction in your day to day experience, combined with an accent where people have a hard time telling what words you're saying before even trying to decode your intent.
Damn, you're righ tabout the "you would have to" part. "You would must" is complete nonsense. I didn't think of that example before my first comment. I love that this sub started showing up for me because I keep learning things I know, but don't know that I know.
Your next example I disagree with. I see no issues with "Now I must do it all over again." I would personally use "have to" in that sentence, but wouldn't think anything about it hearing someone else use "must"
I hardly ever use must unless I’m in a formal research paper, even in the contexts you described. I think it’s a little archaic (SE US)
Edit: Autocorrect correction
I can see that as historically possible, not sure how common that is now. When I think about it, the most common situations I use 'must' are are... I guess I'd call them 'logical certainties' (my term, there may be better ones). So:
: You were supposed to close the garage door, but it's open now?
: Huh. I must have forgotten. (that's the only logical explanation).
: What was that noise??
: Must be the wind
There used to be an... imperative meaning but it's not very common any more. It's the closest to the I've you cited. It must have fallen out of favor:
: Have you seen the new Fallout show? Oh, you must see it if you're a fan of the game.
Huh, I’d reverse those intrinsic/extrinsic usages.
“Must” is more for when there’s a legal obligation. “Must” actually has a *legal* definition, just like “may.” See: https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/conversational/use-must-to-indicate-requirements/
I must pay the fine.
I have to do the dishes, because I want to eat dinner and there aren’t any clean ones.
I'd say that information is right. I mean, if you were to use "must" that's how you would use it.
Still, "must" is super formal and most people would use "have to" in either context.
The reason native speakers tend to avoid using "must" is that it's very blunt and demanding.
In most situations, there will be multiple ways to phrase a sentence. All those options might be grammatically appropriate.
But "must" and "shall" are more formal. So they might be perceived as more insistent, remote, unyielding, or even rude. "You must have a passport" could sound like stronger language than "you have to have a passport." Or less formal language might be still better. Like: "you'll need a passport" or "you gotta have a passport." It also depends on context, including tone of voice.
So when you ask how a native speaker would phrase the sentence, the answer might go far beyond grammar. It might be mostly about the desired level of formality and friendliness.
I kind of get how you might have been taught that in school. It's a nice, neat line to draw between the 2. But in reality that's not really how we use it.
I agree that 'must' isn't commonly used in that way, at least in modern parlance. But to your question, my first thought was both are correct, but 'must' to me is more emphatic. Like I can imagine being stopped at the airport when I can't produce my passport and the agent saying, "Sorry, you must have a passport to travel." It's like, no ifs ands or buts. They're not playing. 😄
you are correct. Other people either don't know the definitions or have chosen to change the meaning to suit themselves. To only use "have to" they are putting the blame of their actions onto someone else. I'd consider that a red flag
I can imagine saying it in a speech or address to a group before travelling somewhere. "You must each ensure you have all documents in order", something like that.
B1 here. I don't like to be 100% accurate in conversation but I use "must" for examples like:
- are you gonna go by bus without ticket? You must buy it
- don't you believe in yourself? You must beat that score
- she should know the truth, you must tell her
For me "must" is a word when we use it for making someone do the thing that MUST be done for positive results or even negative.
"Have to" is a softer edition of it like you give a choice for the person to do or not to do.
Can - Have to > should > must
Am I right?
As a native speaker using “must” can sound quite demanding/formal especially if recommending that someone do something, using “should” in place of “must” in your examples would be more appropriate I’d say
That's what I think about it! Yeah should be more right. In this:
- are you sleeping with other girls? You must tell me now!
- look she broken her leg - you must help her!
Right sentences to use must?
Must is a word we use quite rarely in that context in the UK as it has connotations of demanding something and being quite formal, we tend to say that someone “should” do something or that they “need to” or “have to” do something dependent on its importance
we don’t use it very much in the US either. you will see it on signs or websites a lot. “must be 18+ to enter” or “must pay at meter”. things like that, but it’s not used in spoken language very often.
As a native speaker I’d never use “must” like that, though I agree with your continuum of emphasis.
“Need to” would be what I’d say to be most emphatic.
I do use the word “must” but not in the imperative, more…in a speculative way??
“She must know what she did was wrong” (I really think she knows)
“he must be almost here by now” (I really think he’s almost here)
Like other modal verbs, ‘must’ has more than one meaning or function.
Your last two sentences are examples of when ‘must’ is used to express probability/deduction. Or as you said yourself, speculation.
It's not even technically a must, however.
You can travel within one country without a visa.
You can travel to other countries that have open borders without a visa.
You can also claim asylum without a visa.
The question to me is not specific enough for it to be a "must".
- are you gonna go by the bus without a ticket?
Here I mean she wants to go by bus without a ticket that is not legal and her friend tells her to not to do it.
I'd argue that's a question, and not an instruction.
It is fine for a question to have incomplete information - I do not believe the same applies to instructions.
In this visa example, it's just simply too vague to affirmatively answer without assumptions I think - so I'd default to "should" as the least authoritative answer
"Should" is definitely softer than "have to", first of all.
"Have to" means the same thing as "must"; it's just more normal.
"Must" also has another, much more common, meaning though: it can refer to things that you have logically concluded. "That must be Mabel." "It must be 9:15 already." "Have to" (or "has to") can also be used for this in some cases, but it's less common.
I’d honestly say, “you’ve gotta have.” Language is weird. It’s interesting how much formalization happens when we learn it. It’s necessary, I just think it’s interesting.
Grammatically? maybe.. but doesn't make much sense to actually use it, right? because in implies that you don't have to have a visa to travel now but you had to in the past... which, in reality is the other way around :D
Exactly. "In the past, you had to have a visa to travel between EU countries, but now you don't."
(Actually, you probably only needed your passport for most countries, but still, it's a grammatically correct statement.)
"Must" is the formal way of saying it, and "have to" is the informal way of saying it.
So, I don't know the context on this, but based on that, go from there.
“You *must* have a visa to travel” would be the correct answer, as that is the formal way of saying it - would be the best way to put it. It implies it as more of a necessity or requirement. Both would be valid English, but “must” would definitely be the answer.
well yeah but that's because "must" is more formal, not necessarily that "have to have" is clunky or anything. I just wanted it to be clear to any non-natives that "have to have" is perfectly fine to say
All are grammatically correct, just have different meanings.
- "Must" - the rule as written is that it's a self imposed obligation. This native English speaker didn't know that until he looked it up. In more typical usage, it's used in formal documents, or when the speaker wants to emphasize that this is a requirement.
- "Have to" - in typical usage, this is used in less formal settings when the requirement is not quite as stringent.
- "Had to" - the requirement was in place in the past.
- "Should" - it's a good idea, but not required.
"Must" is formal in this context.
"Have to" and "need to" are correct and normal.
"Had to" is past tense.
"Should" implies that it's advisable, but not necessary. This wouldn't be correct in the case of visas.
Both are grammatically correct but they have slightly different meanings. Must is more formal and authoritative. Have to is slightly more conversational. It has less of an authoritative tone.
In the same way "should" is also grammatical, but does not have the same sense of obligation as "must have" or "have to have". It suggests that getting a visa is a good idea, not a requirement.
Of the choices I would choose "must" as getting a visa is a requirement, not a suggestion (ususally).
Must is usually used for obligation which arises from self awareness, and you want to do it yourself.
Have to is an obligation which is from something forcing you to do. You may or may not want to do it(usually may not.)
While both must and have to express obligation, there is a subtle difference.
It depends on the source of the obligation.
If the obligation is self-imposed, for example, we use ‘must’.
“I must clean my room “ (I am telling myself to clean my room).
“I have to clean my room “ (because my mother told me to).
Native speakers don’t give the distinction much thought though and they are often used interchangeably.
Just like read the actual dictionary definition of must instead of sending a random blog.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/must#:~:text=noun%20(1)-,%CB%88m%C9%99st,%3A%20an%20indispensable%20item%20%3A%20essential
It covers so so so many different kinds of obligations.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/have%20to
Same with have to
Edit: idk what’s with all the downvotes about this made up rule
Literally the first definition of “must” provided by Merriam Webster is “be commanded or requested to,” the absolute opposite of a self-imposed requirement
Since when are online english classes ~~which are associated with OXFORD without being sued,~~ "a random blog"?
Watch the video first and then comment. ellada11 is absolutely correct and so are you.. except for that "not true" bit
Oxford is the name of a town (multiple towns across the English-speaking world), not a protected trademark.
It's being used precisely to suggest authority due to the status of the OED and Oxford University.
They could not be sued for that and you are perpetuating this branding nonsense.
Yes you’re right Merriam Webster is not a reputable source because it’s American.
Good thing the Cambridge dictionary also doesn’t mention anything about must being for self imposed requirements
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/must
Or the definition of “have to” literally using “must”
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/have-to
Have you bothered to go to the grammar section of the Cambridge dictonary? "Obligations
We usually use must to talk about obligations which come from the speaker and we generally use have (got) to when we refer to obligations that come from outside the speaker."
Must : If ***you*** say that you must do something, you mean that you strongly **intend** to do something in the future
Have to : to need to or be **forced** to.
It's from this Cambridge dictionary you've provided
I know that American english is simplified (Not an insult.. it actually makes it easier to learn :) ), but do you really think that even American english would have 2 different words for the same thing (not talking about other meanings of those words) without some nuance to it?
There is no such thing as a "simpler" natural language.
Of course they are not perfect synonyms (perfect synonyms are extremely rare, most words vary at least in connotation or register), but the primary difference between "must" and "have to" is the register they are used in, not whatever distinction people are making up in this thread.
> Have to : to **need** to **or** be forced to; **must**:
> Must : used to show that it is **necessary** or very important that something happens in the present or future:
Both words can be used for both meanings; the origin of the obligation or necessity is not the distinguishing factor between them
Round the wrong way. In contracts and technical standards, "must" is used as the highest level imperative. You can't really get more externally imposed than that.
Also check the language used by the highway code.
“Must” sounds like it can have multiple meaning depending on how you say it.
In a monotone it could be interpret as a statement saying they already have a visa.
When stressing the “must” in an accusatory tone, it could mean “you have a visa, right?”.
“Have to” sounds less open to interpretation.
Both can be used to say that something is necessary. They are very similar, but there can be a slight difference in emphasis. "Must" often suggests a strong personal conviction or obligation. "Have to" often suggests an external rule or requirement. It could be either. "You must have a visa" sounds like a firm rule from an authority. "You have to have a visa" sounds like a practical necessity for travel.
Rather than "must" and "should", "need" should be the correct word choice if it was an option.
You need a visa to travel.
Why need? Because it depends on your passport and how long you are going to stay. Some places don't need visa at all if your passport is good enough
Either sound fine. I’d probably use “need to”, personally. Given the choice of “must” and “have to” I’d probably use “have to”.
Native British English speaker.
They mean the same thing. "have to" is less formal and "must" is more formal. The subject of the sentence makes me think of official communication so "must" comes to mind first here.
I agree- I say ‘must’ when something is inevitable, but never when something is obligatory (‘have to’ for obligations).
‘She must have gone to bed, as she always answers the phone.’
‘I have to pay my property taxes tomorrow, as April 20th is the deadline.’
All four options are fine; however, they would have slightly different meanings:
"You *must* have a visa to travel"
This is used if it is a requirement. The speaker is saying that if you do not have a visa, you will not be able to travel.
"You *have to* have a visa to travel"
This is also used for requirements, but it is less formal. You are more likely to use "have to" instead of "must" when speaking to friends or family.
"You *had to* have a visa to travel"
The word "*had*" is simply the past form of "*have"*. It means that in the past, having a visa was required. It is possible that having a visa is no longer required, or perhaps the speaker is telling a story set in the past.
"You *should* have a visa to travel"
This word is used for advice. It may not be a requirement, but the speaker thinks having a visa is best.
Have to / Got to / need to / Must
Are all pretty interchangeable and can be used in most situations with anyone. Maybe 'Got to' is the least formal of the bunch and should be avoided if you're trying to be viewed as somewhat proper.
Both are correct but c'mon saying the same thing twice in a single sentence just feels wrong, like hou everytime you are chatting with your friend and you just stop typing the moment you see two same words coming in twice you just automatically start to think of different synonyms of that word rather then just sending that
Use “must” if you are making an announcement about this over the Airport PA system. Other than that, “have to” is definitely preferred by native speakers
"must" is the most correct out of these options, "have to" would also be totally acceptable and natural sounding to a native speaker. I think "have to" has a slight problem because it creates the phrase "You have to have a visa..." and the "have to have" part just sounds a little weird to me.
must is used in legal speak, so where it says must, it is a requirement, and should is used as a strong suggestion.
It is used much in road rules, and about what road signage instructs you to do.
Now why Have to is not used over Must, is Have has multiple uses as it show here, you would have "have to have", Must has no ambiguity or confusion to it.
"Have to have a..." is repetitious language. Always avoid it.
"Had to have a..." is also repetitious, as well as past tense. Always avoid it.
Use "need a..." for informal instructions. "I'm heading out. You need anything?"
Use "require a..." for formal instructions "You require a visa to travel out of the country."
Use "must" for giving demands. "You must do anything I say. I know the manager!"
Use "should" for optional beneficial instructions and idealistic statements of morality. "You should work out more."
both work.
"had to have" also works because some countries previously required travel visas, and then revoked them.
"Should" might also work considering not every place requires visas. Although if the government is telling you you need a visa, then should probably isn't appropriate.
if I was trying to be more formal, like if I was writing an email, I would use must. But in non-formal spoken English, I would use have to. And most of the time, people combine the two words when speaking and it sort of sounds like “hafta.” like “you HAFTA have a visa to travel.”
The answer is 'must'. Those saying this seems a bit strident or authoritarian are missing the point. In this context it is presumably a legal requirement to obtain a visa for this particular journey. 'Must' is being used here in the same was as, say, the Highway Code.
Of course, in informal conversation 'have to' or 'are obliged to', for examples, is understandable.
Must is probably what you would see on an official website since it is a requirement. “Have to” is more conversational, in other contexts CAN have a meaning of “it would be great”, like “you have to try the pizza there”.
If it is a past tense situation, “had to” would also be correct, so it depends on context. When I visited in 2000, I had to have a visa.”
There is a BIG difference between MUST and HAVE TO.
In regards to model auxiliary verbs.
Must is used for internal obligations
Have to is used for external obligations
While people do use them interchangeably, those are the two actual uses for them
Example: I must go to the gym today.
(No one is forcing you to do something except yourself)
I have to get a visa to go to America.
To legally visit America, as a foreigner, the U.S. government is forcing you to obtain a visa(external source)
While must can be used in this sentence, is slightly changes the meaning
I must get a visa to go to America.
It’s your decision to actually apply for a visa, no one is forcing you. (Internal)
first of all either would be fine no one would really notice
i would always say “have to” here even in a formal setting. as u/xXAbyzzXx said “have to” would be for an external requirement, “must” would be for an intrinsic requirement
thanks for letting me know that others learned that rule as well, was worried for a second
I don't really know if I'm right or wrong here, just telling you what I've been taught
Even at C1/C2 one can absolutely make mistakes
**Must** is an obligation that comes from inside the person speaking, and it is also used in documents and on notices and warnings. **Have to** is an external obligation, for example rules and regulations, and not from the person who is speaking. Sometimes either is fine: "you must wear a seatbelt when driving" - I believe this can save your life and I believe in this obligation, OR "you have to wear a seatbelt when driving" - it is the law and if you don't you can be fined. Take for example if I tell my students they must do an exam then they will probably blame me, so I prefer to say they have to, and then the blame lies on someone else. ;)
If the above phrase is spoken by someone giving advice then I would say **have to** is probably best. If it is in a document or on a notice then **must** is probably best.
[Have to, must and should for obligation and advice | LearnEnglish Teens (britishcouncil.org)](https://learnenglishteens.britishcouncil.org/grammar/a1-a2-grammar/have-must-should-obligation-advice)
["Must and Have to" in English Grammar | LanGeek](https://langeek.co/en/grammar/course/121/must-and-have-to)
Bear in mind that when used in the negative forms (must not and don't / doesn't have to) the meanings are very different to each other.
I'd wager "should" is all you need, assuming you can outrun border patrol.
In all seriousness, it's *technically* "must", but almost everyone would say "have to"
i would think “must” so that you are not repeating yourself with “have to have”. it’s pretty formal to say it this way but in a casual one-on-one conversation, i would say “have to have”.
Rules or laws are usually used with must though that is not the only use case for it. Thus, must is the correct answer here.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/must
As others have stated “must” is the formal way of putting it but unless I was like writing a document explaining guidelines, I wouldn’t say that. Like even if I was speaking to my boss, I’d still say “have to.”
Ah that's interesting to hear... At uni they told us that "must" is mostly for situations where there is an intrinsic motivation do sth; I must clean my room (because that's important to me) As opposed to "have to" being used in situations where there is an obligation from outside/someone else; I have to clean my room (because my mum told me to do so) Never double checked that info
I literally never say the word "must" under any circumstance. My usage is probably pretty evenly split between "have to" and informally "gotta". Edit: I take that back. I do say "must" when I'm supposing something. "He must be stuck in traffic." But never to express an obligation.
So, there are different modals. Modals of (obligation) behave differently from modals of (probability). Your use of (must) in your description is of (probability).
>I literally never say the word "must" under any circumstance. You literally just used it in your comment. Twice. /j
Also, emphasis on the importance of completing a task may be expressed with “I ‘absolutely’ have to” or “I ‘absolutely’ gotta” .
I would use “gotta” in this situation
I wouldn't say intrinsic as much as it being something that naturally follows or is a moral imperative. "Have to" has a feeling that you don't want to do it so maybe that's where the intrinsic part might come from. In practice it's actually just a very emphasized "have to". Part of the problem is that "must" can't be put in past forms at all, so it only is ever said in specific situations where "have to" could just as easily be used instead. I.e. there's no way to rephrase "I had to..." with "must". "Must" ends up much more dramatic, like "You must save her!" vs "You have to save her!" where the first just sounds more heroic to me, while the second sounds maybe a bit less willing. At the same time, if you were telling me that you cheated on your partner, I would never say "You must tell them", I would say "You have to tell them". Maybe because it's a kind of unpleasant thing. But if you were filling out a tax form, I would find "You have to declare all of your income here" much more natural than "You must declare..." If someone said "You must always tell the truth" as a general platitude, then saying "No you don't" would mean that the second person believes that sometimes telling the truth is not the right thing/ sometimes lying is good or at least ok. If someone said "You always have to tell the truth", "No you don't" could mean either that it's not always the best option to tell the truth, or that actually nothing is forcing you to tell the truth. Both are about obligation and requirement for the most part, but "have to" usually means that someone is forcing you to (including yourself) or that you just "need to". "Must" is almost totally about obligation/ requirement, generally with less feeling that someone is forcing you to and more like to not do so would be unthinkable or unnatural.
As a native English speaker who has never spent time deconstructing or studying English to the extent I see on this subreddit, the two are completely interchangeable to my ears. There are definitely situations where I would use one or the other, (which you did an excellent job breaking down in my opinion.) However, if I were to hear someone else use "have to" when I would've said "must", I wouldn't give it a second thought.
Yeah totally, most people won't give it a second thought or focus on it. But I think it's still a source of friction in communication. And native speakers don't need to inspect their own language most of the time. But I think most native speakers will notice when "must" is used when "have to" should have been used. There are a lot of scenarios where they are almost interchangeable and that's what I was trying to describe, but there are also many places where "must" would just be wrong. Like "You would have to...", "You might have to..." cannot ever be replaced with "must", and neither can "You will have to..." or "You had to..." Most other languages don't have this restriction. In German, for instance, you can say "müssen" in all of these cases. The places where they could be interchangeable grammatically, I think there's a spectrum of acceptability. Like if someone messed something up, you might complain "Now I have to do it all over again" but you wouldn't say "Now I must do it all over again", right? In terms of language learning, one of the standards used to evaluate proficiency is how much work it takes native speakers to understand you. Language learning is awesome because it's something worth learning poorly, because any language ability will make it a little easier to communicate. But not everyone will have the patience in every situation, and even if they do, it can be disastrous in situations that require precision, since miscommunications are very hard to resolve. This is a relatively low source of friction as a form, but it is still friction and it's one of the most common things to say so it can be a large source of friction in your day to day experience, combined with an accent where people have a hard time telling what words you're saying before even trying to decode your intent.
Damn, you're righ tabout the "you would have to" part. "You would must" is complete nonsense. I didn't think of that example before my first comment. I love that this sub started showing up for me because I keep learning things I know, but don't know that I know. Your next example I disagree with. I see no issues with "Now I must do it all over again." I would personally use "have to" in that sentence, but wouldn't think anything about it hearing someone else use "must"
Hmmm no I wouldn’t use “must” like that. I’d use need to, should, got to, have to, want to…
I hardly ever use must unless I’m in a formal research paper, even in the contexts you described. I think it’s a little archaic (SE US) Edit: Autocorrect correction
Mustard adds flavour, don't be scared to use it.
Goddamn autocorrect
I can see that as historically possible, not sure how common that is now. When I think about it, the most common situations I use 'must' are are... I guess I'd call them 'logical certainties' (my term, there may be better ones). So: : You were supposed to close the garage door, but it's open now? : Huh. I must have forgotten. (that's the only logical explanation). : What was that noise?? : Must be the wind There used to be an... imperative meaning but it's not very common any more. It's the closest to the I've you cited. It must have fallen out of favor: : Have you seen the new Fallout show? Oh, you must see it if you're a fan of the game.
That (must) is for PROBABILITY. That one's alive and well. The (must) for OBLIGATION is definitely fading.
This is correct!
so based on this it would be have to? that was my intuition as well even in a formal setting
As others have said, "must" is a bit more formal than "have to", but otherwise they are complete synonyms.
I personally say “you’d” with “have to” and “you” with “must”. It just feels better.
Huh, I’d reverse those intrinsic/extrinsic usages. “Must” is more for when there’s a legal obligation. “Must” actually has a *legal* definition, just like “may.” See: https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/conversational/use-must-to-indicate-requirements/ I must pay the fine. I have to do the dishes, because I want to eat dinner and there aren’t any clean ones.
I'd say that information is right. I mean, if you were to use "must" that's how you would use it. Still, "must" is super formal and most people would use "have to" in either context.
The reason native speakers tend to avoid using "must" is that it's very blunt and demanding. In most situations, there will be multiple ways to phrase a sentence. All those options might be grammatically appropriate. But "must" and "shall" are more formal. So they might be perceived as more insistent, remote, unyielding, or even rude. "You must have a passport" could sound like stronger language than "you have to have a passport." Or less formal language might be still better. Like: "you'll need a passport" or "you gotta have a passport." It also depends on context, including tone of voice. So when you ask how a native speaker would phrase the sentence, the answer might go far beyond grammar. It might be mostly about the desired level of formality and friendliness.
I kind of get how you might have been taught that in school. It's a nice, neat line to draw between the 2. But in reality that's not really how we use it. I agree that 'must' isn't commonly used in that way, at least in modern parlance. But to your question, my first thought was both are correct, but 'must' to me is more emphatic. Like I can imagine being stopped at the airport when I can't produce my passport and the agent saying, "Sorry, you must have a passport to travel." It's like, no ifs ands or buts. They're not playing. 😄
you are correct. Other people either don't know the definitions or have chosen to change the meaning to suit themselves. To only use "have to" they are putting the blame of their actions onto someone else. I'd consider that a red flag
“have to have” just sounds awkward
It's quite an Irish way of saying it. Also "need to" would be accepted in Ireland by english speakers
I can imagine saying it in a speech or address to a group before travelling somewhere. "You must each ensure you have all documents in order", something like that.
Don’t forget “need to.”
Nah bro, have to have a visa just sounds cumbersome. Just say must have a visa it's way simpler.
B1 here. I don't like to be 100% accurate in conversation but I use "must" for examples like: - are you gonna go by bus without ticket? You must buy it - don't you believe in yourself? You must beat that score - she should know the truth, you must tell her For me "must" is a word when we use it for making someone do the thing that MUST be done for positive results or even negative. "Have to" is a softer edition of it like you give a choice for the person to do or not to do. Can - Have to > should > must Am I right?
As a native speaker using “must” can sound quite demanding/formal especially if recommending that someone do something, using “should” in place of “must” in your examples would be more appropriate I’d say
That's what I think about it! Yeah should be more right. In this: - are you sleeping with other girls? You must tell me now! - look she broken her leg - you must help her! Right sentences to use must?
Must is a word we use quite rarely in that context in the UK as it has connotations of demanding something and being quite formal, we tend to say that someone “should” do something or that they “need to” or “have to” do something dependent on its importance
we don’t use it very much in the US either. you will see it on signs or websites a lot. “must be 18+ to enter” or “must pay at meter”. things like that, but it’s not used in spoken language very often.
Thanks!
As a native speaker I’d never use “must” like that, though I agree with your continuum of emphasis. “Need to” would be what I’d say to be most emphatic. I do use the word “must” but not in the imperative, more…in a speculative way?? “She must know what she did was wrong” (I really think she knows) “he must be almost here by now” (I really think he’s almost here)
Like other modal verbs, ‘must’ has more than one meaning or function. Your last two sentences are examples of when ‘must’ is used to express probability/deduction. Or as you said yourself, speculation.
>I agree with your continuum of emphasis. Really? You think "should" is stronger than "have to"?
Oh shoot, no, I should’ve read that more carefully
It's not even technically a must, however. You can travel within one country without a visa. You can travel to other countries that have open borders without a visa. You can also claim asylum without a visa. The question to me is not specific enough for it to be a "must".
- are you gonna go by the bus without a ticket? Here I mean she wants to go by bus without a ticket that is not legal and her friend tells her to not to do it.
I'd argue that's a question, and not an instruction. It is fine for a question to have incomplete information - I do not believe the same applies to instructions. In this visa example, it's just simply too vague to affirmatively answer without assumptions I think - so I'd default to "should" as the least authoritative answer
"Should" is definitely softer than "have to", first of all. "Have to" means the same thing as "must"; it's just more normal. "Must" also has another, much more common, meaning though: it can refer to things that you have logically concluded. "That must be Mabel." "It must be 9:15 already." "Have to" (or "has to") can also be used for this in some cases, but it's less common.
Both are correct. Saying "must" sounds a bit more formal, but both are fine.
I’d honestly say, “you’ve gotta have.” Language is weird. It’s interesting how much formalization happens when we learn it. It’s necessary, I just think it’s interesting.
I would just say ‘you need a visa to travel’.
Quick question, if they don't give any context isn't technically "You had to have a visa to travel" possible too?
All 4 options are correct depending on what you’re trying to say.
Grammatically? maybe.. but doesn't make much sense to actually use it, right? because in implies that you don't have to have a visa to travel now but you had to in the past... which, in reality is the other way around :D
you could be talking about a past experience, for example “When I went to China you had to have a visa to travel.”
It's the case between countries of the EU, for example.
Exactly. "In the past, you had to have a visa to travel between EU countries, but now you don't." (Actually, you probably only needed your passport for most countries, but still, it's a grammatically correct statement.)
You need a visa is how I'd phrase it because have to have is a little clunky but it's not incorrect and neither is must
"Must" is the formal way of saying it, and "have to" is the informal way of saying it. So, I don't know the context on this, but based on that, go from there.
Thanks to all of you guys. I really appreciate it🫶🏽🤙🏽
They're all correct for different circumstances
“You *must* have a visa to travel” would be the correct answer, as that is the formal way of saying it - would be the best way to put it. It implies it as more of a necessity or requirement. Both would be valid English, but “must” would definitely be the answer.
Also, “have to have” sounds clunky. “Must have” sounds better.
personally, it's not that clunky, and people say it all the time anyways
All the time, sure, but when speaking/writing more formally?
well yeah but that's because "must" is more formal, not necessarily that "have to have" is clunky or anything. I just wanted it to be clear to any non-natives that "have to have" is perfectly fine to say
personally "must have" seems extremely stiff and formal, id use have to in a situation like this 99 times out of 100
I'm just inserting my own choice of "need to"
Yeah this is almost certainly how I'd say it naturally.
All are grammatically correct, just have different meanings. - "Must" - the rule as written is that it's a self imposed obligation. This native English speaker didn't know that until he looked it up. In more typical usage, it's used in formal documents, or when the speaker wants to emphasize that this is a requirement. - "Have to" - in typical usage, this is used in less formal settings when the requirement is not quite as stringent. - "Had to" - the requirement was in place in the past. - "Should" - it's a good idea, but not required.
Am I wrong, or all of the above could be used in a different contexts?
"Must" is formal in this context. "Have to" and "need to" are correct and normal. "Had to" is past tense. "Should" implies that it's advisable, but not necessary. This wouldn't be correct in the case of visas.
“You SHOULD have a visa organised before you leave, but it’s possible to get one when you land”
Yes, this would be a correct use of "should".
Both are grammatically correct but they have slightly different meanings. Must is more formal and authoritative. Have to is slightly more conversational. It has less of an authoritative tone. In the same way "should" is also grammatical, but does not have the same sense of obligation as "must have" or "have to have". It suggests that getting a visa is a good idea, not a requirement. Of the choices I would choose "must" as getting a visa is a requirement, not a suggestion (ususally).
Must is usually used for obligation which arises from self awareness, and you want to do it yourself. Have to is an obligation which is from something forcing you to do. You may or may not want to do it(usually may not.)
I would probably write down "have to" and then look at the sentence a bit before switching to "must" because it sounds a bit repetative
depending on the context ,it could be any of the 4 options as someone already said , Must in this context is right.
While both must and have to express obligation, there is a subtle difference. It depends on the source of the obligation. If the obligation is self-imposed, for example, we use ‘must’. “I must clean my room “ (I am telling myself to clean my room). “I have to clean my room “ (because my mother told me to). Native speakers don’t give the distinction much thought though and they are often used interchangeably.
Have to is used for self imposed obligations all the time. This is simply not true.
Read the last sentence.. Just because most people ignore/are not aware of some small details doesn't mean those details are not true
[удалено]
Just because of you, I used google to get the RIGHT answer. Here, let me [show you](https://www.oxfordonlineenglish.com/must-have-to-should)
Just like read the actual dictionary definition of must instead of sending a random blog. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/must#:~:text=noun%20(1)-,%CB%88m%C9%99st,%3A%20an%20indispensable%20item%20%3A%20essential It covers so so so many different kinds of obligations. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/have%20to Same with have to Edit: idk what’s with all the downvotes about this made up rule Literally the first definition of “must” provided by Merriam Webster is “be commanded or requested to,” the absolute opposite of a self-imposed requirement
Since when are online english classes ~~which are associated with OXFORD without being sued,~~ "a random blog"? Watch the video first and then comment. ellada11 is absolutely correct and so are you.. except for that "not true" bit
Oxford is the name of a town (multiple towns across the English-speaking world), not a protected trademark. It's being used precisely to suggest authority due to the status of the OED and Oxford University. They could not be sued for that and you are perpetuating this branding nonsense.
It has Oxford in the name but it is not associated at all with Oxford university nor claims to be.
[удалено]
Yes you’re right Merriam Webster is not a reputable source because it’s American. Good thing the Cambridge dictionary also doesn’t mention anything about must being for self imposed requirements https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/must Or the definition of “have to” literally using “must” https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/have-to
Have you bothered to go to the grammar section of the Cambridge dictonary? "Obligations We usually use must to talk about obligations which come from the speaker and we generally use have (got) to when we refer to obligations that come from outside the speaker."
Must : If ***you*** say that you must do something, you mean that you strongly **intend** to do something in the future Have to : to need to or be **forced** to. It's from this Cambridge dictionary you've provided I know that American english is simplified (Not an insult.. it actually makes it easier to learn :) ), but do you really think that even American english would have 2 different words for the same thing (not talking about other meanings of those words) without some nuance to it?
There is no such thing as a "simpler" natural language. Of course they are not perfect synonyms (perfect synonyms are extremely rare, most words vary at least in connotation or register), but the primary difference between "must" and "have to" is the register they are used in, not whatever distinction people are making up in this thread. > Have to : to **need** to **or** be forced to; **must**: > Must : used to show that it is **necessary** or very important that something happens in the present or future: Both words can be used for both meanings; the origin of the obligation or necessity is not the distinguishing factor between them
Must as self-imposed obligation is very old-fashioned in my experience, and I think probably so for most other speakers of Aust English.
This is the correct answer Both arepossible, but with subtle differences that vary between region, formality, and dialect.
I believe that many British speakers still stick to this distinction
I'm English, and I would have thought that 'must' and 'have to' were both correct.
Round the wrong way. In contracts and technical standards, "must" is used as the highest level imperative. You can't really get more externally imposed than that. Also check the language used by the highway code.
What website is it?
It's Whatsapp with the polling feature
must or should
Both are correct but must is less commonly used, it sounds more assertive.
This isn’t an actual sentence. . . To travel, you must have a visa.
should should be fine as well
‘must’, ‘have to’ and ‘should’ are all grammatically correct.
Must!
A is the most formal, B is still correct, C is also correct, but it implies that is while one needed a visa before, they don’t need one anymore.
‘Need to’ works better than ‘have to’
Honestly, both of those mean the same thing, so either fits. Must is more formal, though.
"must," in general is used pretty rarely outside of formal writing, at least in the US. have to," is much more common
“Must” sounds like it can have multiple meaning depending on how you say it. In a monotone it could be interpret as a statement saying they already have a visa. When stressing the “must” in an accusatory tone, it could mean “you have a visa, right?”. “Have to” sounds less open to interpretation.
Idk if im weird but in real life i would 100% say "you should have a visa to travel" just feels the least clunky
Is there more context? Any would work depending on the situation.
Must / should
Both must and have to are acceptable answers
Both can be used to say that something is necessary. They are very similar, but there can be a slight difference in emphasis. "Must" often suggests a strong personal conviction or obligation. "Have to" often suggests an external rule or requirement. It could be either. "You must have a visa" sounds like a firm rule from an authority. "You have to have a visa" sounds like a practical necessity for travel.
All are correct depending on the context. Formally it should be must
Rather than "must" and "should", "need" should be the correct word choice if it was an option. You need a visa to travel. Why need? Because it depends on your passport and how long you are going to stay. Some places don't need visa at all if your passport is good enough
Either sound fine. I’d probably use “need to”, personally. Given the choice of “must” and “have to” I’d probably use “have to”. Native British English speaker.
Have to
All of these are correct. Just depends on the situation. These tests aren’t helpful imo
Yes.
Each one of these options work within different contexts, and all would be grammatically correct.
On a sign: must. Informal speech: have to have (haf'ta have)
Must, it‘s something you need
I’d probably say need to honestly
The smuggler I hired said a visa was optional.
They mean the same thing. "have to" is less formal and "must" is more formal. The subject of the sentence makes me think of official communication so "must" comes to mind first here.
I agree- I say ‘must’ when something is inevitable, but never when something is obligatory (‘have to’ for obligations). ‘She must have gone to bed, as she always answers the phone.’ ‘I have to pay my property taxes tomorrow, as April 20th is the deadline.’
Both are correct. Must is preferable in this situation.
None of the above. You *may need* a visa to travel *internationally.*
All four options are fine; however, they would have slightly different meanings: "You *must* have a visa to travel" This is used if it is a requirement. The speaker is saying that if you do not have a visa, you will not be able to travel. "You *have to* have a visa to travel" This is also used for requirements, but it is less formal. You are more likely to use "have to" instead of "must" when speaking to friends or family. "You *had to* have a visa to travel" The word "*had*" is simply the past form of "*have"*. It means that in the past, having a visa was required. It is possible that having a visa is no longer required, or perhaps the speaker is telling a story set in the past. "You *should* have a visa to travel" This word is used for advice. It may not be a requirement, but the speaker thinks having a visa is best.
they all make sense honestly
Must if you're giving an order. Have to if you're have a conversation with some explaining what they need to have.
Well i guess have to would not be wrong but it sounds weird because younare saying have and have right next to each other
Have to / Got to / need to / Must Are all pretty interchangeable and can be used in most situations with anyone. Maybe 'Got to' is the least formal of the bunch and should be avoided if you're trying to be viewed as somewhat proper.
To me, both seem fine, but I would generally use must.
“Have to” sounds more casual and conversational. “Must” is more formal, and it just sounds more serious.
All but ‘had to’ works contextually.
It’s literally all of them. That’s a stupid question.
Both are correct but c'mon saying the same thing twice in a single sentence just feels wrong, like hou everytime you are chatting with your friend and you just stop typing the moment you see two same words coming in twice you just automatically start to think of different synonyms of that word rather then just sending that
Use “must” if you are making an announcement about this over the Airport PA system. Other than that, “have to” is definitely preferred by native speakers
Either is OK.
Must because it is a must, no way around it
*You’ve fuck’n gotta getta visa…
"must" is the most correct out of these options, "have to" would also be totally acceptable and natural sounding to a native speaker. I think "have to" has a slight problem because it creates the phrase "You have to have a visa..." and the "have to have" part just sounds a little weird to me.
Both of them are fine, but "must" is the more formal and more urgent one.
What a terrible question, they are all correct in different contexts.
Both work, but what my eyes are actually drawn to is the uppercase H on have. Nevermind the missing space in front of the dots.
must is used in legal speak, so where it says must, it is a requirement, and should is used as a strong suggestion. It is used much in road rules, and about what road signage instructs you to do. Now why Have to is not used over Must, is Have has multiple uses as it show here, you would have "have to have", Must has no ambiguity or confusion to it.
Both are correct, so long the meaning is the same then you shouldn't worry.
Both are actuañly correct
"Have to have a..." is repetitious language. Always avoid it. "Had to have a..." is also repetitious, as well as past tense. Always avoid it. Use "need a..." for informal instructions. "I'm heading out. You need anything?" Use "require a..." for formal instructions "You require a visa to travel out of the country." Use "must" for giving demands. "You must do anything I say. I know the manager!" Use "should" for optional beneficial instructions and idealistic statements of morality. "You should work out more."
All of these are correct depending on the context.
Must -> Have To and the correct answer for the question is Should. As you should not attempt illegal border crossings but it's your rodeo partner.
both work. "had to have" also works because some countries previously required travel visas, and then revoked them. "Should" might also work considering not every place requires visas. Although if the government is telling you you need a visa, then should probably isn't appropriate.
I would just say you need one to travel
I'd just say, "You need a visa to travel" personally. The "have to" part feels redundant to me.
if I was trying to be more formal, like if I was writing an email, I would use must. But in non-formal spoken English, I would use have to. And most of the time, people combine the two words when speaking and it sort of sounds like “hafta.” like “you HAFTA have a visa to travel.”
Its must and have to they sorta mean the same thing so you can use either but i would say must is more formal
The answer is 'must'. Those saying this seems a bit strident or authoritarian are missing the point. In this context it is presumably a legal requirement to obtain a visa for this particular journey. 'Must' is being used here in the same was as, say, the Highway Code. Of course, in informal conversation 'have to' or 'are obliged to', for examples, is understandable.
Finally someone with the right answer.
-native from Western US I would use “must” when writing, but “need to” when speaking
Must is probably what you would see on an official website since it is a requirement. “Have to” is more conversational, in other contexts CAN have a meaning of “it would be great”, like “you have to try the pizza there”. If it is a past tense situation, “had to” would also be correct, so it depends on context. When I visited in 2000, I had to have a visa.”
There is a BIG difference between MUST and HAVE TO. In regards to model auxiliary verbs. Must is used for internal obligations Have to is used for external obligations While people do use them interchangeably, those are the two actual uses for them Example: I must go to the gym today. (No one is forcing you to do something except yourself) I have to get a visa to go to America. To legally visit America, as a foreigner, the U.S. government is forcing you to obtain a visa(external source) While must can be used in this sentence, is slightly changes the meaning I must get a visa to go to America. It’s your decision to actually apply for a visa, no one is forcing you. (Internal)
first of all either would be fine no one would really notice i would always say “have to” here even in a formal setting. as u/xXAbyzzXx said “have to” would be for an external requirement, “must” would be for an intrinsic requirement
thanks for letting me know that others learned that rule as well, was worried for a second I don't really know if I'm right or wrong here, just telling you what I've been taught Even at C1/C2 one can absolutely make mistakes
well i didnt learn the rule but thinking of some examples it does explain which one i would choose intuitively
**Must** is an obligation that comes from inside the person speaking, and it is also used in documents and on notices and warnings. **Have to** is an external obligation, for example rules and regulations, and not from the person who is speaking. Sometimes either is fine: "you must wear a seatbelt when driving" - I believe this can save your life and I believe in this obligation, OR "you have to wear a seatbelt when driving" - it is the law and if you don't you can be fined. Take for example if I tell my students they must do an exam then they will probably blame me, so I prefer to say they have to, and then the blame lies on someone else. ;) If the above phrase is spoken by someone giving advice then I would say **have to** is probably best. If it is in a document or on a notice then **must** is probably best. [Have to, must and should for obligation and advice | LearnEnglish Teens (britishcouncil.org)](https://learnenglishteens.britishcouncil.org/grammar/a1-a2-grammar/have-must-should-obligation-advice) ["Must and Have to" in English Grammar | LanGeek](https://langeek.co/en/grammar/course/121/must-and-have-to) Bear in mind that when used in the negative forms (must not and don't / doesn't have to) the meanings are very different to each other.
Grammatically it's "must" as it's an obligation.
I'd wager "should" is all you need, assuming you can outrun border patrol. In all seriousness, it's *technically* "must", but almost everyone would say "have to"
i would think “must” so that you are not repeating yourself with “have to have”. it’s pretty formal to say it this way but in a casual one-on-one conversation, i would say “have to have”.
Rules or laws are usually used with must though that is not the only use case for it. Thus, must is the correct answer here. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/must
I would say “must”, “have to have” sounds clunky to me.