Not Correct 2 ALL MODALS can. Not Correct She musted study very hard. Other forms should be used.
We have no "Academy of English". Everybody loves English.Apparently your problem is with this sentence:"At my school, students must/have to wear a uniform."I would say: "At my school, students have to wear a uniform."But I would consider anyone who marked the other possibility, "must", as wrong to be following rules that are, at best, highly questionable.There is one thing you must/have to remember about English. We make negatives by putting not after the auxiliary verb (be or have) or modal verb (can. I voted that "must" and "have to" are not interchangeable in all situations merely because I know that there are almost always special cases.Grammar can do worksheets.
My aplogies for having been rather dictatorial.I've never heard any native (no matter of what language) say that some rules of his/her language are ridiculous. If she is talking to another mother about how she deals with the problem of muddy feet, then she would probably use 'have to'.In my home the children have to take off their shoes before coming inside.'However, if one of the mother's children is talking to one of his friends to alert him to the rules of the household, then he would use 'to have to' or maybe 'must'.' Hey, Bill, remember you have to/must take your shoes off when we go inside, otherwise Mum will kill you!'Reviewing the matter from the question of moral or other responsibility, perhaps I strayed off the mark (it was about 2 a.m.), and on reflection I think that it does not enter into the discussion of these phrases at all. I don't think one person so far has agreed that "must wear uniforms" is wrong.When I suggested that your phrases would have been better with 'should' I was not considering them as direct orders, but rather things that ought to be done in general.With regard to the first one, I still hold that the only modal that could be used is 'should', but in the second case, if we are talking from the mother's point of view, the verb could only be 'must' in her directive. In fact, there are debates that have been going on for centuries and that remain unresolved.There are some very sharp people in this forum. You will find that most of us agree most of the time about what is correct and incorrect, but not always.And frequently when there is a disagreement, there are very well-educated and knowledgeable people on both sides of the debate.
Of course the biggest difference is the fact that must doesn't appear in future and past.Your posts taught me that people may feel different things about the modals, some see differences, some don't. Although some of you claimed that you use have to/must interchangeably, some said that there are external or internal factors involved (or maybe I overanalysed it ) My teachers taught me that there is deontic, epistemic must and epistemically there is a little difference between must and have to.Deontic have isn't strong, while must is and that's why we often can hear a sentence like "He must be at home now." My teacher told us that if you are attentive to nuances and shades of meaning, must/have to are not so easily interchangeable, especially in writing. Anyway I would like to thank Majlo for starting this thread because after analysing all your responses, it seems that there is a difference in terms of subjective vs objective.
There is a miscellany of self-appointed rules-makers, usually professors at universities, people whose peers speak a language very different from the part of the population that works instead of living out their lives as scholars. We have never had an Academy. No other language changes as fast as English- we view change in a positive way, almost as though it were essential to the vitality of the language.2.
Well, some of them ignore the part the accident of birth played in the old days- the say-so wasn't exactly the birthright of the intelligentsia, after all.4. This aversion to authority comes out in our attitude toward rules.Would-be Academicians, it must be said, sometimes show a contempt for this tradition, and yearn for a time when people like themselves laid down the law. We take pride in breaking our ties with the authoritarian models of Medieval times, and the Classic "golden age" prior to that. The political development of English-speaking peoples has been one of inventing and field-testing a democratic tradition that goes back to the 17th century. Their attempts sometimes get out of hand, even though the student populations lorded over by such people are constrained to adopt their "rules." Often, these student types do so in order to distinguish themselves from the "uneducated," who of course do just fine without them.3.
Examine every sentence you see with "must" or with "have to". Note which books are written by writers from the UK, from the US, from Australia, from India. The number of words in the English language) is so high!So.my sympathy to all English students the world over who have to put up with this!Click to expand.What is important here? Be attentive! Pay attention! Read, read, read.
Rather than continuing to engage in an argument that I think is circular and therefore leading nowhere, why not find examples? Pick ten of your favorite authors and see if you are able to discern a difference in usage based on country and on the time in which they wrote (or are currently writing).I could immediately mention at least 50 minor difference I have discovered between the writing of English and US authors, but listing them would take too much space and would be entirely off topic. I'm basing this opinion on a lifetime of reading and careful observation. That is fine too.I believe, for instance, that at least many UK (specifically English) authors use "must" in a way slightly different from US authors. It is up to you, as a thinker, to observe who writes in a manner that most appeals to you personally, and as you continue to read, study and express yourself, your views or preferences may change.
0 kommentar(er)
