Ask questions or just talk about different languages. Since BrainKing is an international game site supporting many languages, this board can be kind of useful.
Suppose your wife, I know you don't have one yet! but just imagine you do, asks you politely to buy a loaf of bread on your way back home and you know that if you don't, she won't get mad or sad at all.
Now suppose that sh easks you to buy a loaf of bread and if you don't, she'll get mad at you.
Now suppose if you don't, she'll kill you.
Will there be any difference in saying the sentence I ... buy a loaf of bread on my way back home ?
رضا: As I said, I'd use the words as Marfitalu has. If she is going to be upset, then "must" it is.
There's one thing about this whole deal, when it comes to which word to use. Most people around here could care less as to which is used. These meaning for these uses are somewhat subtle in their differences. I doubt if anyone would even notice in a conversation which one you had used unless you added special emphasis to it while you were talking. Other words can get people worked up. And then there's obscure ones like the word "whom". You got me who uses it, but there really is a proper way as to when to use it. I think the word "whom" will eventually disappear from American English.
One I was a kid, saying "ain't" was considered very bad. Not so much now. It's a right handy contraction.
Walter Montego: I don't really get it. The link Marfitalu gave says that when there's external force, you have to use have to but when it's an option and it is you who decides whether or not to do the job, you may use must. Yet you say that if your wife gets upset, which I believe is an external force making you do the job, you use must.
I went back to those books I were studying, and surprisingly at the end of one of them found some grammar notes I had missed till now. There are a few points about Have to and Must, and Should and Ought to. See if you agree with them:
Should
1) Advice: You should go and see Casablanca. It's a brilliant old fim.
2) Obligations: I should get my father a card. It's his birthday tomorrow.
3) Probability: If the train's on time, we should arrive at 3:30.
Ought to
1) Advice: You ought to stop smoking. It's really bad for you. (Ought to expresses less personal advice than should.)
2) Obligations: I really ought to pay the telephone bill tomorrow. (Ought to here indicates that the speaker probably won't pay the bill tomorrow)
3) Theory: John ought to be here by now. (Ought to here means was due to, or it is expected)
Must
Must + infinitive is used for strong obligations which express the authority of the speaker or writer. So it is used:
1) For formal rules or laws: Passengers must fasten their seat belts for take-off.
2) For suggestions, advice or recommendations that the speaker feels strongly about: You must come to my party. Everyone's gonna be there.
have to
Have to + infinitive is used for strong obligations which express the authority of a third person, rather than the speaker or writer. So it is used:
1) When the speaker wants to show they ar enot responsible for imposing the obligation, or do not agree with it: I'll be late home tonight. I hav eto work late. My boss says so.
2) When the speaker or writer is reminding someone about a rule or law: I'm sorry, but you hav eto wear a seat belt in the back of cars now.
**************************************
So according to what I typed above, if your wife is not going to be mad at you, you can say:
I should buy a loaf of bread on my way back.
If she gets mad at you, you can say:
I have to buy a loaf of bread on my way home.
And if you yourself will get upset if you cannot satisfy what your wife has asked you to do, you can say:
I must buy a loaf of bread on my way home.
How mush do you think what I said is right according to what you think you really would say in these situations?
*********************************
Yes, I know that people don't care for their choice of vocabulary so much, but we have a spoken English and a proper English, which you may call book English. I think I, or any non-native speaker is supposed to first learn to speak the language quite properly, then try to speak it as the speakers do.
When I speak farsi, I sometimes do notice that the sentence I'm saying is wrong regarding Farsi structure of sentences, but I just know that the one I'm talking to understands me without laughing at me or even asking why I've made the mistake.
The word 'whom' has cost me many marks in my exams, so now I'm glad I know its difference with who. :-)
رضا: That site of Marfitalu's is in Canadian English. Perhaps they use it differently there? I know when I've travelled there some words are pronounced differently.
I'd say your book has it right, and it agrees with Marfitalu's and my use of the words when it comes to buying bread and bringing it home for the missus.
What's an infinitive? n. A verb form expressing action or condition without reference to person, tense, or number, as "to run". In English, its sign "to" is omitted after most auxiliaries, as in, "He should 'go' now," but is retained when the infinitive functions as a noun, as in "'To ride' horses was his favorite sport."
I'd be hard pressed to give you an example of an infinitve and feel positive that I was right from this definition! :)
English must be one hard language to learn. Somehow I missed all this and learned without it. I have the feeling some of you 'English as a Second Language' people probably have better English skills than some native speakers, though in reza's case it might be because he's an English teacher.
رضا: It used to be called "Proper English," but it's been awhile since I heard anyone say that. We just say, "English." The United States has no legal official language for most things, even though everyone says English is the official language. Someone wanting to become an American has to prove they know English, but if you're already an American you can speak any language you want to. And advertise in any language and exclude English from said advertising. Recently a city enacted an ordinance requiring English to be printed on a business's sign. It is being fought in court. I know Canada has such a requirement in Quebec, but that's a different country. I believe a business should be able to advertise in any language. If I can't understand their sign, then they're not wanting me for a customer. Seems simple enough to me. The only entity that I'd require to just use one language for official business is the government. Having a common language makes it easier for everyone here to know what to expect when dealing with the government and encourages people to know that language.