The 'have' verb represents a set of several properties at once. In a sentence, he can accept:
1) a kind of semantic verb with the meaning "to have";
2) a kind of auxiliary verb that is used in the tenses of the Perfect group;
3) and finally the form of the modal verb ‘have to’.
Now we will consider its role as a modal verb, which manifests itself as follows - the author realizes the need for some kind of action and thus connects the subject with the rest of the predicate.
In the present tense with the third person singular (he, she, it), ‘have’, respectively, changes to ‘has’, and in the past it turns into ‘had’.
However, not only ‘have to’ can have such a meaning. There are several other ways to express necessity or non-necessity, for example with 'must'. Below we will take a closer look at the most common constructions that are quite common in English, in order to separate them from ‘have to’. At some pointtheir areas of application are similar, and in some, if not diametrically opposed, then at least incompatible.
‘Must’ vs. ‘have to’
When we want to say that someone has certain obligations to take some action, or that they need it on a purely individual basis, we use 'must' or 'have to/has to/had to' like modal verbs in English. Sample sentences:
- You must come to the meeting tomorrow/ You must come to the meeting tomorrow.
- The plants must have plenty of sunshine.
- I enjoy parties, unless I have to make a speech/
- He has to travel to find work/ He will have to move to find work.
Expression of necessity as a personal opinion of the speaker
In some cases there is a need to separate modal verbs ‘has to/have to’ and ‘must’. When it comes to expressing your purely personal opinion about the obligations of the character for some action, ‘must’ would be more appropriate. Although this does not mean that absolutely all cases of use can be divided into only two separate areas - the one where someone believes that the actor needs to do something and introduces his considerations as an integral element of the circumstances, and the one where the situation already contains a need, and the author only voices it. However, in a general sense, the following principle is observed: more amorphous andvariable conditions are usually expressed 'have to', and more stringent 'must'. At the same time, a more personal attitude is expressed with the help of ‘must’, and non-personalized circumstances with ‘have to’.
- I must be very careful not to upset him.
- We must eat before we go.
- He must stop working so hard.
Necessity as a given condition
If you are stating a fact or providing independent information that someone should take a certain action, it would be more natural to use ‘has to/have to’ modal verbs.
- They have to pay the bill by Thursday.
- She has to go now.
In the above examples, the author states that "they must pay the bills" and "she must go", however, these are external conditions, not the author's own point of view.
Another thing to note is for events that are repetitive, especially in conjunction with adverbs that express frequency, such as 'often/often', 'always/constantly, always', 'regularly/regularly', are put, as a rule, modal verbs with a perfect infinitive ('has to/have to').
- I always have to do the shoppingshops.
- You often have to wait a long time for a bus.
Regular actions are implied here, and the adverbs usually used in conjunction above are also time markers.
Denial
There are areas in which the use of one of these two modal verbs is of fundamental importance. The decisive difference is present, for example, in negation. To build the negation of 'must' and say that something should not be done or should not happen, the particle 'not' is added. The abbreviated version will look like ‘mustn’t’.
-You must not talk about politics.
-They mustn't find out that I came here.
To construct a negation using modal verbs 'has to/have to', and to say that someone shouldn't do something, the auxiliary verb 'do' is introduced in the appropriate form, and a negative is also added to it particle 'not'.
- You don't have to talk about politics.
- They don't have to find out that I came here.
‘Must not’ and ‘not have to’ in denial
However, ‘must not’ and ‘not have to’ do not mean the same degree of obligation. With ‘must not’, the emphasis is on the fact that the performer must refrain from this or that action, while ‘not have to’ exempts him from the need for this action, butadmits that, if desired, it can nevertheless be carried out.
It is also important to note that ‘must’ to express a need or obligation is only valid in the present and future tenses. In order to reflect the need in the past, they usually resort to ‘had to’.
- She had to catch the six o'clock train/ She had to catch the six o'clock train.
- I had to wear a suit/ I had to wear a suit.
Interrogative sentences
If these modal verbs in English are used to ask a question about obligation / non-obligation, the interrogative construction is built using the auxiliary verb 'do', which in the present tense of the third person plural takes the form 'does', and in the past tense - 'did'.
- How often do you have to buy petrol for the car?/ How often do you need to buy petrol for your car?
- Does he have to take so long to get ready?/ Does he really need that long to get ready?
- What did you have to do?
- Don’t you have to be there at one o’clock?/ Don’t you have to be there at one o’clock?
Position of ‘have’ in question
Accordingly, the phrase, where the predicate and subject are inverted with the participation of 'have' as an indicator of the degree of obligation, will, as a rule, be incorrect. For example, one cannot saythis subtext is the following sentence: ‘How often do you have to buy petrol?/How often do you need to buy petrol?’
‘Have got to’ informally
In informal English, you can use ‘have got to’, ‘have to’. Less formal modal verbs in English with examples:
- You've just got to make sure you tell him.
- She’s got to see the doctor.
- Have you got to go so soon?/ Do you have to leave so soon?
Although such a substitution is usually not done for the past tense, and it is said not 'had got to', but 'had to'.
- He had to know.
- I had to lend him some money.
Replacement in the presence of a second modal verb
In English, you cannot put two modal verbs within one predicate. The 'must' verb is modal, while the 'has to/have to' modal verbs are not true, although they have many features of modality. Such verbs are called semimodal. They correspond semantically, that is, they fulfill the indicated role, explaining the relationship between the actor and the action, but grammatically do not correspond or do not fully comply with the rules for the use of modal verbs. Thus, if another modal verb is used in the sentence, you cannot put 'must', you must use only 'have to'. Similar situationdevelops in a situation where after you need to use either the ‘-ing’ form of the verb, or the past participle, or the ‘to’-infinitive. After the modal verb, the base form is required, so let's assume, by analogy, only 'have to' as a semimodal verb in English. Examples with translation:
- They may have to be paid by check/
- She grumbled a lot about having to stay aboard/ She was very worried about having to stay abroad.
- I would have had to go through London.
- He doesn't like to have to do the same job every day.
As we can see, the first modal verb can be not the modal verb itself, but only the verb that plays the corresponding role, however, the replacement in these cases is also required.
