Modal verbs have to in English (with examples)

The verb 'have' represents a set of several properties at once. In the sentence, he can take:

1) the kind of the semantic verb with the meaning "to have";

2) the kind of auxiliary verb that is used in the times of the Perfect group;

3) and, finally, the form of the modal verb 'have to'.

Now we consider its role as a modal verb, which manifests itself as follows: the author realizes the need for some action and thus connects the subject with the rest of the predicate.

In the present tense with a single third person ('he, she, it') have, accordingly, changes to 'has', and in the past turns into 'had'.

However, this meaning can not only have 'have to'. There are several other ways to express the necessity or absence of necessity, for example, with the 'must'. Below, we will consider in more detail the most common contructions, which are quite often encountered in the English language, in order to separate them from 'have to'. At some points the areas of their application are similar, and in some cases if not diametrically opposite, then at least they are incompatible.

'Must' vs. 'Have to'

When we want to say that someone has certain obligations to carry out an action, or that it is necessary to him in a purely individual order, we use the 'must' or 'have to / has to / had to' as modal verbs in English Language. Sample sentences:

You must come to the meeting tomorrow.

/ Plants should receive a huge amount of sunlight.

- I enjoy parties, unless I have parties, but only until I have to say a speech.

He will have to move to find a job.

Expression of necessity as a personal opinion of the speaker

In some cases, there is a need to separate the modal verbs 'has to / have to' and 'must'. If you are talking about expressing your own personal opinion about the character's obligations for some action, the 'must' will be more appropriate. Although this does not mean that absolutely all cases of use can be divided into only two separative areas - one where someone believes that the person in charge needs to do something, and makes his views as an 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, this principle is observed: more amorphous and variable conditions are usually expressed as 'have to', and more stringent 'must'. At the same time, a more personal attitude is expressed with the help of 'must', and unvoiced circumstances - 'have to'.

I have to be very careful not to upset him.

We must eat before we go.

/ He must stop working so hard / He must stop working for wear.

Necessity as a given condition

In the event that you state a fact or provide independent information that someone should perform a certain action, it will be more natural to use the modal verbs 'has to / have to'.

They have to pay the bills by Thursday.

She now has to go.

In the above examples, the author reports that "they have to pay the bills" and "it must go," but these are external conditions, not the author's point of view.

It should be noted one more point - for events that are repetitive in nature, especially in conjunction with frequency-expressing adverbs such as 'often', 'always / always, always', 'regularly / regularly', are usually set , Modal verbs with a perfect infinitive ('has to / have to').

I always have to go shopping.

/ You always have to wait a long time for the bus.

Here we mean regular actions, and the adverbs usually used in conjunction are the time markers.

Negation

There are areas in which the use of one of these two modal verbs is of fundamental importance. A decisive difference is present, for example, in denial. To build a negation from the 'must' and say that something should not be done or should not happen, a 'not' particle is added. The abbreviated version will look like 'must not'.

You do not have to talk about politics.

/ They do not have to find out that I came here.

To construct a negation using the modal verbs 'has to / have to', and say that someone should not do something, an auxiliary verb 'do' is entered in the appropriate form, and a negative particle 'not' is added to it.

You do not have to talk politics.

They do not 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 the 'must not' emphasis is placed on the fact that the performer must refrain from any action, while 'not have to' releases him from the necessity of this action, but admits that, if desired, it can nevertheless be Implemented.

It is also important to note that the 'must' for an explanation of necessity or obligation is permissible only in the present and future time. In order to reflect the need for the past, they usually resort to 'had to'.

She had to catch a six-hour train.

I needed to wear a suit.

Interrogative proposals

In the event that these modal verbs are drawn in English in order to ask the question of the obligation / non-binding, the interrogative construction is constructed using the auxiliary verb 'do', which in the present tense of the third person of the plural takes the form 'does', and in the past tense - 'did'.

How often do you need to buy gasoline for your car?

Does he really need so much time to get ready?

What did you have to do?

/ Do not you need to be there at one o'clock?

The position of 'have' in the question

Accordingly, the phrase where the inversion of the predicate and the subject with the participation of 'have' as an indicator of the degree of compulsion is made will, as a rule, be incorrect. For example, one can not say with this implication the following sentence: "How often do you need to buy petrol?" How often do you need gasoline? "

'Have got to' in informal communication

In informal English you can use 'have got to', 'have to'. Less formal modal verbs in English with examples:

You simply need to make sure of what you told him.

She needs to see a doctor.

/ Do you really need to leave so soon?

Although, for the past tense, such a substitution is usually not done, and it is said that 'had not got to' but 'had to'.

- He had to know. He should have known.

I had to lend him some money.

Replacement in the presence of the second modal verb

In English, two modal verbs can not be placed within the same predicate. The verb 'must' is modal, while the modal verbs 'has to / have to' are not true, although they have many signs of modality. Such verbs are called "semimedal". They correspond semantically, that is, they fulfill this role, explaining the relation between the actor and the action, but do not grammatically correspond or fully comply with the rules for the use of modal glands. Thus, if one more modal verb is used in the sentence, you can not put 'must', you just use 'have to'. A similar situation develops in a situation where afterwards one must use either the '-ing'-form of the verb, or the past participle, or the' to'-infinitive. After the modal verb, the basic form is required, so let's assume, by analogy, only 'have to' as a seventh-verb verb in English. Examples with translation:

/ There is a possibility that you can pay for them only by check.

She was very worried about being forced to stay abroad.

I'd have to go all the way through London.

He does not particularly like the fact that he must sing the same work every day.

As we see, as a first modal verb, it can also be expressed not by the modal verb itself, but by a verb that performs the corresponding role, nevertheless, a replacement in these cases is also mandatory.