Modal verb have to translates as " forced, must". It is important that the modal verb have to in English is used only when talking about a debt caused by an external cause (if there is a compulsion to perform an action).

Let me explain with an example what a debt caused by an external cause means. Take a look at two Russian sentences:

I must help your parents.
I must be at work by 10 o'clock.

In both sentences we use the same Russian verb must. But in the first sentence, you say "I must..." because you feel a sense of duty (internal need). And in the second sentence there are external circumstances that force you to arrive at work by 10 o’clock (an evil boss, fines for being late, etc.).

Translated into English, these sentences will be different. When you talk about an inner need, use the modal verb must (more on that later). And when it comes to debt that has external reasons (I have to because someone or something forces / forces / obliges me to perform an action), then in such cases feel free to use the modal verb have to.

Modal verb to have to. How to use correctly?

Sentences with the verb have to are built according to the scheme:

Subject + have to + any verb from the dictionary + everything else.

That is, you put the infinitive of the main verb right after have to and get a sentence with the meaning of duty or the need to do something. For example:

I have to work.
I have to work.

you have to drink 2 liters of water every day.
You must drink two liters of water every day.

How does have to change with time and person?

The answer to this question is very simple - just like the verb have without the to particle. In the third person singular we have the form has to, in all other cases - have to:

In the past time - had, in future - will have. Examples of sentences with the modal verb have to in different tenses:

Differences between modal verbs have to and must.

The meanings of these modal verbs are very close. Therefore, if you are just starting to learn English, then you can not bother yourself and always use the modal verb have to instead of must.

But there is still a subtle difference in the meanings of these verbs: must denotes a necessity or obligation caused by the speaker's personal opinion, and have to denotes a necessity caused by external circumstances.

Interrogative and negative sentences with have to.

The modal have to in interrogative and negative sentences requires the auxiliary verb do. This is its difference from other modal verbs - when constructing interrogative and negative sentences, it behaves like a regular (not modal) verb. For example:

you have to work.
You have to work.

You don't have to work.
You don't have to work.

Do you have to work?
You have to work?

Put the to particle in the right place.

There is a big difference between the verb to have and the verb have to. Compare:

I have something to do today.
I have something to do today. (literally: "I have something to do today")

I have to do something today.
I have to do something today.

In the first case, have is an ordinary verb, translated as have. By the way, the verb have is very common in English and can be both semantic and auxiliary.

In the second case, we have the modal verb have to, which you already know a lot about. So don't forget the to particle - it's very important.

Modal verb have to (sometimes called a modal construction) is used to express obligation or necessity (in the affirmative or interrogative form) or absence of obligation and necessity (in the negative form). Also verb have to can express certainty, certainty, probability.

Have to is synonymous with modal verb must , and has a connotation of compulsion, due to any circumstances.

For example:
This answer has to be correct.
This answer should be, right. ( Expresses certainty and certainty.)

They had to leave early.
Them had to leave early. ( Expresses obligation, compulsion due to circumstances.)

The soup has to be stirred continuously to prevent burning.
soup from time to time need stir so it doesn't burn. ( Expresses a need.)

Using the modal verb have to in the present, past and future tense

In most cases, the use of modal verbs in the past and future is different from other verbs. The table below shows modal verb usage have to in different situations.

Remember:
Design do not have to means no need, but not a ban, while the design must not means a strict ban.

Consider a modal verb have to / have got to in English, its use cases and temporary forms with examples and translation.

Modal verb Have to and its meaning

People who are not native speakers have a difficult situation with this branch of grammar, in fact, modal verbs sometimes mean the same thing.

For example,

Have to or Must?

Must(should) is based on personal requests, and the modal verb have to(obliged) due to circumstances from outside and represents the absence of an alternative when requested. Consider an example:

🔊 You must go on a budget. - You must go to the budget.
(your family will basically be able to pull your paid education, but they would like to protect themselves from such expenses, you should have a choice)

🔊 You have to go on a budget. - You must go to the budget.
(you have no choice, your family will not be able to pay for your education, so you have to try)

Important features

Important! Distinctive features of modal verbs have to and have got to are: the self-sufficiency of these verbs (they can express the category of person and number) and, unlike other modal English verbs, the particle is used before the main verb after them to.

To have and have to should not be confused

Verb to have translates as "to have / to own", and the modal verb have to- “must / must”. Below are examples of proposals.

🔊 I have a phone. - I have a phone.

🔊 I have to go.- I have to go.

Absolutely different meanings, is not it?

Forms

Comment! Interrogative and negative form of the modal verb have to formed together with an auxiliary verb to do(See examples of sentences below the summary table).

Present Simple:
a) Approval
🔊 She has to come to the office at the right time. - She is must come to the office at the right time.
b) Denial
🔊 I graduated from school and I do not have to do my homework anymore. — I finished school and I am more is not obliged to to do homework.
c) Question
🔊 Does she have to do this project? — Should she do this project?

past simple:
a) Approval
🔊 I had to write to him. - I should have write him.
b) Denial
🔊 I didn't have to ask her about her age. - I shouldn't have ask her about her age.
c) Question
🔊 Did I have to help you? - I should have can I help you?

Future Simple:
a) Approval
🔊 Jane will have to go at 7 p.m. — Jane have to go at 7pm.
b) Denial
🔊Isabella won't have to write this work. — Isabella don't have to write this work.
c) Question
🔊 Will I have to do this exercise? - To me have to do this exercise?

What is the difference between Have got to and Have to?

In addition to tense forms, the modal verb have to there is a form have got to(she met above). The difference between these forms is practically not noticeable. So, have got to is used in British English mainly in the present tense and indicates a specific non-repetitive action.

The modal verb Have to is used:

• when we are forced (not obliged) to do something due to external circumstances (not of our own free will);

In order to exist in this world, we daily have to do things that are dictated by duty, which we are obliged to do, whether we like it or not. modal have to in English is used specifically to denote this kind of obligation. In other words, if the speaker means that he must do something not of his own free will, but because such are the circumstances or a sense of duty requires it, it is precisely have to that is used.

Have got to VS have to

Have to has another option, have got to. It should not be confused with the functional verb, which means "to have".

Unlike have to, which indicates a repeated action, have got to is used when the speaker means something specific.

For example:

• I have to write these letters whatever happens - I have to write these letters, no matter what happens.
  • I have got to write to him, don't you understand it? - I have to write to him. Do not you understand?
• I have to visit her every day, as my mom said - I have to visit her every day, as my mother said.
  • I have got to go to her place, will you go with me? I have to visit her, will you come with me?

In all cases, the action performed by the speaker is dictated by a sense of duty, and not by internal motives.

In practice in colloquial speech more often, the have to variant is used to denote both a repetitive and a specific single action.

The modal verb have to as a substitute for must and needn't

In some cases, have to and have got to replace must, although they are not its direct equivalents. So, if grammatically must cannot be used, have to is put. This rule is true for the expression of obligation in the past and future tenses, as well as in negative expressions. For example:

• I must help him - I must help him.
• I had to help him - I had to help him.
• I will have to help him - I will have to help him.
• I don't have to help him - I shouldn't have helped him.

Please note that the mustn't form was not used in the negative sentence, since it does not translate “shouldn't”, but “shouldn't”. For comparison:

• You mustn't go there, it's too dangerous for a kid - You can't go there, it's very dangerous for a child.
• You don’t have to go there, it’s not your work to pick berries - You don’t have to go there, picking berries is not your task.

In the case of needn't, there is some confusion when translating into Russian. This verb also means "don't need", but its original meaning is much milder. So, when needn’t slips into speech, it means that there is no need to do something, that it is not necessary. When translated into Russian, phrases with needn’t and don’t have to will sound almost the same. In order to make an adequate translation into English, pay attention to that. what meaning in the original language was embedded in the phrase. In other words, look into the context and make a contextual translation.

Grammatical features of the modal verb have to

The uniqueness of have to is that, firstly, after it comes a particle to, although in any grammar book of English language it will be written that after the modal, the so-called bare infinitive is used, that is, the infinitive without the to particle. Compare:

• I can do it, but you have to help us while he must check everything. “I can do it, but you have to help us, and he has to check everything.

This sentence contains three model verbs at once, but only have to has a piece of the infinitive after it.

The next feature of the verb is that, unlike most, it requires the use of an auxiliary verb of the corresponding tense. For example:

• I don't have to tell you about it, it is against the rules of the game, you know - I shouldn't tell you this, it's against the rules of the game, and you know it.
• Do you have to stay here all the time? Why don't you come and walk a bit? Are you supposed to be here all the time? Why don't you go out and take a little walk?
• He is so rich that he doesn't have to earn money working hard and he doesn't know what it means to make the ends meet - He is so rich that he doesn't need to earn money hard work and he doesn't know what it means to make ends meet.

pretend verb

Have to can be a real problem for people who are starting to learn a language. It's all about the coincidence of the form have to analogues in Present and past perfect. But it is difficult only at first glance. Let's dwell on this in a little more detail.

The main reason for the confusion is in the verb have. It can be both semantic and auxiliary. So when the same verb occurs in a modal function, people get lost. In order to determine the function of the verb in each specific case, a thorough knowledge of grammar will be required first of all. So the difference between modal, auxiliary and functional will be obvious. For example:

• I have a lot to tell you, let's sit and talk. “I have a lot to tell you, let’s sit down and talk.”
• I have to tell you a lot. Let's sit and talk. “I have a lot to tell you. Let's sit down and talk.
• I have told you a lot. Let's discuss it. “I have told you a lot. Let's discuss this.

Each of the sentences contains the verb have. In the first one, it is a simple functional verb "to have". AT this case meaning that the speaker has certain information. Have is followed by a noun and immediately followed by an article. This is the main clue. Functional verbs are always followed by a noun or pronoun.

In the second case, after have there is a particle to, and then another verb tell. The verb + verb link indicates that in this case have to carries the semantic connotation of modality and is translated “should”.

Finally, in the third sentence after have comes the third form of the verb to tell - told. This is a hint that we have in front of us in the function of the auxiliary verb for the Present Perfect tense.

Thus, despite the fact that the verb to have occurs in a variety of ways, it is not difficult to determine its function in each specific case. The main thing is to know the basic rules for linking words in a sentence. English - analytical language, so the word order is fixed. This makes it easier for all language learners.

It has a very wide application both independently and in conjunction with other words. In addition, there are many overlapping areas with other similar verbs.

Need to vs. have to

In order to talk about the need to do something, you can use the verb need to.

You might need to see a doctor

A number of questions need to be asked

And in contrast, to express the lack of need to do something, don’t have, don’t need to, haven’t got to or needn’t are used.

Many women don't have to work / Many women do not have to work.

You don't have to learn any new typing skills/ You don't have to learn any new typing skills.

You don't need to buy anything/ You don't need to buy anything.

I haven't got to go to work/ I don't have to go to work.

I can pick John up. You needn't bother / I can give John a lift. You don't have to trouble yourself.

Needn't is used to express permission for someone not to do something.

You needn't say anything if you don't want to/ You don't have to say anything if you don't want to.

You needn't stay any longer tonight / You don't have to stay any longer tonight.

To explain that someone did something that was not at all necessary to do, need not have or needn't have is used and Often this construction appeals to cases where, at the time of the action, the performer himself did not suspect that there was no need in doing so.

I needn't have waited until the game began

Nell needn't have worked/ Nell didn't have to work.

They needn't have worried about Reagan.

If the performer at the time of the action knew that the action was not necessary, then it would be more appropriate to say didn’t need to. This clarification is explained by the fact that in the present tense it means a hypothetical need in general, and in the past tense it means a specific action performed without necessity.

They didn't need to talk about it.

I didn't need to worry / I didn't need to worry.

Also, with the difference that with didn’t need to, the speaker is not sure whether the incident actually took place until he receives additional information, you can use didn’t and the modal verb have to for this. Examples:

He didn't have to speak / He didn't have to speak.

Bill and I didn't have to pay / Bill and I didn't have to pay.

must vs. have to

Must, have to are sometimes interchangeable. Thus, the verb have comes to the aid of must in the past tense, if you need to emphasize something that should not have happened in the past. You can replace must with It was necessary, It was important not to, had to make sure, had to make certain and the like had to, the modal verb in conjunction with them means “it was important / necessary”, or “it was important / necessary make sure".

It was necessary that no one was aware of being watched.

You had to make sure that you didn't spend too much.

We had to do our best to make certain that it wasn't out of date / We had to do everything in our power to make sure that it was not out of date.

It was important not to take the game too seriously.

Should and ought vs. have to

Should and ought can be used to indicate a moderate need, that is, the feeling of need is not as strong as if we used must.

Should and ought are very common in spoken English. Should, being a true modal verb, requires the following verb to be used in its base form. And ought requires a to-infinitive after itself. Negative with these verbs looks like should not, shouldn't, ought not, oughtn't and means that there is a moderate need not to do something.

There are three cases in which should, ought are put:

1) When it comes to performing some positive or right action.

We should send her a postcard. / We must send her a postcard.

2) When you want to advise someone to do something or not to do something.

You should claim your pension 3-4 months before you retire. / You must apply for a pension 3-4 months before you leave.

3) When you express your point of view or ask someone else's opinion. At the same time, in order to start a sentence, they often use: I think, I don’t think, or Do you think.

I think we should be paid more. / I think we should pay more.

Try to distinguish between the use of should, ought, and the modal verb have to. The exercises below contain gaps, fill them in:

We _______ spend all the money. / We don't have to spend all the money.

He ______ come more often. / He should come more often.

You ______ see him again. / You shouldn't see him again.

You ______ use a detergent. / You must not use detergent.

You ______ get a new TV. / You need a new TV.

You ______ marry him. You shouldn't marry him.

I don't think we ______ grumble. / I don't think we should complain.

Do you think he ______ go? / Do you think he shouldn't go?

What do you think we ______ do? / What do you think we should do?

To say that in the past there was a moderate need to do something, but the action was not performed, use should have or ought to have with the past participle. For example, if it says I should have given him the money yesterday, it means that yesterday there was a moderate need to transfer money, but the money was not transferred.

I should have finished my drink and gone home. / I had to finish my drink and go home.

You should have realized that he was joking. / You should have known he was joking.

We ought to have stayed in tonight. / We were supposed to stay that night.

They ought to have taken a taxi. / They should have called a taxi.

If it is required to say that it was important not to do something in the past, but, nevertheless, it was done, should not have, ought not to have are used. For example, if it says: I should not have left the door open, the implication is that it was important that someone did not leave the door open, but the door remained open nonetheless.

I should not have said that. / I shouldn't have said that.

You should not have given him the money. / I shouldn't have given him money.

They ought not to have told him. / They shouldn't have told him.

She oughtn't to have sold the ring. / She shouldn't have sold the ring.

Had better

Had to is used to indicate a moderate need to do something in a particular situation. At the same time, the modal verb loses to and adds better, forming had better, followed by the verb in the base form. Also had better can be used to give advice or to express one's point of view on any issue. Although usually placed immediately after had to, the modal verb and not are separated by better in this case. The negative form looks like had better not.

I think I had better show this to you now. / I think it's better to show it to you now.

You'd better go tomorrow. / You'd better go tomorrow.

Although had better is reminiscent of its form, it was never used for moderate need in the past. Moreover, the correct form is always had better (it does not say have better).

I'd better not look at this. / I better not look at it.

Thus, in the range of have values ​​there are many separate semantic units that do not always behave according to the general logic. For example, had to (the modal verb have to in form II) does not always indicate the past tense.