ELL's Cabin

StoneyB

00:16

@DamkerngT. My version of that is "Nothing means anything outside a context."

Jude Niroshan

08:46

Hi

@tchrist are you busy right now?

@tchrist I have few things to be clarified before tomorrow's perl exam. will you be able to give me some help ?

Jude Niroshan

09:10

@tchrist this is my simple script > hastebin.com/robolurupu.rb

after before chomp() = nothing is executing. Can you point my error?

Damkerng T.

10:26

Why is this downvoted? Please state the reason. — Mamta D 1 hour ago

Downvoting of the weird kind still continues.

Was it because of this?

Just a note: must have to do... is possible. It's a matter of 'emphasizing' it further. — Maulik V ♦ 38 mins ago

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. I wasn't the one who downvoted, but it does appear to be wrong.

Damkerng T.

I think neither is correct.

must could be use as a modal verb together with have to as the main verb, I think.

I don't think that it's really about emphasizing.

Anonymous

It's not possible to use must and have to together to express deontic modality twice. That is, you can't use it to emphasize the deontic meaning.

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

If you use them together, must expresses epistemic necessity and have to most likely deontic modality.

Damkerng T.

10:32

That's what I was thinking.

Anonymous

> You've been driving all night? You must be tired!

Damkerng T.

Still, I think the downvote in that answer is strange.

Anonymous

That's the meaning of must I'm referring to here as 'epistemic necessity'.

Anonymous

It represents an inference that (in the speaker's mind, based on some evidence) has a high probability of being correct.

Damkerng T.

It should come together with something informative, perhaps likeAraucaria's comments; for example,

@MaulikV No, it sounds like someones "singing her a song"! — Araucaria 44 mins ago

Anonymous

10:35

So They must have to work out could mean 'I believe there is a high probability based on some evidence (quite likely from something just mentioned) that they are required to work out'.

Anonymous

@MamtaD Are you around?

Anonymous

I think that, as you say in your answer, it doesn't make sense to use them together with the same meaning. But I think that's why we naturally interpret must with a different meaning when they're used together.

Anonymous

And with different meanings the two make sense together. It's probably not very common to put them together like this, but there's nothing wrong with it.

Damkerng T.

@DamkerngT. In the annual function, Enya's "Only Time' was being sung. Only Time here is a song, isn't it? — Maulik V ♦ 8 mins ago

@MaulikV I'm not sure if that has anything to do with your first comment.

I'd go for option F) singing!. Your option C) being sung sounds that she's a song! — Maulik V ♦ 5 hours ago

I don't want to reply on the main site because it's not really useful for the OP.

And I hate to be perhaps the first person to tell you this, but please be more careful with information in your comments.

You wouldn't want to mislead our readers/learners, right?

Anonymous

I used up one of my precious comments replying! (They recently became precious when I decided I wanted to have exactly 3000 of them :-)

Anonymous

10:44

Now I have to pay for that comment by finding a bad comment I left in the first 3000 and removing it.

Damkerng T.

Hah! But I don't think we have any comment limit on SE(?).

Anonymous

Not really, but I leave too many comments, and I let them stick around long after they're expired.

Anonymous

This gives me a motivation to clean up after myself :-)

Anonymous

11:00

I've got 82 grammar questions left!

Damkerng T.

I still have 91 left!

Anonymous

I'm taking the opportunity to review some of my old answers and see if I can't improve them a bit.

Damkerng T.

I'm a slug-bot. :P

Anonymous

Some of my contributions to ELL need some work :-(

Damkerng T.

I've heard that the confusion between /l/ and /r/ is common among Japanese learners of English. This is mainly because /l/ and /r/ are both pronounced as /r/ in Japanese, so theoretically, election and erection could sound the same to many learners from Japan. I can confirm that native speakers can hear the difference of the two sounds very well, and I can hear it too. On the other hand, sometimes I misheard a Japanese /r/ as a /d/ sound. :-) I think our first language and the second language we're learning can have a real impact. But don't give up, the more we practice the better we are! — Damkerng T. Oct 12 at 1:05

tchrist

11:05

@JudeNiroshan There's nothing in there.

Damkerng T.

Hi @tchrist!

tchrist

Good morning.

It's 5am here.

Damkerng T.

13 hours apart!

tchrist

Did you already have you exam?

Damkerng T.

Is hastebin a cousin of pastebin?

Anonymous

11:07

@DamkerngT. It makes sense that you might mishear the Japanese /r/ as /d/ because American English flapped /t/ and /d/ are alveolar flaps [ɾ], and so is the Japanese /r/. There are phonetic details that differ between the two, but they're quite similar.

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Ah, it was nothing. I pasted it here so I could Yay! about +30. :D

Anonymous

Yay!

Damkerng T.

Yay!

Anonymous

@MaulikV No, must have to do is fine, it just isn't an emphatic form of must.

tchrist

I haven't analysed it deeply, but I do know that my flap in English kitty or latter is different from my flap in Spanish pero or cara.

Anonymous

11:09

@MaulikV Did you see the link in my comment? I typed up a longer explanation already.

tchrist

There's something different about the tongue, but they are close and someone else might not realize I'm doing those differently.

Maulik V

You must do it and you must have to do it - sounds quite similar except for the emphasis we make through that

Anonymous

must have to

44 mins ago, 13 minutes total – 22 messages, 2 users, 0 stars

Bookmarked 30 mins ago by snailboat

Maulik V

that's what I think and the OP was concerned about using 'must have to' altogether

the given sentence was merely an example

tchrist

The must in must have to do just means probably.

Damkerng T.

11:11

Think of it as This must be true.

This must be true. You must have to do it.

tchrist

It's like in must have been.

Damkerng T.

nods

I didn't downvote, but I can't upvote the answer either. From this book: "We can use must have to to conclude something based on what we know about a present situation and must have had to to conclude something about a past situation". (I'm not sure whether the downvoter downvoted your answer because of the same reason, though.) — Damkerng T. 16 mins ago

tchrist

> It must have been something I ate.

Damkerng T.

Oops! What happened to my clipboard!

Maulik V

Okay, so 'must' does not emphasize? To me it was something like - You do it, you should do it and you must do it -I just increased the degree of intensity that way

tchrist

11:13

@MaulikV That part is correct.

It’s just that when you add must to have, it no longer does that.

42 mins ago, by snailboat

If you use them together, must expresses epistemic necessity and have to most likely deontic modality.

Maulik V

You are telling #2 here and I'm stuck with #1 oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/must_1?q=must

Anonymous

Must and have to by themselves can express the same meaning, but when you combine them they have to express two different meanings.

Maulik V

@snailboat I see

tchrist

Both I must go and I have to go mean the same thing, but the first is stronger. However, I must have to go is something else.

Maulik V

@tchrist got it!

tchrist

11:16

> Santa Claus must have come while we were over at Grandma’s.

Maulik V

yes yes...got it

so, coming back to the original question: Can I use Must and Have to together like....short answer is: Yes, you can!

tchrist

Right, the collocation exists.

Maulik V

There's nothing wrong in writing: You must have to do it, isn't it?

tchrist

There's nothing wrong with it, provided it matches the intent of must meaning probably or likely or surely.

Damkerng T.

11 hours ago, by StoneyB

@DamkerngT. My version of that is "Nothing means anything outside a context."

Maulik V

11:17

If 'must have' is all different, I'd have certainly used 'might' instead.

tchrist

You must have to do it means "Surely this is something you have to do".

Maulik V

but then it is not what we discussed - you said it means 'probbaly

Damkerng T.

So, if you write "You must have to do it" to mean "You really, really have to do it", it would be considered incorrect.

Maulik V

'grrrhh... now tell me - you must have to do it
1) You probably have to do it OR
2) You should do it

which one is correct

Damkerng T.

It means, "I think it's very likely that 'You have to do it'".

Anonymous

11:21

@MaulikV This use of must is similar to might, but it's more certain.

tchrist

@MaulikV It means #1.

Maulik V

Okay

Damkerng T.

"I think it's very likely that .." is perhaps a little too soft.

"I'm sure that 'You have to do it'" is closer, I think.

@tchrist I didn't answer #1 because I wasn't sure what #1 meant to Maulik.

Jude Niroshan

@tchrist I'm sorry. I was away from my seat

Maulik V

You do it; you have to do it; you should do it; you must do it - was supposed to be stronger as you move from left to right. I thought in a way that if 'must and have' both are used, it is the strongest

Damkerng T.

11:25

Huh? -- I think you mix commands up with statements.

Maulik V

Oh...this gives me a hint. You should do it; You have to do it. But if used both- You should have ...it includes 'probability'

tchrist

There's a flip in deontic–epistemic modalities upon combination.

Maulik V

Hey, I want to discuss [sic] here

3

Q: A '[sic]' is added to a passage. But why and which part is deemed as an error?

Are there any grammatical errors in the following passage? "...crazy metal tool … specifically for extracting foreign objects from people’s [sic] nostrils,” Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/09/16/embarrassing-ways-hospital_n_7942276.html

grammar

started a bounty there

I came across a few example where [sic] is used but there's no error

The answer there tells it but I need some concrete information on this

anyone?

Damkerng T.

I think the answer is correct, afaict.

Anonymous

The Wikipedia article looks decent: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic

Damkerng T.

11:33

I have three possibilities of my reading (for [sic]): a) "I think it's weird, but it was written so"; b) "I wouldn't write it that way, but it was written so"; c) "I think it's incorrect, but it was written so".

Jude Niroshan

@DamkerngT. hi

Damkerng T.

Hi!

Jude Niroshan

One of the most talkative person in our office is leaving today. So, my manager wants me to give a small speech on fairewell

What is the best adjective for him ?

Damkerng T.

Well, I don't know him!

tchrist

0

Q: I'm not surprised at him/his having difficulties with the exam

Is it him or his? Why is it so? What is the grammar rule here? What would be some other examples where this rule is used?

grammar

No one will ever find this question because of its bad tagging:

Maulik V

11:36

@DamkerngT. this is nice

@JudeNiroshan you need a sarcastic adjective?

chatter box in that way!

Anonymous

@MaulikV I don't think sarcasm would be appropriate in a farewell speech.

Maulik V

he wanted 'best adjective' after mentioning that quality

Damkerng T.

I think Jude wants some good words. I couldn't think of one because I didn't know that person.

Maulik V

chatty, talkative, gabby

less sarcastic

@DamkerngT. Not sure 'most talkative' is good in itself

Damkerng T.

I'm still not sure what Jude meant by talkative.

Maulik V

11:40

keeps on talking...chatty

Damkerng T.

That's what you think.

Anonymous

@JudeNiroshan Are you going to be using mostly formal language again?

Damkerng T.

The underlying problem is not only about the adjective either. I think it's more about, "how I should give the speech".

Maulik V

@tchrist added

Damkerng T.

"I'm not surprised at him/his having difficulties with the exam"

Oh, hmm, I think we have many questions similar to that one!

tchrist

11:44

@MaulikV Thanks. This is a perpetually recurring question on ELU, where we have a canonical dupe to close it to.

Damkerng T.

(including my "I can smell you(r) baking cake")

Anonymous

I think we do, but I always have trouble finding those questions when they come up again.

Maulik V

@DamkerngT. I remember that brilliant question!

Damkerng T.

@MaulikV Thanks! I would suggest my question but the answer is not as canonical as I hoped.

I remember that Araucaria wrote a rather long one, but can't remember where it is.

Jude Niroshan

@snailboat not this time :D

Anonymous

11:46

It feels like having a tag for that set of questions could be useful, particularly since not all of the questions we've had about it on ELL are actually duplicates of one another.

tchrist

It's one variant, and falutes slightly higher, but with pronouns there are many idioms. Gerund clauses have two complementizers: the normal Acc-ing complementizer (without him telling me), and the Poss-ing complementizer (without his telling me). Both are correct, both are common, but Acc-ing is somewhat more common in practice. — John Lawler Dec 20 '14 at 18:10

Maulik V

Jude, what do you mean by talkative here?

Damkerng T.

@JudeNiroshan Ah, so everyone is happy because they're leaving?

Jude Niroshan

@DamkerngT. nope

Damkerng T.

@JudeNiroshan Phew! :D

tchrist

11:47

That’s Lawler’s comment on the question we close those questions to on ELU.

Jude Niroshan

Actually the company is lossing a good resource (who can handle clients very nicely)

I think talkative itself doesn't express his abilities

Anonymous

There's actually a bit more information about that in CGEL which is relevant, but unfortunately the information on that topic isn't organized well. It's scattered through several sections.

Damkerng T.

@JudeNiroshan What's the quality that makes you think his being talkative is great?

Jude Niroshan

@DamkerngT. he breaks the silence in the whole floor. And doing jokes with everyone. Come to work late. But still he is capable of getting the work done by the developers

Damkerng T.

^That's actually pretty good! You could just use it in your speech. ;-)

tchrist

11:51

embeds Lawler’s comment

Maulik V

@JudeNiroshan where does 'talkativeness' come here?

you may call him a 'versatile' + designation

versatile salesperson/manager/whatever

Anonymous

If it were me, I'd try writing the speech in my own words. I wouldn't worry about getting the perfect word to express everything in the first draft. I'd just try to get all my ideas down. Then once I know what I want to express, I might look at the speech and try to find better ways to express some of the ideas. But I'd still try to focus on units larger than a single word when I could.

Mamta D

Hey guys!

Anonymous

Hi, @MamtaD! Did you see our discussion?

Maulik V

let's give a big round of applause for the most versatile [designation] - Mr. X for being with us. His pragmatic approach has helped us reach higher and higher. We loved his seriousness when he is funny, we loved his naughtiness when he's angry.. lol and you can carry on! :P j/k

Mamta D

11:58

seeing....just logged in to chat and there are scores of messages :-O

Damkerng T.

Ah, hello, @MamtaD!

Mamta D

"They must have to work out " ---> "They need to work out" is simpler, isn't it?

Anonymous

@MamtaD I bookmarked what I wrote: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/22937/conversation/must-have-to But there was some more discussion after that when Maulik joined the chat.

Mamta D

I mean, I don't find any good/valid reason why "must have to" can't be replaced with a simpler phrase.

Anonymous

Well, need to doesn't mean the same thing.

Mamta D

12:01

"must have to" implies that..that they need to. must have had to is common but I have never ever seen "must have to"

Anonymous

It's fine, though. It makes sense.

Anonymous

Your answer says it doesn't make sense to use them together. That's not correct, and that's why I can't upvote.

Mamta D

Isn't this contradictory to what you wrote here an hour back? "
It's not possible to use must and have to together to express deontic modality twice. That is, you can't use it to emphasize the deontic meaning. "

Anonymous

Right, you can't use them both for the same meaning.

Mamta D

This is what you wrote here.

Anonymous

12:03

When you use them together, they have two different meanings.

Anonymous

Must is not used to express obligation when the two are put together.

Damkerng T.

@MamtaD I'm pretty sure that you'll be fine with it ('must have to') in context.

It's just that the OP's example is simply one standalone sentence.

So, it could sound wrong to many of us at first glance.

Mamta D

Alright. I get it.

Maulik V

It's the nuance of - you [must have] to do it what I see as - you must [have to] do it!

Mamta D

But tell me something..in the example given from the book by @snailboat, it says "I can't access the database. You must have to put in a password." Why is this not written as I can't access the database. You must put in a password. or "you might need to put in a password"?

Can you clarify this for me please?

Maulik V

12:07

That's the reason I said 'must' in you must [have to] do it intensifies it

Damkerng T.

Wait, did snailboat quote a book?

Maulik V

In India, Mamta, we almost consider 'must have to' as far more intensifying than you have to do it...or you should do it ... must have to means for sure, you must...you should...

isn't it?

Damkerng T.

Ah, it was from the book I quoted!

Anonymous

I don't remember quoting a book, but the example makes sense.

Anonymous

Must there expresses epistemic necessity―a strong inference based on evidence (expressed by the previous sentence) rather than an outright statement of fact.

Mamta D

12:10

No @MaulikV I have never ever come across it. And believe me, I am a voracious reader. I read a LOT, like a real LOT.

Damkerng T.

Anonymous

It's not "intensifying" it.

Damkerng T.

^uploaded it for everyone

Mamta D

But why can't we just write I can't access the database. You must put in a password

Anonymous

@MamtaD Me too! I'm a native speaker who has read several thousand English books. Anyway, it's fine.

Mamta D

12:11

or you must need to put in a password. why make it more harder by using have to

Damkerng T.

A paraphrase: "I'm certain (now that I know) that you have to put in a password."

Mamta D

Based on responses by both of you, I understand that this is possible. To use must and have to together. But why? is what is not clear to me.

Maulik V

Did you check COCA for more examples? @MamtaD

Anonymous

It expresses the speaker's relationship to the proposition being expressed. They've just discovered that "you need to put in a password" seems to be true.

Anonymous

They didn't already know. They're just in the process of finding out, but it seems like it's the case.

Anonymous

12:13

So they say must.

Damkerng T.

Though "You must put in a password" or "You have to put in a password" would be fine too.

Mamta D

Ah, that way...got it now. So this isn't intensifying or emphasizing but rather based on the situation.

Damkerng T.

I think my natural choice would be the latter.

Anonymous

Yeah, you can't double up must and have to to emphasize the obligation meaning.

Maulik V

Doctors and hospitals are so scarce that pregnant women and sick residents must have to travel up to 30 miles to the nearest health clinic

Anonymous

12:16

Instead, must expresses something called 'epistemic necessity'.

Anonymous

@MaulikV Your sentence seems like a good place to use have to by itself without must.

tchrist

@MaulikV That sentence doesn't quite make sense.

Maulik V

One of the results from COCA

Mamta D

From COCA: They must have to keep that room cold.

Maulik V

There will also be something special, something each family must have to make its Thanksgiving dinner unique.

Mamta D

12:18

@MaulikV This proves that COCA is not always right ;)

tchrist

@MaulikV Different parse.

Mamta D

Ah no that example is wrong in this context

Maulik V

The use of must+have+to is exactly what I have in my mind before reading all this here

tchrist

No no.

Mamta D

@MaulikV Thanksgiving example is not correct in this context. See the OP's post

tchrist

12:18

That is must possess in order to.

Maulik V

@MamtaD Ah, I'm now far beyond the OP's question!

talking in general...

because this is 'news' to me!

Mamta D

No @MaulikV this is NOT that must have. You're going in the wrong direction

No we aren't talking of general context here

Maulik V

I'm taking 'must have to'

Mamta D

We are speaking of a very specific usage and context

We all know the general usage and meaning.

What we are talking of is in the other context.

Anonymous

> During a rare trip to the library on a Sunday afternoon, Siegel spots Malik in a chair against a far wall, asleep with his mouth open. He wonders whether, in whatever shelter he finds himself in, Malik sleeps in his clothes, or sleeps at all. He must have to worry about other homeless characters stealing his few worldly goods. When does he have a chance to shower or shave? Does he miss many meals? What will he do if he gets sick? How does he keep things going?

Anonymous

12:20

This example is also from COCA.

Maulik V

And

?

Mamta D

Like, see here, @MaulikV: abilities that students must have to succeed in college and, increasingly, the modern-day workplace. We are NOT talking of this kind of example. We KNOW this well.

Maulik V

does the use of 'must have to' change depending on the sentence?

Anonymous

If the author here wrote "He has to worry about other homeless characters stealing his few worldly goods", he would be expressing that as a fact. But he doesn't know―he's making an inference he thinks is very likely to be true.

Anonymous

So if you removed must from the sentence, it would be strange.

Maulik V

12:23

@snailboat I completely understood this

Ah, time's up here!

Damkerng T.

Aww... I'm about to present something, which may take a couple of minutes.

Maulik V

never mind.. someone suggested me to visit this place frequently!

Damkerng T.

(About the "Doctors and hospitals" sentence.)

Mamta D

present something here?

Damkerng T.

Yup. Some evidence. :P

freepatentsonline.com/article/College-Student-Journal/…

In that article, they wrote:

> As Archibald and Hansen (2002) put it, "Doctors and hospitals are so scarce that pregnant women and sick residents must have to travel up to 30 miles to the nearest health clinic."

(note the must have to)

I couldn't find the original (Archibald and Hansen (2002)), but I found it in another article:

auburn.edu/outreach/publications/beyondtheinterstate.pdf

On page 15:

Mamta D

12:26

Sure but does it emphasize or intensify? Or just we can paraphrase it to "sick residents need to travel up to 30 miles"?

Damkerng T.

> Doctors and hospitals are so scarce that pregnant women and sick residents must travel up to 30 miles to the nearest health clinic.

See the difference?

Maulik V

I already quoted that @DamkerngT.

Anonymous

No, it's never going to emphasize or intensify. You can't combine must and have to to emphasize or intensify the meaning of obligation.

Damkerng T.

I mean, someone must've done something to the text when they quoted it.

Mamta D

No, not must travel. We can definitely replace it with need to travel

tchrist

12:27

What, we're still on that a sesquihour later?

Maulik V

@snailboat this is very confusing to me but now I consider this and 'save' it to my gray matter without making it perplexing

Anonymous

I'm afraid I've repeated myself too many times. :-(

Mamta D

I understood you @snailboat

It's clear to me now.

But @MaulikV's points are/were not right.

For example, the Thanksgiving sentence. The context of must have there is entirely different from what we're discussing.

"There will also be something special, something each family must have to make its Thanksgiving dinner unique." ---> this usage is unrelated to our current discussion

Damkerng T.

Indeed.

Mamta D

Now, I have to log off briefly. Will login again in a short while.

tchrist

12:30

It parses differently.

Mamta D

Thank you all for your wonderful inputs. Much appreciated!

Damkerng T.

No problem (on my part). I just quoted a book. :D

Damkerng T.

13:45

Come to think of it, I wonder whether have to is a modal verb or a main verb (e.g. in We have to go there).

(I thought it was a main verb; now I'm not sure! I think it looks like a modal verb too.)

<-- telling himself to look for a rigorous definition when possible...

Araucaria

@MamtaD @snailboat I've added a post now on that.

Anonymous

I upvoted! :-)

Araucaria

@snailboat Thanks! (assuming I deserved it)

Damkerng T.

@Araucaria Would you consider have to a modal verb? (Because I think it expresses modality.)

still reading it...

Ugh! Deontic modality!

Ugh! epistemic modality!

Araucaria

@DamkerngT. No, I was going to put a note in about that but forgot. Modal verbs are a syntactic group of verbs with special properties, they're not a class primarily because of their semantics.

Damkerng T.

13:51

I mean, there's nothing wrong about it, but I wonder whether the OP can understand them.

@Araucaria Ahh -- Thanks for the feedback!

Anonymous

One reason I try to use the term modal auxiliary instead of modal verb for that class is because it makes it clear that they belong to the syntactic class of auxiliaries. It's not just any old verb that expresses modal meaning.

Araucaria

@DamkerngT. Don't I explain them right after I introduce them? Main reason to include them was in case they're reading about them anywhere else later ...

Damkerng T.

@Araucaria Yes, you do, but still-- oh, you know what I think. :D

Araucaria

@snailboat I'm going to have to adopt that policy - seems a very useful one. Consider it adopted / stolen

Anonymous

Yay!

Araucaria

13:55

@DamkerngT. I might have a dive in and try to make it more user friendly.

Damkerng T.

+0.9 -- I just wish it was a little easier for learners.

@Araucaria Yay! in advance!

Araucaria

@DamkerngT. Any improvement?

It's still there but I backgrounded it ...

Damkerng T.

@Araucaria On behalf of the learners, I thank you. :-)

Araucaria

@DamkerngT. Wilkommen!

Damkerng T.

Ah, that gave me nostalgia. :D

Anonymous

22:08

@Araucaria Is the /i/ in /dɪ'mɒnstrətiv/ a typo?

Araucaria

22:25

@snailboat Erm, probably, yes. But I'll need to check. Wells has prefix-final /i/s, But don't know if that's one of them (rather feel it isn't) :( Can't get hold of LPD till Monday though! Disaster .... Aaargh :(

@snailboat Yes, must be! got the wrong syllable!!!!! Don't know - but am pretty certain it must be (as, I assume you are too!) Erm, I suppose know it must be ....

@snailboat Thank you!

@snailboat Double thanks because picked up loads of embarrassing other typos too. Shouldn't do posts before racing to the pub to try and do social programme for students ... Unless, of course you're willing to live without dignity, which I probably am ...

must have to

Transcript for