Talk:have to

because have to que sisnifica

"Because have to" is ungrammatical. One might hear "because I have to" as answer to a question:

"Why are you going home? The party is just getting started." "Because I have to."

It could mean "because I must", "because I should", "because I am forced to", "because it is my duty" DCDuring TALK 21:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a passing thought, but does this merit its own entry? I'd want to say that "have" in this sense still functions as an auxiliary verb while "to" functions as a particle preceding an implied verb. 76.30.244.221 01:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Some contributors like this kind of entry as a target for translation from their language. Other problematic entries of this specific sort are in Category:English non-constituents. DCDuring TALK 02:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

vs must vs have got to
If someone is required to do something regularly, for example as a job or duty, don't use ‘must’, She has to do all the cooking and cleaning. If someone is required to do something on a particular occasion, they have got to do it or, in formal English and American English, that they have to do it, I've got to go and see the headmaster. https://www.wordreference.com/EnglishUsage/have%20to --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet, does the distinction have (got) to, for a particular occasion, also work in the negative, meaning lack of obligation, as in We can go to Paris this weekend because I don’t have to work. ? --Backinstadiums (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The sentence is fine. As to the distinction between "have to" and "have got to" (which I find a bit hairsplitting) it wouldn't work in the negative. You wouldn't say "I haven't got to". With "must" the negative means an interdiction rather than lack of obligation. 90.186.170.69 08:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The past of have to implies that the obligation was fulfilled
The past of should (not), ought (not) to and need not imply that an obligation in the past was not fulfilled. However, the past of have to implies that the obligation was fulfilled I had to see the doctor yesterday (and did so the obligation was fulfilled) I didn't have to see the doctor (so didn't so the lack of obligation was fulfilled)

https://www.eltconcourse.com/training/inservice/modality/deontic_modality.html#2 JMGN (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

RFD discussion: December 2023–June 2024
I think have to [a verb] can be more accurately described as have [infinitive verb] and all senses should be moved to have. Cannot add the template now. A W estman  talk   stalk  05:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Etymologically, that may have been the case, but is it still? The fact that it is pronounced differently (at least in North America) than "have" + [to-infinitive] suggests to me that it is no longer analyzed that way by most speakers. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed - it's not at all how it's conceived by native speakers. Theknightwho (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, a couple of three refs added. DonnanZ (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Added a couple of quotes as well. DonnanZ (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly a separate lemma in modern English. This, that and the other (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Forgot to close. A W estman  talk   stalk  00:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Kept Lfellet (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)