Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: differenza fra to be to e to have to

Qualcuno mi sa dire la differenza fra TO BE TO e TO HAVE TO ?
Grazie a ciao

 La questione è molto complessa .
    Molte sarebbero le cose da dire ma in linea di massima To be To può
essere considerato un sinonimo di Must.
Ad esempio se  la polizia dice "No one is to leave the building " impone a
tutti di non lasciare l'edificio.
Un altro uso di To be to è quello di comunicare piani :
 She is to leave in a few months (Deve partire tra pochi mesi )
A questo proposito vierne spesso usata nei titoli dei giornali :
New measures to be announced by the Prime Minister altro non è che la forma
abbreviata di New measures are to be announced by the Prime Minister.
To have to esprime invece un obbligo esterno o causato dalle circostanze.
Esempio
He has to wear a uniform at work (Glielo impone il datore di lavoro)
He is broke and he will have to ask his father for money ( Ha finito i soldi
e dovrà chiederne al padre )
Come ho già detto ci sarebbe ancora molto da dire ma spero di averti
chiarito i dubbi più forti.
Yours
Sal

 Grazie a ciao
TO BE TO non ha senso.  TO HAVE TO = dovere
-- 
Dale Erwin
http://home.earthlink.net/~erwintech

 Grazie a ciao
beh scusate, e' possibile trovare TO BE TO, come "essere a" o
"stare a" ma raramente.


 "stare a" ma raramente.
Sorry, but a quanto ne so ha ragione Salvatore: la forma "to be to", come da
lui illustrata, esiste eccome, e non è affatto rara.
--
Ciao
Anna

 TO BE TO non ha senso.  TO HAVE TO = dovere
In che senso scusa, io l'ho trovato piu' di una volta e anche la grammatica
advanced su cui sto studiando (edizione Oxford) ne fa uso in vari esempi

 wrote in message
o0YI6.19904$UW4.1...@news.infostrada.it...

Grazie mille mi hai risolto in parte un bel problema, ma ora mi viene un
altro dubbio:
se MUST viene usato per indicare l'autorita' o comunque la certezza
dell'obbligo da parte di chi parla, TO BE TO cosa esprime di differente? E'
un sinonimo o ha proprio altre implicazioni?

 un sinonimo o ha proprio altre implicazioni?
<Anche qui non sarò esauriente ma la differenza fondamentale tra i due è che
Must è l'ordine dato direttamente e Have To
  è quello riportato ,fermi restando gli esempi che fatto l'altra volta.
ES:
Madre You must study (gli da un ordine )
Figlio My mother told me I have to study (Lo riporta e sa che è necessario)
Forse ho semplificato troppo ma è più o meno così.
Yours
Sal

 wrote in message
3AF48FC4...@earthlink.net...

*********************************************************************
Allora, cercherò di essere chiara in quanto esistono e sono largamente usate
entrambe le espressioni.
-TO HAVE TO può grosso modo essere un "sinonimo" di MUST, anche se non è
proprio così dato che ad essere precisi  TO HAVE TO implica che si deve fare
qualcosa perché le circostanze esterne o qualcuno (un'"autorità") ce lo
rendono necessario, mentre MUST si usa quando colui che parla decide di fare
quella particolare cosa;
-TO BE TO si usa in genere quando si parla di azioni già decise (es. I am to
be married early this year), incontri o appuntamenti (es. They were to pick
us up), oppure per esprimere predestinazione (es. His teacher realized he
was to become a great artist).
Altri usi:
Per dare ordini in maniera educata (es. All applicants are to bring a copy
of their diplomas);
Per indagagare i desideri di altri (es. Am I to come to this office or to Mr
Carter's?).
Spero di non averti confuso ulteriormente le idee!!
All the best
@gnese
p.s. sono nuova, un saluto a tutto il NG!



There seems to be some confusion. Some of us are talking about ..to
be to..., as a sequence, which doesn't exist in English as far as I
can tell. if it does - care to do some example English sentences
please? With the words "to be to" in them. Not counting a list, as
in: To be, to think, to eat, to dream, perchance to sleep. That could
get to be too easy. :-)))
Cheers,
Loki

 can tell.
It doesn't exist "as a sequence"... but you mean we cannot use the infinitive
when speaking in general terms about this form:
- No one *is to* leave the building
- She *is to* leave in a few months
- New measures *are to* be announced by the Prime Minister?
(Examples taken from Sal's post).
I learnt that, for example, "si usa la forma *to be going to* per esprimere il
futuro intenzionale..." Isn't this use of the infinitive correct, in
explaining English grammar?
Or was I just taking you too seriously? ;-)
--
Ciao
Anna


"A teacher needs to be to his students a friend as well."
awkward construction, but possible.
I admit that I was thinking strictly of the infinitive "to be to" and
not of a conjugated derivative.  I would say that "he is to leave on
the ten o'clock flight" would be correct and is somewhat different
from "he has to leave on the ten o'clock flight," the former indicating
what is planned, the latter indicating an obligation.
Inoltre vorrei dire che il primo esempio (he is to leave...) di 
solito sarebbe espresso (almeno in USA) come "he is going to leave..."
e perciò mantengo ancora che sia raramente trovato nell'inglese
americano moderno... forse in UK, non lo so.
Scusatemi!

 "to be to" in them.
We are to be to the funeral parlor at 1:00pm.
Rick

 wrote in message
news:3AF950A1...@wcom.com...

<Oughtn't it to be  "at the funeral parlor " ?
Yours
Sal

salvatore santangelo wrote:
<Oughtn't it to be  "at the funeral parlor " ?
Normal folk would probably use "at" but a more upper crust person, and I
do mean crust,  might
use "to".  It sounds stuffy, but I don't think it's incorrect.
Rick

 incorrect.
Avoiding the slippery slope of  judging correctness and incorrectness, let me
offer the following as my perspective.
Most people would say:
"We should be at the funeral parlor at 1 p.m."
It is a weaker construction but acceptable to say:
"We are to be at the funeral parlor at 1 p.m."
Only someone with a mind clouded by an acute grief reaction would say:
"We are to be to the funeral parlor at 1 p.m."
One doesn't typically say:
"A teacher needs to be to his students a friend as well."
In this case, it's a manipulation of sentence construction to place the
preposition "to" after "be." Instead, one says:
"A teacher needs to be a friend as well to his students."
In the infinitive form "to be to," if not entirely incorrect, is sufficiently
awkward that if I heard someone say it I would guess that the person was not a
native English speaker. Of course, conjugations of the verb "to be" along with
the preposition "to" are acceptable although not very common.
One can say, as Anna wrote:
"No one is to leave the building." (to be to)
But, most people would say:
"No one should leave the building."
You could also say:
"Everyone has to remain in the building." (to have to)
But, most people would say:
"Everyone must remain in the building."
Regarding the difference in meaning between the two verbs, I seem to be in some
disagreement with Salvatore. I would suggest the following:
he is to = should (dovrebbe)
he has to = must  (deve)
I make this suggestion reluctantly, acknowledging Salvatore's superior knowledge
of Italian, but I'm certain of the English synonyms.
Ciao,
Ron
USA


We are to be AT the funeral parlor at 1:00pm.
You GO TO but you BE AT.


 You GO TO but you BE AT.
Dear Dale,
To be sure it is old fashioned, but it is not incorrect to say 'We are to be
to the funeral parlour at....'
--
I remain, as always, ecc., ecc.,
Bambi
dtb

 You GO TO but you BE AT.
I ran my example past my wife, she assures me I'm wrong and you are right.
So let me try this one out on you...  "I don't have to be to class until
10:00".
That sounds pretty natural to me.  But so does "I don't have to be at
class until 10:00".
These examples of "to be to" aren't easy to come up with, I admit.
Rick

 
Are you sure? I would have said it was totally wrong.
Is it an American usage?
Mary
-- 
"It's time for the second funeral", Tom rehearsed.

 Mary
I agree with you, Mary.  It's not an American usage with which I am
familiar, but I figured I was just too young to know the oldl-fashioned
usage of which Bambi spoke.  ...or should that be spake?


 dtb
Which century are we talking about then? ;-) Who has never, ever
heard anyone use this type of construction.
Cheers,
Loki

 are acceptable although not very common. [snip]
Ah, so that's what that 'to' is. :-) 
I must admit that I am paddling water furiously, trying to keep up
with the minituae of grammar. 
Cheers,
Loki
-- 
 
              O      __
      ___   /\     / / O  
     /__ \   | \   /  |
    O  /  \ /   \./   |
        |________ |
 
            Loki 

 friend to his/her students as well. "
Just for the benefit of those learning English, this alternate construction may
have a different connotation.
"A teacher needs to be a friend as well to his students." (This means that in
addition to being a teacher to his students, the teacher also needs to be a
friend to his students.)
"A teacher needs to be a friend to his students as well." (The meaning is less
clear. It could have the same meaning as the first example. Or, it could mean
that  in addition to being a friend to whomever, the teacher also needs to be a
friend to his students.)
Ciao,
Ron
USA

 "It's time for the second funeral", Tom rehearsed.
Long live Master Tom Swiftie!
--
I remain, as always,
Bambi
dtb

"A teacher needs to be a friend to his students as well." ...
But none have the same meaning as "A teacher _is to be_ a friend to
his students" which is what the thread was all about. Correct, or are
there overlapping areas of significance?
-- 
Isa
Work like you don't need money,
Love like you've never been hurt,
And dance like no one's watching
http://web.tiscalinet.it/alfabeto_auschwitz/

Hi Mary,
       I'm a "senior citizen" from the United States, and never ever have I
heard that particular construction. I would certainly say, "We are to be at the
funeral parlor..."
never, "to be to." It is certainly not an "Americanism."
         Best wishes,
                   Harriet

 there overlapping areas of significance?
I'm not sure I understand your point or question. My sentence was a
reconstruction of one posted by Dale, who wrote: "A teacher needs to be to his
students a friend as well." I pointed out that the placement after "to be" of
the prepositional phrase beginning with "to" was a convenience for the sake of
argument and not common sentence construction. Instead, people typically say "A
teacher needs to be a friend as well to his students."
Regarding what the thread was all about, I can only wonder. Sometimes posts in
this newsgroup focus on what it is possible to say or even what a small
population might have said at one time instead of on standard English
construction. It must be as confusing for some people learning English as it has
been for me to learn that "dovrebbe" doesn't always mean "he/she should." I will
be sulking in disappointment for a long time about that one.
Ciao,
Ron
USA
PS: And yes, your example phrase has a different meaning than all the others
mentioned so far. It also does not use the preposition "to" after the infinitive
form of the verb "to be;" a point about which there has been some controversy.

Regarding what the thread was all about, I can only wonder.
I hope that's clearer now (in the beginning at least). I just wanted
to alert less advanced learners of English to the fact that "A teacher
is to be a friend to his pupils" and "a teacher needs to be [a friend]
to his students" are two very distincts form of constructing a phrase,
and they mean slightly different things. IMHO, that is.
Cheers,


 and they mean slightly different things.
Yes, of course. The meanings are slightly different, although "A teacher is to
be" is a rather weak construction in my opinion. I would encourage new users of
English not to gravitate toward that usage.
Ciao,
Ron
USA

 students.)
or : The teacher not only needs to exert discipline but be a friend
as well. But yes, it was ambiguous.
Cheers,
loki
-- 
 


To this ear, the only example which has sounded completely natural is,
"No-one is to leave the building." In fact, I can't think of a better way of
saying it. "No-one may leave the building," would be okay, but I certainly
can't imagine a tough cop in a film saying that.
I think it would be okay to use this type of construction in instructions
generally. I've certainly seen signs that say things like, "Protective
clothing [is] to be worn at all times." But, yes, this statement is weaker
than "... must be worn..." It doesn't mean, "It is imperative that you
wear..." but rather, "You are instructed to wear."
Anyway, Ron's advice is certainly good for 99.99% of cases. Anyway, enough.
Mi carico.
J