Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: Must

You must use "must" in written rules and instructions to say that 
somebody is obliged to do something, but you don't have to use it in 
spoken language, because you can also say that somebody "has to do" 
something", right?
Or perhaps I mustn't be so categorical?


I suppose I have to offer the obligatory disclaimer that no reader, 
user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting on the 
basis of information on this post without first seeking legal advice 
from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.
 
"Must" is a legal term of obligation. "Have to" is not a legal term. You 
may use both of them in written form when you intend informational 
rather than legal communication.
 
https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/conversational/shall-and-must/
 
 
Outside of legal communication, you can also use words such as should, 
shall, will, obligated to, and required, all with their own particular 
connotations and degrees of certainty. And, I'm sure there are more such 
words, but I'd have to think longer to come up with them.


You gotta do what you gotta do (cit.)
 
-- 
Et interrogabant eum turbae dicentes: “Quid ergo faciemus?”.
Respondens autem dicebat illis: “Qui habet duas tunicas,
det non habenti; et, qui habet escas, similiter faciat”.
(Ev. sec. Lucam 3,10-11)
 
-- 
Questa email è stata esaminata alla ricerca di virus da AVG.
http://www.avg.com
 
 

 rather than legal communication.
 
Is "gotta" (kinda have got to) used in spoken language, and specially 
where (USA ,in some states, GB, other)?


 where (USA ,in some states, GB, other)?
 
"Gotta" is more frequently used in spoken language than in written 
language where it typically is limited to informal writing and to 
conversational dialog. In spoken language it appears in every region of 
the US and more frequently in situations and within groups for which 
adherence to standard English is not important.


Mi pare corretto. Per esempio i "must" nel regolamento ufficiale del 
parco di Yellowstone
https://www.yellowstonepark.com/park/faqs/yellowstone-regulations/
 
credo che potrebbero essere sostituiti da "have to" qualora le stesse 
indicazioni fossero date colloquialmente.
 
Questo ovviamente non esaurisce le differenze tra "must" e "have to".
 
-- 
IdP
 
 
"Plus l'offenseur m'est cher, plus je ressens l'injure." (Jean Racine)


They're not equivalent, IMO. Consider these two sentences for instance:
   You must meet my wife one of these days.
   You have to meet my wife one of these days.
The second one has a slightly negative connotation as it seems to imply 
that you should do it even if you don't want to.
 
A different example:
   I must help my wife with some stuff (because I want to)
   I have to help my wife with some stuff (but I'd rather go out with 
you If I could).
 
-- 
Kiuhnm
 
Once I used to run faster...
... but I was found out right away.


Sì, nei tuoi esempi "must" segnala la volontà interiore, non una 
costrizione esterna. Però è un caso diverso da quello di cui si 
parlava, "in written rules and instructions to say that somebody is 
obliged to do something". In questi casi, credo che lo stesso concetto 
espresso con "must" nelle regole formali per iscritto possa essere 
espresso con "have to" nel parlato, come diceva danilob. Su un cartello 
puoi leggere "pets must be leashed" ma nel parlato puoi anche dire 
"pets have to be leashed", afaik.
 
-- 
IdP
 
 
"Chi semina spine non vada scalzo." (Proverbio toscano)


IMO, the opening post is slightly ambiguous. I see two possible meanings:
1. Talking about written rules and regulations, one must use "must", but...
2. One must use "must" in written rules and regulations, but it isn't 
needed in spoken language.
