“has to” vs “must” in passive

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}

I've been recently writing a technical document and I wrote something like
It has to be possible to come back to the old version. (paraphrasing here, but I think sense is conveyed)

However MS Word suggested change to
It must be possible to come back to the old version.

I've been looking through the Web, but couldn't find satisfying explanation of this suggestion. I think I understood the difference between I have to... (there is someone external forcing me) vs I must (meaning I have an internal need) but I don't understand how to apply it here.

Could somebody care to explain?

Thanks!

Kris

asked 18 hours ago

Wylfryd

New contributor

Hello and welcome to ELU. Make sure to check this site for similar questions. One of them may answer yours.

– KannE
17 hours ago

Hi @KannE ! I did, but I didn't find exactly what I was looking for. I even mentioned that in my question. Now, I might have missed something, but if you think that is the case, please point me to such place.

– Wylfryd
17 hours ago

Anytime you find a similar question on this site, you should state that it doesn't answer your question if that's the case. I've done some research online and looked at a few of the answers here. I'm not sold on any of them so far, but I'll keep looking.

– KannE
17 hours ago

1

What version are you using? I tried your example sentence and wasn't given any suggestions about it. "have to" and "must" mean largely the same thing. There can be slight differences, but I don't know how Word can object to such a sentence if it doesn't know your intention. My first thought was that it was on the basis of "wordiness", as "has to" is longer than "must". Under your grammar settings (particularly the 'style settings') disable each option and see when it stops giving you the notice. Disable all, then check each option one by one.

– Zebrafish
17 hours ago

1

To get a sensible answer it seems like you are going to have to tell us exactly what you wrote (i.e. not a paraphrase) and exactly what Word told you. There is no passive in your sentence and I would be surprised if Word's grammar check, (for all its faults) told you there was.

– Shoe
16 hours ago

|
show 1 more comment

I've been recently writing a technical document and I wrote something like
It has to be possible to come back to the old version. (paraphrasing here, but I think sense is conveyed)

However MS Word suggested change to
It must be possible to come back to the old version.

Could somebody care to explain?

Thanks!

Kris

asked 18 hours ago

Wylfryd

New contributor

Hello and welcome to ELU. Make sure to check this site for similar questions. One of them may answer yours.

– KannE
17 hours ago

Hi @KannE ! I did, but I didn't find exactly what I was looking for. I even mentioned that in my question. Now, I might have missed something, but if you think that is the case, please point me to such place.

– Wylfryd
17 hours ago

Anytime you find a similar question on this site, you should state that it doesn't answer your question if that's the case. I've done some research online and looked at a few of the answers here. I'm not sold on any of them so far, but I'll keep looking.

– KannE
17 hours ago

1

What version are you using? I tried your example sentence and wasn't given any suggestions about it. "have to" and "must" mean largely the same thing. There can be slight differences, but I don't know how Word can object to such a sentence if it doesn't know your intention. My first thought was that it was on the basis of "wordiness", as "has to" is longer than "must". Under your grammar settings (particularly the 'style settings') disable each option and see when it stops giving you the notice. Disable all, then check each option one by one.

– Zebrafish
17 hours ago

1

To get a sensible answer it seems like you are going to have to tell us exactly what you wrote (i.e. not a paraphrase) and exactly what Word told you. There is no passive in your sentence and I would be surprised if Word's grammar check, (for all its faults) told you there was.

– Shoe
16 hours ago

|
show 1 more comment

I've been recently writing a technical document and I wrote something like
It has to be possible to come back to the old version. (paraphrasing here, but I think sense is conveyed)

However MS Word suggested change to
It must be possible to come back to the old version.

Could somebody care to explain?

Thanks!

Kris

asked 18 hours ago

Wylfryd

New contributor

I've been recently writing a technical document and I wrote something like
It has to be possible to come back to the old version. (paraphrasing here, but I think sense is conveyed)

However MS Word suggested change to
It must be possible to come back to the old version.

Could somebody care to explain?

Thanks!

Kris

have-to-vs.must

asked 18 hours ago

Wylfryd

New contributor

asked 18 hours ago

Wylfryd

New contributor

asked 18 hours ago

Wylfryd

New contributor

asked 18 hours ago

Wylfryd

asked 18 hours ago

Wylfryd

New contributor

Wylfryd is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

Hello and welcome to ELU. Make sure to check this site for similar questions. One of them may answer yours.

– KannE
17 hours ago

Hi @KannE ! I did, but I didn't find exactly what I was looking for. I even mentioned that in my question. Now, I might have missed something, but if you think that is the case, please point me to such place.

– Wylfryd
17 hours ago

Anytime you find a similar question on this site, you should state that it doesn't answer your question if that's the case. I've done some research online and looked at a few of the answers here. I'm not sold on any of them so far, but I'll keep looking.

– KannE
17 hours ago

1

What version are you using? I tried your example sentence and wasn't given any suggestions about it. "have to" and "must" mean largely the same thing. There can be slight differences, but I don't know how Word can object to such a sentence if it doesn't know your intention. My first thought was that it was on the basis of "wordiness", as "has to" is longer than "must". Under your grammar settings (particularly the 'style settings') disable each option and see when it stops giving you the notice. Disable all, then check each option one by one.

– Zebrafish
17 hours ago

1

To get a sensible answer it seems like you are going to have to tell us exactly what you wrote (i.e. not a paraphrase) and exactly what Word told you. There is no passive in your sentence and I would be surprised if Word's grammar check, (for all its faults) told you there was.

– Shoe
16 hours ago

|
show 1 more comment

Hello and welcome to ELU. Make sure to check this site for similar questions. One of them may answer yours.

– KannE
17 hours ago

Hi @KannE ! I did, but I didn't find exactly what I was looking for. I even mentioned that in my question. Now, I might have missed something, but if you think that is the case, please point me to such place.

– Wylfryd
17 hours ago

Anytime you find a similar question on this site, you should state that it doesn't answer your question if that's the case. I've done some research online and looked at a few of the answers here. I'm not sold on any of them so far, but I'll keep looking.

– KannE
17 hours ago

1

What version are you using? I tried your example sentence and wasn't given any suggestions about it. "have to" and "must" mean largely the same thing. There can be slight differences, but I don't know how Word can object to such a sentence if it doesn't know your intention. My first thought was that it was on the basis of "wordiness", as "has to" is longer than "must". Under your grammar settings (particularly the 'style settings') disable each option and see when it stops giving you the notice. Disable all, then check each option one by one.

– Zebrafish
17 hours ago

1

To get a sensible answer it seems like you are going to have to tell us exactly what you wrote (i.e. not a paraphrase) and exactly what Word told you. There is no passive in your sentence and I would be surprised if Word's grammar check, (for all its faults) told you there was.

– Shoe
16 hours ago

Hello and welcome to ELU. Make sure to check this site for similar questions. One of them may answer yours.

– KannE
17 hours ago

Hi @KannE ! I did, but I didn't find exactly what I was looking for. I even mentioned that in my question. Now, I might have missed something, but if you think that is the case, please point me to such place.

– Wylfryd
17 hours ago

Anytime you find a similar question on this site, you should state that it doesn't answer your question if that's the case. I've done some research online and looked at a few of the answers here. I'm not sold on any of them so far, but I'll keep looking.

– KannE
17 hours ago

What version are you using? I tried your example sentence and wasn't given any suggestions about it. "have to" and "must" mean largely the same thing. There can be slight differences, but I don't know how Word can object to such a sentence if it doesn't know your intention. My first thought was that it was on the basis of "wordiness", as "has to" is longer than "must". Under your grammar settings (particularly the 'style settings') disable each option and see when it stops giving you the notice. Disable all, then check each option one by one.

– Zebrafish
17 hours ago

To get a sensible answer it seems like you are going to have to tell us exactly what you wrote (i.e. not a paraphrase) and exactly what Word told you. There is no passive in your sentence and I would be surprised if Word's grammar check, (for all its faults) told you there was.

– Shoe
16 hours ago

|
show 1 more comment

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

Actually, neither sentence is in passive form. Given sentences are equal to

To come back to the old version has to be possible.

To come back to the old version must be possible.

To explain, with a little more modification,

Coming back ... has to be possible.

Coming back ... must be possible.

So the suggestion is about between have to vs must and you are actually asking the difference between them.

It would not answer your question, but If I were you I would do:

User (should/must/have to) be able to rollback version.

I don't know the context though.

edited 2 hours ago

John Lawler

85.2k6118336

answered 16 hours ago

xvnm

1112

New contributor

add a comment |

It must/has to be possible to come back to the old version.

As noted by xbnm, this isn't about "passive" at all. Forget passive.

And it isn't about why Word suggested one version or another. Forget Word.

This is about the fact that, while must and have to mostly mean the same, they're ambiguous.

All modals have two senses: one (called deontic) that has to do with obligation and permission,

and another (called epistemic) that has to do with logic and probability.

So, does the sentence above something appear on a specification for a software update protocol?

That would be deontic, and it would impose an obligation on the design of the software.

Or is it a proposition that any sane user would expect any sane designer to include?

That would be epistemic.

Interestingly, must seems to be preferable in the deontic sense, because it is more formal and therefore threateningly legal-sounding. In the epistemic sense, however, there is no difference in meaning between must and have to.

answered 1 hour ago

John Lawler

85.2k6118336

I found this statement on another Q&A site (under the topic 'What is the difference between "must" and "have to" in English?'): "While both can be ambiguous, “have to” is almost always used in the deontic sense, while “must” is used more evenly in both the deontic and epistemic senses." It goes on from there. Is that...what is that? If you have an opinion on that, I would appreciate it. I'll go back and try to understand the other answers here on that now.

– KannE
22 secs ago

add a comment |

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});

}
});

Wylfryd is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f494459%2fhas-to-vs-must-in-passive%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

Actually, neither sentence is in passive form. Given sentences are equal to

To come back to the old version has to be possible.

To come back to the old version must be possible.

To explain, with a little more modification,

Coming back ... has to be possible.

Coming back ... must be possible.

So the suggestion is about between have to vs must and you are actually asking the difference between them.

It would not answer your question, but If I were you I would do:

User (should/must/have to) be able to rollback version.

I don't know the context though.

edited 2 hours ago

John Lawler

85.2k6118336

answered 16 hours ago

xvnm

1112

New contributor

add a comment |

Actually, neither sentence is in passive form. Given sentences are equal to

To come back to the old version has to be possible.

To come back to the old version must be possible.

To explain, with a little more modification,

Coming back ... has to be possible.

Coming back ... must be possible.

So the suggestion is about between have to vs must and you are actually asking the difference between them.

It would not answer your question, but If I were you I would do:

User (should/must/have to) be able to rollback version.

I don't know the context though.

edited 2 hours ago

John Lawler

85.2k6118336

answered 16 hours ago

xvnm

1112

New contributor

add a comment |

Actually, neither sentence is in passive form. Given sentences are equal to

To come back to the old version has to be possible.

To come back to the old version must be possible.

To explain, with a little more modification,

Coming back ... has to be possible.

Coming back ... must be possible.

So the suggestion is about between have to vs must and you are actually asking the difference between them.

It would not answer your question, but If I were you I would do:

User (should/must/have to) be able to rollback version.

I don't know the context though.

edited 2 hours ago

John Lawler

85.2k6118336

answered 16 hours ago

xvnm

1112

New contributor

Actually, neither sentence is in passive form. Given sentences are equal to

To come back to the old version has to be possible.

To come back to the old version must be possible.

To explain, with a little more modification,

Coming back ... has to be possible.

Coming back ... must be possible.

So the suggestion is about between have to vs must and you are actually asking the difference between them.

It would not answer your question, but If I were you I would do:

User (should/must/have to) be able to rollback version.

I don't know the context though.

edited 2 hours ago

John Lawler

85.2k6118336

answered 16 hours ago

xvnm

1112

New contributor

edited 2 hours ago

John Lawler

85.2k6118336

edited 2 hours ago

John Lawler

85.2k6118336

edited 2 hours ago

John Lawler

85.2k6118336

answered 16 hours ago

xvnm

1112

New contributor

answered 16 hours ago

xvnm

1112

answered 16 hours ago

xvnm

1112

New contributor

xvnm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

add a comment |

It must/has to be possible to come back to the old version.

As noted by xbnm, this isn't about "passive" at all. Forget passive.

And it isn't about why Word suggested one version or another. Forget Word.

answered 1 hour ago

John Lawler

85.2k6118336

I found this statement on another Q&A site (under the topic 'What is the difference between "must" and "have to" in English?'): "While both can be ambiguous, “have to” is almost always used in the deontic sense, while “must” is used more evenly in both the deontic and epistemic senses." It goes on from there. Is that...what is that? If you have an opinion on that, I would appreciate it. I'll go back and try to understand the other answers here on that now.

– KannE
22 secs ago

add a comment |

It must/has to be possible to come back to the old version.

As noted by xbnm, this isn't about "passive" at all. Forget passive.

And it isn't about why Word suggested one version or another. Forget Word.

answered 1 hour ago

John Lawler

85.2k6118336

I found this statement on another Q&A site (under the topic 'What is the difference between "must" and "have to" in English?'): "While both can be ambiguous, “have to” is almost always used in the deontic sense, while “must” is used more evenly in both the deontic and epistemic senses." It goes on from there. Is that...what is that? If you have an opinion on that, I would appreciate it. I'll go back and try to understand the other answers here on that now.

– KannE
22 secs ago

add a comment |

It must/has to be possible to come back to the old version.

As noted by xbnm, this isn't about "passive" at all. Forget passive.

And it isn't about why Word suggested one version or another. Forget Word.

answered 1 hour ago

John Lawler

85.2k6118336

It must/has to be possible to come back to the old version.

As noted by xbnm, this isn't about "passive" at all. Forget passive.

And it isn't about why Word suggested one version or another. Forget Word.

answered 1 hour ago

John Lawler

85.2k6118336

answered 1 hour ago

John Lawler

85.2k6118336

answered 1 hour ago

John Lawler

85.2k6118336

answered 1 hour ago

John Lawler

85.2k6118336

I found this statement on another Q&A site (under the topic 'What is the difference between "must" and "have to" in English?'): "While both can be ambiguous, “have to” is almost always used in the deontic sense, while “must” is used more evenly in both the deontic and epistemic senses." It goes on from there. Is that...what is that? If you have an opinion on that, I would appreciate it. I'll go back and try to understand the other answers here on that now.

– KannE
22 secs ago

add a comment |

I found this statement on another Q&A site (under the topic 'What is the difference between "must" and "have to" in English?'): "While both can be ambiguous, “have to” is almost always used in the deontic sense, while “must” is used more evenly in both the deontic and epistemic senses." It goes on from there. Is that...what is that? If you have an opinion on that, I would appreciate it. I'll go back and try to understand the other answers here on that now.

– KannE
22 secs ago

I found this statement on another Q&A site (under the topic 'What is the difference between "must" and "have to" in English?'): "While both can be ambiguous, “have to” is almost always used in the deontic sense, while “must” is used more evenly in both the deontic and epistemic senses." It goes on from there. Is that...what is that? If you have an opinion on that, I would appreciate it. I'll go back and try to understand the other answers here on that now.

– KannE
22 secs ago

add a comment |

Wylfryd is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

draft saved

draft discarded

Wylfryd is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!

Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …

Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here

搜尋此網誌

Cfxtrjtrk