Which the correct sentence and why?

1- you must bring some identification when you open a bank account.

2- you have to bring some identification when you open a bank account.

In AmE, "must" and "have to" are not different, but, in BrE, "must" indicates the obligation imposed by the speaker him/herself, while "have to" shows the oligation as imposed by a third person or a rule.

This has been discussed on the GE previously.

Yes, Mehrdad is right, both in his statement about the use of 'must' vs. 'have to,' and about the previous discussions here on the Grammar Exchange.

Here is one good discussion, in which Merhdad took part. It has many interesting points, and an enlightening link.http://thegrammarexchange.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/340600179/m/232106031?r=728103131#728103131

Thank you Mehrdad and Rachel for referring to the previous discussion about this topic.

Actually, I am teaching an English course, Total English by Antonia Clare and JJ Wilson, and the book distinguishes between "have to" and "must" in the way Mehrdad mentioned and there are some exercises that concentrate on this distinction. The book explains the difference as follows:

obligation:

Have to is often used for rules/regulations e.g. You have to show your passport at customs. (It is a law)

Must is often used when the obligation comes from the speaker e.g. I must stop smoking. (I think this)

Also, Raymond Murphy in his book, English Crammer in Use (Third Edition), speaks about the same distinction.

According to the above and if we would like to be BrE, what should we use in the case of the sentence, You-----bring some identification when you open a bank account.

quote:

You have to bring some identification when you open a bank account.

As here we are speaking about the rules of opening a bank account. The obligation comes from outside the person.

Thank you Abu Hassan.

That what I also thought should be, but the answer in the book was must. Richard,Rachel??

I agree.

Rachel

Hi Rachel,

you agree on must or have to in this case and why?

I agree that in this case, 'have to' would be the correct choice because you are following the distinction made by those authors, and using British rules.

However, in my life, we could use either 'must' or 'have to' in the sentence, 'You must / have to bring....'

'Must' would be for written, formal rules; 'have to' for informal or personal rules.

As an example of 'must' for outside-imposed rules, presented formally, I am pasting some posted regulations from the Transportation Security Authority (of the US):

All liquids, gels and aerosols must be in three-ounce or smaller containers. Larger containers that are half-full or toothpaste tubes rolled up are not allowed. Each container must be three ounces or smaller.

All liquids, gels and aerosols must be placed in a single, quart-size, zip-top, clear plastic bag. Gallon size bags or bags that are not zip-top such as fold-over sandwich bags are not allowed. Each traveler can use only one, quart-size, zip-top, clear plastic bag.

Each traveler must remove their quart-sized plastic, zip-top bag from their carry-on and place it in a bin or on the conveyor belt for X-ray screening. X-raying separately will allow TSA security officers to more easily examine the declared items.

But if I were telling my friend what she needed to do to get through security, I would say, 'you have to' -- not 'you must' -- for each procedure in that list.

Another example of 'must' for formal, written use is in traffic signs and other public signs. In the attachment below, are graphics of some typical signs that we see all over the US.

Signs_with_MUST.doc (137 KB, 7 downloads)

My two cents:

I agree completely with what Rachel has noted, but I'll take things a step further. I honestly don't think any Briton would cringe if he/she heard a sentence uttered by one person with must and the same sentence uttered by another person with have to. I think the argument in those textbooks about separating the two in this rigid fashion is quite silly and unrealistic.

This rigidity reminds me of how textbooks used to insist (and some maybe still do) that you can't pluralize certain uncountable nouns, especially food items like beer and coffee. They claimed you should always say a bottle/glass of beer and a cup of coffee. But then you can go into any restaurant or bar in the US, for example, and here the servers or customers say things like "Did you say two beers, sir?" and "I'll have a coffee, please."

I think it's very important not to end up becoming very rigid in how we apply the "rules" of any language. When rules are rigid, they're easier to deal with, but that doesn't make for realistic or good language teaching in my estimation.

And, by the way, what happened to have got to in this discussion? That hasn't come up at all, and yet it's a frequent synonym for both must and have to.

I'd like to reiterate one thing that Rachel said, which I think is very important. Must does seem to be more formal in the tone it conveys, while have to and have got to seem informal, and I think this applies both to writing as well as to speaking.

Thank you Rachel and Richard for taking all this time for clarifying this topic.


Humam