0

I understand that when using have to in a sentence, the meaning is clear - something needs to be done and there is no choice about it. For example:

You have to have car insurance to drive a car.

However, it would be wrong to say

You should have car insurance to drive a car.

because it would mean that you have a choice.

Is this correct? Is there a degree of how mandatory is the action and can it be changed by using got to vs should vs have to?

  • 2
    Generally, have to and (have) got to indicate requirements, and should indicates a recommendation. This is why (US) legalese is littered with must and must not for absolutes, and may for optional things. As a side note, insurance is not always required to drive a car, so this may be a poor example to use to indicate a requirement. ;) – Davo Jan 22 '18 at 20:53
  • Using got to is just poor grammar. – Mick Jan 23 '18 at 1:04
  • 1
    @Mick Are you saying you got to is poor grammar, or you have got to is as well? I agree with the first, not so sure about the second. – BobRodes Jan 23 '18 at 5:15
  • In formal writing it is always have, whereas in informal writing and speech have got can be used instead of have. – Mick Jan 23 '18 at 5:57
  • @Davo: Thank you! (I think in Canada we have to have car insurance to drive and not get in trouble :) – InitK Jan 23 '18 at 17:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.