3

I was thinking about these phrases, and noticed that while on the surface, they are identical (indicate something is required), they don't quite work the same. These sentences are identical and are the example I will use as the basis throughout this question.

I need to go to the grocery store.

And

I have to go to the grocery store.

While these themselves are identical in meaning, small changes can have big impacts.

Specifically, there are variations that are irregular.

I have been needing to go to the grocery store

I have been having to go to the grocery store

The first feels much more regular to me. I have definitely heard the second, but it has always been odd.

It gets more specific when you look at the words without the "to" though.

I need groceries.

This is essentially identical in meaning to the previous statements. It expresses a necessity associated with groceries. All we change is the object - instead of "to go to the grocery store" (an infinitive activity) we change to the target of that activity - the groceries.

But id we do the same to the "have" version,

(X) I have groceries

This absolutely does not work. It is obviously a valid sentence, but has a different (and actually almost opposite) to the others which express a shortage of groceries.

I am guessing this is related to the fact that "need" is a relatively ordinary verb, while "have" can also function as a past tense marker, as in

I have shopped for groceries.

But this isn't clear to me.

Why do the bare "need to" and "have to" agree in meaning, but their variants do not?

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    I don't think "need to" and "have to" are quite synonymous (before you consider dropping the "to"). The former implies an endogenous need, whereas the latter an exogenous one. For instance, consider the teenager complaining "I don't need to shower today, but I have to shower as my mother says she will ground me if I don't". If the two were synonyms, that sentence would be non-sensical. Commented 19 hours ago
  • @abligh You're contriving a difference that only exists in that particular context. If they said "I need to shower before I go to the grocery store", nobody would ever correct them to say "you don't need to, you just have to". Distinctions may exist in a local context even when the ordinary definitions of the words do not distinguish. Commented 17 hours ago

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
6

Where you dropped the stitch in your analysis is turning the adverbial infinitive phrases "need to go" and "have to go" into the verbs "need" and "have" themselves. That one of them preserves the original intent is happenstance. Consider how "I need to shower" and "I have to shower" transform opposite to your example when changing them from "I need a shower" and "I have a shower."

I would argue from a colloquial difference in what those adverbial infinitives mean, is that a "need to" feels like a self-imposed requirement, where as a "have to" is an externally imposed one. (Or the have to at least feels like it's more of an obligation verses a choice.)

Improve this answer
2
  • Agreed, although of course the two aren't always mutually exclusive. You have to buy more food because you are running low on supplies, not because someone outside the home is making you go! Commented 2 days ago
  • Exactly. When you get into a forced move in a board game you would always express it as "I have to expose the bishop now", never as "I need to". Commented yesterday
5
  • I need to go to the grocery store.

And

  • I have to go to the grocery store.

are indeed similar in form on the surface. But looking deeper, the first involves a typical catenation of verb + to-infinitive (+ ...). Other examples:

  • I want to go to the concert.
  • I like to go to the seaside most weekends.
  • I try to go to see my Grandma every two weeks or so.
  • I fail to see how that is relevant.
  • I intend to vote for the local candidate.

However, have to is far more cohesive than want to ... / like to ... / try to ... / intend to ... / ... – it can be considered a single lexeme; it is sometimes classed (as with ought to) as a semi-modal (behaving as it does partly like a true modal, partly like a typical verb), though some see semi-modals as a different class again. It is also known by some grammarians as a periphrastic modal/modal verb. See @Araucaria's answer here for further discussion. The important point here is that the two strings are essentially different in nature, and should not be expected to behave exactly similarly.

Not even the meanings correspond exactly in all contexts:

  • I have been needing to go to the grocery store

can mean that you haven't made it yet (as well as having a reading identical with the below), while

  • I have been having to go to the grocery store must mean that you have visited the store several times.

...............

Introducing 'need' is valid, but introducing 'have' from 'have to' is infelicitous. 'Have' is very polysemous, being both an auxiliary and a typical verb, but is a different entity from 'have to'.

Improve this answer
0
1

Why do the bare "need to" and "have to" agree in meaning, but their variants do not?

Because need to and have to both indicate that some action is required, and are therefore synonymous with each other -- and with must. By contrast, "need" and "have" are not synonymous.

Auxiliary verbs often become dissociated from their non-auxiliary meanings. Consider I am going to read it. The word go usually describes a change of location, but in this case it merely indicates the future.

The fact that I need to go to the grocery store seems to a similar state to I need groceries is misleading. In fact, one might need to go to the grocery store for some other reason entirely, for example, if one is employed there.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.