Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009

English has no synonyms that differentiate as duerfen and muessen
do (with or without a negation.)   In practice, the word SHALL is usually
used to add special emphasis, as in "Cinderella,  you shall go to the
ball."

Otherwise, the common distinction is between
You should write that latter, and
You ought to write that letter.
I think OUGHT carries more weight for most users, i.e.
attributes greater obligation than SHOULD.  But many
grammarians would tell us that both words are different
forms of the same verb.

It's more complicated than that.  Sentence (2) implies that the
speaker has the personal authority to grant or deny permission to eat
the ice cream.  Sentence (1) does not have that connotation (although
it may still be the case), and to me at least, suggests a social
imperative rather than an individual circumstance.  They are equally
strong in denotation.

-GAWollman

Pretty much so.  The sentence with "must not" indicates a warning, and
imparts fear in the "eater".  Eat and there will be consequences.
(Either it is bad and you will get sick, or it is mine, and I will kill
you if you eat it.)

The sentence with "may not" sounds milder, but since it is a superior
refusing permission to an inferior, one has to judge the degree of
authority the speaker has.  There are inevitably some consequences here,
too, but not as immediate or as overtly stated.

I don't speak German, and have snipped that part out.

Quoth Bertel Lund Hansen <unospamo@lundhansen.dk>, and I quote:

I see a difference which is not just a matter of the strength of
the sentences. Someone who says "you may not" claims the
authority to decide what the other person is allowed to eat,
without having to state a reason. Someone who says "you must not"
may have other reasons for the prohibition, e.g. knowing that the
ice cream is poisonous or disgusting, or that it belongs to
someone else.

I feel that if I ignored the former command I would be guilty
only of disobedience, but to ignore the latter admonition would
entail other risks. In that sense I find "must" slightly
stronger.

Let's see what others say.

Bertel Lund Hansen skrev:

German is much like Swedish in this respect, but not quite:

Du får äta glassen. You may eat the ice cream.

Du måste äta glassen. You must eat the ice cream.

Du får inte äta glassen. You are not allowed to eat the ice cream.

Du är inte tvungen att äta glassen. You are not obliged to eat the ice
cream.

Although Swedish "måste" corresponds to German "müssen", "måste inte" is
not idiomatic.

Is everyone asleep now?

Quoth Bertel Lund Hansen <unospamo@lundhansen.dk>, and I quote:

<snip>

It might be worth pointing out that this question is very
different from the one you asked about English. When Germans
(and Swedes) say "must not" in English they are often
mistranslating their own construction, which really means, in
this case, "You don't have to eat the ice cream."

This may be a matter of necessity:  You must not eat the ice cream,
because it is poisoned / because you are a diabetic and it will put
you in a coma / because you are driving and you will lose control of
the vehicle.

This may be a matter of permission, authority, or approval:
You may not eat the ice cream, because I forbid it / because it is
your sister's / because it is not on your diet.

Granted there are situations in which the consequences of doing what you may
not are more serious than doing what you must not, much overlap,
exaggerations, and so forth.

You must not eat the ice cream (because I will shoot you if you do)
does confuse the ideas of necessity and authority somewhat.

In matters of law there may be much more to the distinction.

Bertel Hansen:

"Must not" unambiguously says that there is a strong reason not to do it.
This could be a matter of permission or law, or it could refer to some
sort of hazard, or maybe it would interfere with a planned party or a
medical test you'll be taking -- anything like that.

"May not" is ambiguous.  At one time it meant that you do not have
permission, and this is still seen in formal writing.  Several people
responding to this thread seem to have the delusion that it still has
only that meaning, but in informal usage today, it is more likely to
be a mild statement meaning the same as "might not": it is possible
that (for some reason, perhaps just your own choice) you won't eat it.

Today the refusal of permission in informal usage is more likely to
be expressed using "can't" or "cannot".  This now includes all of the
same meanings as "must not", and also includes the case where (for
some reason) it is physically impossible for you to eat it.

Another possibility is "shall not".  This is only seen in formal use,
and it means specifically that permission is denied *and* that the
sentence containing "shall not" is the intrument that denies permission.

The question between "must" and "may" is a lojistical question coming
from how big your perceive your audience and level of authority to be.
If I say you may not do it, then I am denying your permission. If I
say you must not do it, then I am claiming that it is in your best
interests not to, and I should perhaps back that claim up. In person,
it is easier to see a difference between "may" and "must" in my
effect. In writing on the internet, it is harder to see that
difference.

Maybe I should mention here that in my American experience, those two
sentences hardly occur at all.  The "may" version might be spoken by a
teacher to a little child; the "must" version might be jocular.

What I'd expect to hear are

You can't eat the ice cream.

    There's some obstacle, which could be anything--it would
interfere with your weight-loss diet, or it would give you
anaphylactic shock, or a member of your family would be annoyed, or I
already finished the ice cream.

You shouldn't eat the ice cream.

    Eating it is physically possible and probably won't have really
serious consequences, but I advise against it.

You're not allowed to eat the ice cream.

    Someone whose wishes you have reason to respect doesn't want you
to eat it, or it's against some rule you've decided to follow (for
instance, your weight-loss diet).

You're not supposed to eat the ice cream.  ["Supposed to" is probably
pronounced /s@'poUst@/ or /'spoUst@/.]

    Same as above, but weaker.  ("I'm not supposed to..." is often
the prelude to doing it anyway.  This can also happen with "I'm not
allowed to..." but I think it's less likely.)

You'd better not eat the ice cream.  [Or "You better not..."]

    Something bad will happen to you if you do.  Often spoken in a
threatening tone, with the implication that the speaker will cause the
bad consequences.

Let's see what others think.

--
Jerry Friedman

Bertel Lund Hansen skrev:

I thank you all for the answers which have been very helpful.

I do not quit the thread, but I just want you to know that you
helped me, and I saw no reason to comment any of the messages.

I would have translated "Du mußt... nicht" as "you don't have to".