You have to go home - Musíš jít domů. There is a difference in it. Muset = must is a situation in which you are forced by circumstances or somebody's demand to do something. Mít + verb = supposed to , be to +verb is a request and it is up to you to decide if you are to follow it or not.
I understand that HAVE here does not imply ownership, but in the English phrase: "You have to go home" have does not imply ownership either, which is why I thought that maš --> have to would be OK. But, as I often said, I am deaf to the subtle nuances of Czech. Hopefully, one day that will change.
So here's the thing, it seems to me. What we are learning here is that the mít-plus-infinitive construction gives us "supposed to" (whatever). While we can carry it around in our heads in other forms, we ought not to overlook the teaching purpose of the exercise. And, with that, off the soapbox I go... :-)
I agree with those that think "you have to go home" should be an acceptable translation. To me, it is a very similar meaning to "you are supposed to go home." Someone above suggested that "musíš jít domů" is the equivalent to "you have to go home." However, I don't I agree since for that expression "you must go home" sounds better, at least in US English.
So you're a native english speaker? If yes, i'd have to say "interesting" :D - to my german ear - in the Czech as well as the english Version - musit / have to / must and mít / be supposed to /should are totally different things.
I have to leave the bar at 10 p.m. because i'm only 14 years old and not allowed in there at that time.
I'm supposed to leave the bar at 10 p.m. because i promised my wife to be home at half past 10.
I should leave the bar at 10 p.m. because i have to get up early
I am a native English speaker. I grew up in Connecticut and have lived in Pennsylvania for most of the last 35-40 years. I wonder if the meaning of these phrases: I must leave, I have to leave, I am supposed to leave, I should leave and others (I gotta go!) are not as clear-cut as some would think. In other words, I don't think they are totally different things. For example, all of these sound fine to me: I have to leave because I promised my wife . . . . I should leave because I'm only 14 years old, but I don't care; I'm staying anyway. I must leave because I have to get up early. Other acceptable formations can be made as well. I do think that "I'm supposed to leave because I have to get up early" sounds strange unless someone has put himself on a strict schedule. I have a feeling that this issue will never be resolved due to dialectical differences.