While we can be confident that "have to" and "tener que" are equivalent, there are lots of words in English that have various levels of obligation - must, shall, should, ought to, need to. The problem is that there is only one word in Spanish to translate all of these - deber. So while deber can be as strong as 'must' it can also be as weak as 'ought to'. You see then that the main difference between deber and tener que is that deber is broader and it can be difficult to know what level of obligation it's referring to without context.
Agree. Deber= moral duty (http://buscon.rae.es/drae/srv/search?id=iYwm4d4aXDXX2oyE3aFP) and "Tener que" = necessity (http://lema.rae.es/dpd/srv/search?id=Gy1pKuthjD6udbOEAn)
This is somewhat subjective but I don't entirely agree with this. I think "must" implies more urgency/strength, or it tends to be used more in that way.
"I have to go to the bathroom." I feel like I need to pee.
"I must go to the bathroom." I am about to pee in my pants.
I'm one of the referred to hundreds of native english (US) speakers Zach58696 knows and speaks to on a regular basis.
What you have to understand is common use, and English speakers in the US seem not to worry too much about literal meanings. Meaning, "have to" in the US is used as "must", but it's also used to a lesser degree in common dialogue and you don't have to use it that way.
BenYoung84, you are right, "have to" in english should mean "must" when being used, but it doesn't have to. More times than not, it means "must", but we (in the US) will commonly use it differently.
You have to be here to understand.
But not really.
I am just saying how it is colloquially used among the hundreds of native english (US) speakers I know and speak to on a regular basis, myself included. Like I said, it is a bit subjective, but that is certainly the more common usage from my 35 years of experience.
That said, using "must" at all is pretty rare. It isn't used all that much in modern casual speaking.
I don't think it's about which is stronger as much as the kinds of motivation you are trying to express. If you want to talk about obligation, then "deber" is a better choice than "tener que." If you're talking about something you are determined to do, then "tener que" is better than "deber."
You could use "tener que" to talk about the need to pick up some milk when you're running low, for example. The sense of necessity there is different from needing to get off the tracks when a train is bearing down on you, but "tener que" fits both instances. Likewise, I don't think zealots treat obligations to their moral code as optional, but you'd still use "deber" to talk about them.
"Should" started out as a conditional form of "shall" but it has almost completely overtaken "shall".
When you're using "should", if you can replace it with "be supposed to" then it's non-conditional and if you can replace it with "would be supposed to" then it's conditional.
I was always taught to use the English equivalent of "ought" for "deber" because there is a diffence between "ought to" and "have to". This was taught to me this way by 3 different professors and several native speaking neighbors of mine from places all over including Gualemala, Colombia, and Mexico. So I have to wonder why DL sometimes accepts "ought" for deber, and other times it does not. I have already complained many times, but I am wondering if there is anyone else out there that thinks this same way...
I agree. the modal verb deber can have different shades of meaning in English that are only clear in context.
However, in many of Duo's drills they use "should" and "must" to distinguish between tenses. So, you will encounter a lot of "must" usage with present indicative (debes, debo, etc.) and "should" when they want you to use the conditional (deberías, debería, etc.). That convention is good enough for drilling on the different tenses, but it doesn't really help our understanding of the meaning of deber in actual use.
In other places, Duo will use "tener que" for "need to."
However, I will translate "necesitar" as "need", and "tener" as "have." I assume the writer used one word over the other for a reason, and as a translator, I should not, willy-nilly, change the word that the writer/author chose.
Also you can exprees i need to with hace falta que. More here http://www.learn-spanish-online.de/grammar/chapter20_modal_verbs/20_12_tener_que_no_hace_falta_que.htm
No, "employer" is the person or company that employs (gives work to) one or more people (called employees or workers http://populo.org.uk/uncategorized/differences-between-an-employee-worker-and-self-employed-why-you-need-to-know/)
I have trouble with this as well. It seems like "deber" can mean both should and must, which in English have meaningfully different definitions. The answer seems to be in the use of different "moods." I don't know it well enough to explain myself, but I found this elsewhere and think it helps some:
"Tú debes comer". Literally means "You must eat". Present Indicative. "Tú deberías comer". Literally means "You should eat". Conditional Indicative.
So basically it sounds like the conditional mood softens the meaning a bit to make it more like the English "should."
Would "employees" not be a typical translation for "trabajadores"? I feel as though, in English, workers and employees mean essentially the same thing. I know that "empleado" is maybe a more common translation for "employee," just wasn't sure why "trabajadores" couldn't also mean "employee."
- It's not wrong.
- On some levels Duolingo translates deber with must instead of should. On other levels they translate deber with must. Then sometimes they translate it as ought.
- Duo is usually, but not invariably, consistent in usage within the same level.
The result is that you've got to remember "what Duo wants" for certain levels but explore online or with native speakers how it would be said in the real world -- or that part of the real spanish speaking world you want to be in. Buena suerte!