In “Must ...stay ...strong!” (von Fintel and Gillies in Nat Lang Semant 18:351–383, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9058-2), we set out to slay a dragon, or rather what we called The Mantra: that epistemic must has a modal force weaker than expected from standard modal logic, that it doesn’t entail its prejacent, and that the best explanation for the evidential feel of must is a pragmatic explanation. We argued that all three sub-mantras are wrong and offered an explanation according to which must is strong, entailing, and the felt indirectness is the product of an evidential presupposition carried by epistemic modals. Mantras being what they are, it is no surprise that each of the sub-mantras have been given new defenses. Here we offer them new problems and update our picture, concluding that must is (still) strong.

在“必须……保持……坚强！” （von Fintel 和 Gillies 在 Nat Lang Semant 18:351–383, 2010。https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9058-2），我们着手杀死一条龙，或者更确切地说，我们称之为“龙”咒语：认知必须具有比标准模态逻辑预期的弱的模态力量，它不包含其前置条件，并且对必须的证据感觉的最佳解释是务实的解释。我们认为所有三个子咒语都是错误的，并提供了一种解释，根据该解释，“必须”是强的、必然的，而感受到的间接性是认知模态所携带的证据预设的产物。咒语本身就是如此，因此每个子咒语都被赋予了新的防御也就不足为奇了。在这里，我们向他们提出新的问题并更新我们的图片，得出的结论是必须（仍然）强大。