Korean Job Discussion Forums

[turtlepi1]

This is driving me mad.
Can I have a North American perspective and then maybe a Brit can explain it to me so I will understand.

(Maybe I am misreading it...but I think it is actually a sense of should that is not used in NA.)

[peppermint]

Well, it might be a little less common for North Americans to use should in the first person, and I know that when I use it, there's a but coming soon after. ie:

"I should be washing dishes, but I don't want to."

I wouldn't say that we ( north americans) never use it though.

[J.B. Clamence]

Definately British English. In the states, we would never use "I should" to give advice, only "you should".

As far as an explanation goes, my guess is that here "I should" might be an abbreviation of "I think you should". Either that, or maybe another way of saying "I would", as in "I would wait a bit longer (if I were you)."

[matthewwoodford]

Yes, it's another way of saying 'would'.

Not so long ago, in British English at least, 'should' was the normal form of the conditional for the first person singular (maybe for the first person plural too but I don't remember any more cos I'm not that old) and 'would' was used for everything else. So:-

'What would you do if you saw a ghost, Mildred?'
'I should scream.'

It means exactly the same as 'would' but just sounds old-fashioned. Nowadays, use of 'would' has become standard in Britain, due to either American influence or a desire for consistency or both, but it's far from universal.

Use of 'should' in this sense also survives in certain common expressions. I think the phrase...

'I should think so too!'

...is an instance, and that's common and accepted everywhere.

There's also the (unrelated) use of 'should' in the sense of 'if'. I think you'd call that subjunctive rather than conditional. For example:

'Should that pillar come down this whole building will collapse.'
'Should it be necessary, use the reserve fund.'
'Should auld acquaintance be forgot.....'

[turtlepi1]

Thanks for the responses, but I am not sure it actually got to the root of the problem I am having with the usage explained....

Person 1: 'Shall I leave now?'
Person 2: 'No, I should wait a bit longer.'

If this was a single person talking to themselves I wouldn't be questioning the usage (from a North American standpoint), but clearly from the follow-up this is two separate people talking.

The second person is replacing 'I should wait' [Bold]with [/Bold] 'I would wait if I were you'. That is not a usage of should that is common.

(also had person 2 said 'No, you should wait a bit longer.' OR 'No, I would wait a bit longer.' it would be easier on my brain.)

[rok_the-boat]

The "I should wear a coat" in the top example in British English translates as "If I were you, I would wear a coat."

[turtlepi1]

[rok_the-boat]

It is used all the time, quite common.

[hojucandy]

[turtlepi1]

[hojucandy]

well - it may not, but, to my mind one could read "I should think so" in the same way as "I should wear a coat" (above)

ie - "i would (ceratinly) think so (if i were yu)"

grammar is all usage...

[turtlepi1]

fair enough...

I knew the grammar point was valid for (at least) Brits, but I don't think we use that sense of should (at least in that manner) in North America.

[hojucandy]

i'm australian btw

[turtlepi1]

Great!!! So it isn't an isolated case of stupidity.

(just razzing you...thanks for the feedback...now I know I have to choke this down instead of ignoring it...)

Speaker 1: (getting ready to leave the house)
Is it cold?
Speaker 2: (planning on staying in the house)
1. Yes. I would wear a coat.
2. Yes. I should wear a coat.
3. Yes. I would wear a coat if I were you.
4. Yes. You should wear a coat.


In usage: I would say 1,3,4 would be common.

Which ones would seem common in Australia/England?

[hojucandy]

i agree with yu - 1,3 & 4 are the commonest in australia too. esp 4.

2 is a little old (like me)