A native-speaker survey

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:11 pm

The use of "shall" vs "will" and should vs would had very precise rules in the 19th centuary. The ability to even use "should" instead of "would" is now something of an archaism.

I happen to know these "rules". I haven't got time to give you the precise "rules" now, but I will when I have time either tomorrow or the day after.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:25 pm

If you can't rattle them off, do you really "know" them, AP?!

I am imagining you are now setting aside your Catenative charts, striding over to your Time Machine, twiddling knobs and twirling the ends of your stick-on handlebar moustache as you set the time for London, 1888. Maybe you can also tell us who Jack the Ripper really was when you get back.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:11 pm

The use of "shall" vs "will" and should vs would had very precise rules in the 19th centuary. The ability to even use "should" instead of "would" is now something of an archaism.

The only 'rule' I know is that shall and should are the first person forms.
My headmaster at junior high, who also taught us Greek for an hour a week that a couple of years later I used for as the basis for an English composition entitled "The most boring hour of my life", did leave one nugget of misinformation in my head.
A man had fallen into the river and called out "I will drown and no one shall save me", and no one did.
At the time I only had doubts as to the ethics of respecting the drowning man's clearly expressed determination to enter a wet herafter, but now I also suspect the 'grammatical' point being made, that a reversal of the normal forms implied wilfulness as opposed to a simple prediction. I have seen it said that now 'shall' would be considered the non-neutral form even for the frist person, but frankly I doubt if the written form of either conveys that meaning, and as for the spoken form emphasis on the auxiliary will do quite nicely tnank you.

Morevoer, I suspect that these 'rules' so strictly postulated in the 19th century had as little to do with the language as the 'rule' about split infinitives did in the 18th.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:46 am

If you can't rattle them off, do you really "know" them, AP?!

I am imagining you are now setting aside your Catenative charts, striding over to your Time Machine, twiddling knobs and twirling the ends of your stick-on handlebar moustache as you set the time for London, 1888. Maybe you can also tell us who Jack the Ripper really was when you get back.

Fluffyhamster,
I do indeed know them, but Stephen it seems beat me to it. When I wrote that I had just come back from a meeting of Toastmasters of which I am a member. It was half past eleven and I had to get up at 6am the following day so that I could get a bus and tram so that I could do a lesson at 8am. I mearly wanted close to 8 hours sleep. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything.

Don't dis my catenative charts, which are now more generally verb patterns. They are soon to be tables anyway when I can figure out how to integrate the CSS code for vertical text into html tables.

The most likely suspects for Jack the Ripper seem to be James Maybrick and Prince Albert.

Stephen wrote:

The only 'rule' I know is that shall and should are the first person forms.
My headmaster at junior high, who also taught us Greek for an hour a week that a couple of years later I used for as the basis for an English composition entitled "The most boring hour of my life", did leave one nugget of misinformation in my head.
A man had fallen into the river and called out "I will drown and no one shall save me", and no one did.
At the time I only had doubts as to the ethics of respecting the drowning man's clearly expressed determination to enter a wet herafter, but now I also suspect the 'grammatical' point being made, that a reversal of the normal forms implied wilfulness as opposed to a simple prediction. I have seen it said that now 'shall' would be considered the non-neutral form even for the frist person, but frankly I doubt if the written form of either conveys that meaning, and as for the spoken form emphasis on the auxiliary will do quite nicely tnank you.

Morevoer, I suspect that these 'rules' so strictly postulated in the 19th century had as little to do with the language as the 'rule' about split infinitives did in the 18th.

When you say first person, it also applies to the first person plural, so the confusing situation was:

Prediction/plain future
I shall
Thou wilt
Ye (later You) will
We shall
He will
She will
It will

Volition/Obligation/Emphasis
I will
Thou shalt
Ye (later you) shall
We will
He shall
She shall
It shall

"I should be grateful if..." seems to have just about survived as a set phrase in letters, but the Plain English Campaign seems to dislike this one, and "I would be grateful if..." seems to be more common anyway.

I don't know when this use changed to "will" being prediction for "I" and "we" and "shall" for volition/obligation, but the fourth verse of Laurence Binyon's poem, "For The Fallen" of 1914 still reads:

They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 6:57 pm

With regard to the poem, I would say euphony is the most important factor, though you could say it is following my headmaster's rule, in that it is choosing the other form for emphasis.

It seems to me that the 'rule' in the 19th century might have been clear, but that the usage was far from being so.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 7:40 pm

Andrew Patterson wrote:The use of "shall" vs "will" and should vs would had very precise rules in the 19th centuary. The ability to even use "should" instead of "would" is now something of an archaism.

I happen to know these "rules". I haven't got time to give you the precise "rules" now, but I will when I have time either tomorrow or the day after.

Wouldn't the be the same as the examples below, but instead using what was once the past form of shall, i.e. should:

PRACTICAL ENGLISH

THE USE OF SHALL AND WILL

Many of the precise distinction concerning the of shall and will are rapidly passing out of informal speaking and writing. Careful writers, however, still observe some of these distinctions. The following are some of the distinctions that are most generally observed:

Simple Futurity

Use shall in the first person and will in the second and third person to express simple futurity. Simple futurity means anticipation or expectation of what is likely to happen, or what one is likely to do. It follows the regular forms for the future tense:

First person: I shall go We shall go

Second person: You will go you will go

Third person: he will go they will go

Determination , threat, promise.

If you want to express determination, compulsion, threat, or promise (willingness to do something), reverse the order of shall and will .

Use will in the first person, and shall in the second and third persons.

First person: I will go we will go

second person: you shall go you shall go

Third person: he shall go they shall go

Special cases

When shall and will are followed by such expressions as be glad, be sorry, be delighted, be pleased. etc., use shall in the first person, and will in the second and third persons. If will is used in the first person, it would mean that you are determined to be glad, sorry, delighted, etc.

If shall is use in the second and third persons, it would mean that you are compelling someone to be glad , sorry etc. The following are the accepted ways of using such expressions:

I shall be glad to see you ( not will)

first person

We shall be delighted to help you. ( not will )

first person

You will be sorry to learn of his misfortune. ( not shall)

second person

He will be pleased to see you at four. ( not shall)

third person

In giving courteous commands, you should use will in the second and third persons instead of shall. This is the form that is generally followed in giving military orders and instructions:

Corporal Smith will report to Captain Allen. (not shall report)

The meeting will come to order. (not shall)

Mr. Ames, you will meet with the committee today. ( not shall)

Practical English

A complete self-correcting course.

by Madeline Semmelmeyer

Supervisor of languages and Lecturer in education

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 7:43 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:The only 'rule' I know is that shall and should are the first person forms.

Unless in this use:

Determination , threat, promise.

If you want to express determination, compulsion, threat, or promise (willingness to do something), reverse the order of shall and will .

Use will in the first person, and shall in the second and third persons.

First person: I will go we will go

second person: you shall go you shall go

Third person: he shall go they shall go

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 7:55 pm

I'm sorry, but having given these "rules" I have to say that they do not apply to modern English. All these "careful writers" do is set up an awkward dichotomy in the language. The fact is that today "will" is unemphatic and "shall" emphatic with ALL the pronouns.

We will read a text and ask ourselves, "Is the writer using "will" or "shall" there because he is being "careful", or is he using it in the modern sense?" - and we will not know.

There was nothing prescriptive about these rules btw in the early 20th centuary and earlier, these are not the equivelent of the split infinitive, but language changes and it has here. They may be useful to show us that Binyon's poem was not in fact anticlimactic as it may seem to us today, but they do not apply to today's English.

The rules have changed. Viva la change

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:08 am

I am under the impression that contemporary poshos use a lot of "should" where most of us wouldn't.

Even if I am wrong, I think an oik like me might use "should" if they wanted to pretend they were posh, which would give such structures some present day life.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 10:51 am

Your comment about changing the normal use of 'shall' and 'will' is exaclty what I was referring to.

I don't beilieve the rule is valid though.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:03 pm

woodcutter wrote:I am under the impression that contemporary poshos use a lot of "should" where most of us wouldn't.

Even if I am wrong, I think an oik like me might use "should" if they wanted to pretend they were posh, which would give such structures some present day life.

Should an oik like you wish to become oikfree, he would have to make an awful lot of effort.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:05 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:Your comment about changing the normal use of 'shall' and 'will' is exaclty what I was referring to.

I don't beilieve the rule is valid though.

Most of the time, I don't know who you are speaking to, Stephen. Do you think you might use the quote button a bit more?