Generic "will".

[metal56]

The "will" in the first passage sounds to me like the present tense version of "would" used for nostalgia "I would play in the woods in those days".

Since it is tagged on to sentences already describing habit, it is not necessary for that, the function of the word is to provide a kind of present tense imaginative whimsy. I cannot think of a use for this outside of tedious British parlour games.

I can see that you haven't spent much time around scientists.

[metal56]

I was once disussing the use if will

In the case of the passage in M56's original post above, we are reminded that the passage was written by a human being. That human necessarily is speculating about the activities of a polar bear. Had it been written by the bear herself, I imagine the will would be absent, and the effect would be to simply make true statements with no need for speculation.

Larry Latham

The "will" is there to emphasise generic qualities. How is that connected to speculation? The bear knows that he has done it in the past, does do in the present and will do it in the future(generic ongoing quality) , he doesn't need to speculate.

Would "I have a tendency to..." or " I naturally...", or even "I habitually..." be speculation?

[Andrew Patterson]

I've been thinking on this for a while. Sorry for not contributing yet.

I wonder whether there is either not yet a full seperation between "will" the modal and "will" the lexical verb, or whether the meaning of "will" the lexical verb has somehow coloured the meaning of "will" the modal.

I think it may be worth exploring the meaning of "will" the modal in this light.

"Do what you will." Seems to have the idea of volition. Can anyone think think of common third person expressions with lexical "will", btw?

[woodcutter]

Yes, Andrew, I wonder too. The birth of modal "will", I would hazard, came about by people using the old word meaning that they had a mental intention in a number of analagous, futuristic ways.

I'm not sure that the scientists and the radio 4 parlour game players are using the same "will". Scientists do not always use it to describe habit, and will tend to do so when they are imagining a particular experimental occasion.

As for myself, I seem to be using it here in a 'talking speculatively out of my backside again' kind of way.

[LarryLatham]

The "will" is there to emphasise generic qualities. How is that connected to speculation? The bear knows that he has done it in the past, does do in the present and will do it in the future(generic ongoing quality) , he doesn't need to speculate.

Exactly my point, M56. If the bear had written it, (s)he wouldn't need to speculate. The human writer does, since he can only imagine what any particular bear might do, based on his knowledge of what polar bears usually do.

Would "I have a tendency to..." or " I naturally...", or even "I habitually..." be speculation?

Of course not. I think you misread my post.

Larry Latham

[metal56]

Exactly my point, M56.

If the bear had written it, (s)he wouldn't need to speculate. The human writer does, since he can only imagine what any particular bear might do, based on his knowledge of what polar bears usually do.

Naaa, Larry. He's a zoologist.

Would "I have a tendency to..." or " I naturally...", or even "I habitually..." be speculation?

Of course not. I think you misread my post.

I'll give it another whizz.

[metal56]

"Do what you will." Seems to have the idea of volition. Can anyone think think of common third person expressions with lexical "will", btw?

He will insist on wasting his money. No wonder he's always broke.

[Andrew Patterson]

Metal wrote quoting me:

"Do what you will." Seems to have the idea of volition. Can anyone think think of common third person expressions with lexical "will", btw?

He will insist on wasting his money. No wonder he's always broke.

This is still modal "will", Metal.

It seems that there are two meanings with lexical "will".:
1) "He is willing his horse to win." Or, "He wills his horse to win every time it races."
2) He is willing to go. (Does this have to be continuous?)

[metal56]

Metal wrote quoting me:

"Do what you will." Seems to have the idea of volition. Can anyone think think of common third person expressions with lexical "will", btw?

He will insist on wasting his money. No wonder he's always broke.

This is still modal "will", Metal.

It seems that there are two meanings with lexical "will".:
1) "He is willing his horse to win." Or, "He wills his horse to win every time it races."
2) He is willing to go. (Does this have to be continuous?)

Do what you will.

Sit here if you will.

Will you will your fortune to me?

[LarryLatham]

Exactly my point, M56.

If the bear had written it, (s)he wouldn't need to speculate. The human writer does, since he can only imagine what any particular bear might do, based on his knowledge of what polar bears usually do.

Naaa, Larry. He's a zoologist.

Actually, M56, I had better revise myself, since what I said above is not strictly true, as I'm sure you already know. Both the human writer and the bear could possibly speculate, of course, since both could be talking about some future time event(s), and might, therefore, not know for certain what would happen then.

On the other hand, both could decide to speak from the point-of-view of fact, which is to say, what they know actually happens. The human could be speaking (perhaps as a zoologist) as a man who knows what bears do. He might be simply asserting a truth as he sees it. Of course, in that case he will not use "will." The bear, on the other hand, could also be simply asserting a truth as she knows very well to be the case. She also will not use "will" in this case.

So it comes down to this: the speaker is always in command. The speaker makes the choices, and our job as listeners (readers) is to figure out which of many possible points-of-view our speaker is assuming when (s)he chooses particular language.

Larry Latham

[metal56]

He might be simply asserting a truth as he sees it. Of course, in that case he will not use "will." The bear, on the other hand, could also be simply asserting a truth as she knows very well to be the case. She also will not use "will" in this case.


Larry Latham

See, that's where I disagree. "Will" for expressing generic qualities is found in many texts.

"In a very good year when there is plenty of food, two chicks may survive. When food is scarce, the biggest chick will kill and eat the smaller ones."

(Then, now and always. General time.)

Here, it is not generic "will", it is future prediction:

"About 160 adult wolves will kill and eat approximately 1,800 big game animals a year, Bangs predicted. That is an increase of 50 percent. "

[LarryLatham]

See, that's where I disagree. "Will" for expressing generic qualities is found in many texts.

"In a very good year when there is plenty of food, two chicks may survive. When food is scarce, the biggest chick will kill and eat the smaller ones."

(Then, now and always. General time.)

Here, it is not generic "will", it is future prediction:

"About 160 adult wolves will kill and eat approximately 1,800 big game animals a year, Bangs predicted. That is an increase of 50 percent. "

I'm afraid I don't see the distinction, M56. Why is the second example a future prediction, while the first example, which is, after all, predicting what the biggest chick might do under certain circumstances (which we may assume do not obtain at the moment, or at the same place where the speaker currently is, but rather may exist at some hypothetical time or place yet to come)? Both, it seems to me, involved a speculation on the part of the user.

What is it, exactly, that gives you the clue that the first is not a speculation and the second is?

Another way to ask is, if the first is expressing "generic qualities" (which I don't understand), then why isn't the second also expressing something generic?

If "generic qualities" means expressing facts, then why not simply use factual statements: "When food is scarce, the biggest chick kills and eats the smaller ones."?

Larry Latham

[metal56]

I'm afraid I don't see the distinction, M56. Why is the second example a future prediction, while the first example, which is, after all, predicting what the biggest chick might do under certain circumstances (which we may assume do not obtain at the moment, or at the same place where the speaker currently is, but rather may exist at some hypothetical time or place yet to come)? Both, it seems to me, involved a speculation on the part of the user.

This is exactly my point. AE speaker do not seem to be aware of the generic, general time (or timeless) use of "will".

What is it, exactly, that gives you the clue that the first is not a speculation and the second is?

The discourse, the cotext, the context.

Another way to ask is, if the first is expressing "generic qualities" (which I don't understand), then why isn't the second also expressing something generic?

Because speaker sometimes feel a need to emphasise habit, persistence and generic qualities. "Will" being an auxiliary can create emphasis - as can many auxiliaries.


Because of this:

<Bangs predicted.> <That is an increase of 50 percent. ">

Generic qualities are, in fact, timeless; the addition of a sentence which shows an increase (a change) shows time has had a hand.

If "generic qualities" means expressing facts, then why not simply use factual statements: "When food is scarce, the biggest chick kills and eats the smaller ones."?

In many examples, the addition of "will" emphasises persitence and adds a sense of volition.


Examples:

used to express frequent, customary, or habitual action or natural tendency or disposition <will get angry over nothing> <will work one day and loaf the next>

used to express determination, insistence, persistence, or willfulness <I have made up my mind to go and go I will> b -- used to express inevitability <accidents will happen>

[metal56]

More examples of "will" for persistence, habit and/or generic qualities:

"While it was once thought that wombats weren't very bright, it's now generally accepted that they are quite intelligent. They are, however, very stubborn and determined, and since they're so strong--built like a tank or bulldozer--they will often go through an obstacle rather than around it. "

http://www.wombania.com/wombats/wombat-behavior.htm

Note the emphasis on volition above. Wombats do that all the time. It's generic and they persist in their stubborness.

"Minds, like bodies, will often fall into a pimpled, ill-conditioned
state from mere excess of comfort." (Then now and always. Timeless. Persistence of wills.)

*beep*.


"Alcoholics will often store small, discreet bottles of hard liquor in their
handbags."

http://community.webshots.com/photo/160 ... 4991TWuOfC

Some cats do like water—and tigers are among them! On a hot, steamy day in the Asian forest, tigers will take to the river to cool off. In colder climates, they enjoy the snow.

http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-tiger.html

Notably missing from the AE version of Cambridge dictionaries is thia:

Definition

will (ALWAYS)

modal verb (ALSO 'll)

used when referring to something that always or usually happens:
Accidents will happen.

Fruit will keep longer in the fridge.

The product with the better-known brand name will always sell better.
She's 85 now, but she will insist on doing all her own housework.

[LarryLatham]

I want to remind myself that you are a much better qualified linguist than I am, M56, and so whatever you say I do not dismiss lightly. Fortunately, most of the time you and I are pretty much on the same page, and so our differences rarely come up.

But I am not with you here. You should know that I am not one of those American English speakers you mention who cannot see any uses of the modal auxiliary "will" (and I do assert that it is always a modal auxiliary) that do not serve to extend time into the future. I have posted plenty of opinions to the contrary. But I still maintain that use of "will" does imply a speculation. Speculation does not necessarily mean that the user is predicting a future time event. It can be just as well used to refer to an event that the speaker cannot personally know is true, simply because of the circumstances of his perhaps limited knowledge of it. He may know, for example, of some plans for an event that should have already occurred. If that event is scheduled for a place removed from the location of the speaker, however, then he cannot personally know that it has indeed happened as planned. He must therefore speculate that it has and will say something like: " (Such and such) will have happened..." It gives rise to statements like, "It's already a quarter past eight, so his morning class will be in session now." It also gives rise to statements like, "When food is scarce, the biggest chick will kill and eat the smaller ones."

But this idea of yours (or perhaps someone else's, and you're borrowing it) about uses of "will" to indicate a 'generic quality', or 'persistence', or 'volition' just seems rather silly to me, if you'll pardon my phrasing. It's quite likely to be confusing to most observers (...certain to be confusing to students) just like all similar statements of seemingly endless catalogs of special uses for certain elements of English grammar. Search your own mind: do you, as a native speaker, really reach into such a catalog when you consider whether to use "will" (or any other grammatical device). I suggest that it's highly unlikely. As a Taiwanese student once revealingly said to me when I asked her about Chinese grammar: "Chinese doesn't have grammar...we just say what we mean." Of course, Chinese does most assuredly have grammar. But what she really meant to imply was that the grammar is pretty transparent to competent users of the language. The same is true of English, I submit. We just say what we mean.

If that is the case, then grammatical devices cannot be chosen from a catalog, because that would mean that we'd have to go through a process of elimination for each of the hundreds of devices we might use in the course of a simple conversation. Time simply doesn't allow for that. Instead, I believe, we (who would teach) must find meaningful descriptive overviews for each of the elements of English grammar. I submit that competent users have found meaningful overviews, even if they often are not able to articulate them. Particular interpretations will depend heavily on context and cotext, as you pointed out above, but there must be some central essence from which to begin.

In the case of "will", I believe, that essence is that "will" involves some kind of speculation on the part of the user. Starting from that point, we can examine each "will" we encounter, either as a user or as a receiver, to ask ourselves, "What is the speculation, and why does the user (or why do I want to) make it?" I cannot claim yet that answers will always come for this, but I do claim that acceptable answers have always come for me. I have never found myself at a loss for a reasonable explanation, based on 'speculation', for any use of "will" I have encountered. And since it seems to work universally for me, I find that it seems a useful tool in my quest for understanding of English grammar. Catalogs of uses always, always leave me cold.

Larry Latham