The death of "shall".

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:47 pm

Why has "shall" almost died out in American English?

DECADE PER MIL
1920s 238.86
1930s 121.24
1940s 109.79
1950s 84.15
1960s 62.04
1970s 40.02
1980s 28.14
1990s 18.14
2000s 10.52

http://corpus.byu.edu/time/

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:30 am

Because they've finally given up on that silly "shall will will, shall will will" as though English were Latin? You know, that "I shall drown and no-one will save me" vs "I will drown and no-one shall save me". One is prediction apparently and the other decision.

Good riddance!

And probably 'll is being written more.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:57 am

You know, that "I shall drown and no-one will save me" vs "I will drown and no-one shall save me". One is prediction apparently and the other decision.

Yes, that's how I would read those. Maybe it became too difficult for AE speakers to deal with the difference betwee "shall" and "will". They seem to be going the same way with differences between the present perfect and simple.

Michael Lewis has said that "shall" has the meaning of "will", but with the additional meaning "If it's anything to do with me (the speaker)". In questions it becomes "If it's anything to do with you (the listener)".

Lewis describes it as:

"Shall = According to my perception of the present situation, it is, if it's anything to do with me, inevitable that..."

I agree with Lewis' definition and wish more could use shall appropriately.

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:32 am

I thought it was waning because of descriptivism. I've heard that nineteenth-century grammarians concocted this difference, which doesn't reflect history, and tried to foist it on everyone, unsuccessfully. Do people in the UK really keep the distinction in their speech today? Or is it just written?

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:47 am

Metal,you're not Lord Quirk,are you?

No,what was I thinking! If that were the case,you'd have named yourself metal190.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:10 am

Metal,you're not Lord Quirk,are you?

I'm Lord Luvaduck.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:10 am

jotham wrote:I thought it was waning because of descriptivism. I've heard that nineteenth-century grammarians concocted this difference, which doesn't reflect history, and tried to foist it on everyone, unsuccessfully.

shall
O.E. sceal "I owe/he owes, will have to, ought to, must" (infinitive sculan, pt. sceolde), a common Gmc. preterite-present verb, from P.Gmc. *skal-, *skul- (cf. O.S. sculan, O.N., Swed. skola, M.Du. sullen, O.H.G. solan, Ger. sollen, Goth. skulan "to owe, be under obligation;" related via past tense form to O.E. scyld "guilt," Ger. Schuld "guilt, debt;" also O.N. Skuld, name of one of the Norns). Ground sense probably is "I owe," hence "I ought." The sense shifted in M.E. from a notion of "obligation" to include "futurity." Its past tense form has become should (q.v.). Cognates outside Gmc. are Lith. skeleti "to be guilty," skilti "to get into debt;" O.Prus. skallisnan "duty," skellants "guilty."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?sea ... hmode=none

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:14 am

jotham wrote: Do people in the UK really keep the distinction in their speech today? Or is it just written?

From the BNC:

PER MILLION WORDS

SPOKEN 2,735
FICTION 4,594
NEWS 432
ACADEMIC 4,101
NONFIC MISC 2,395
OTHER MISC 5,557

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:25 am

I'm with Jotham on this.

I don't believe that anybody except Fairy Godmothers consistently said "You shall go to the ball" when the matter was in their hands.

This

http://www.bartleby.com/68/20/5420.html

makes a lot of sense to me, though I would add that shall is on the wane in all situations apart from "Shall I ........?" and "Shall we.........?" where it remains the shortest way of seeking a decision that somehow binds the asker to do what the answerer says.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:35 am

And what is the implied difference here, in Frankenstein, if any?

In one part of the book:

Beware, for I am fearless and therefore powerful. I will watch with the wiliness of a snake, that I may sting with its venom. Man, you shall repent of the injuries you inflict.

Devil, cease; and do not poison the air with these sounds of malice. I have declared my resolution to you, and I am no coward to bend beneath words. Leave me; I am inexorable.

It is well. I go; but remember, I shall be with you on your wedding-night.

I started forward and exclaimed, Villain! Before you sign my death-warrant, be sure that you are yourself safe.

Then, a few sentence later:

I would have seized him, but he eluded me and quitted the house with precipitation. In a few moments I saw him in his boat, which shot across the waters with an arrowy swiftness and was soon lost amidst the waves.

All was again silent, but his words rang in my ears. I burned with rage to pursue the murderer of my peace and precipitate him into the ocean. I walked up and down my room hastily and perturbed, while my imagination conjured up a thousand images to torment and sting me. Why had I not followed him and closed with him in mortal strife? But I had suffered him to depart, and he had directed his course towards the mainland. I shuddered to think who might be the next victim sacrificed to his insatiate revenge. And then I thought again of his words --

I will be with you on your wedding-night.

That, then, was the period fixed for the fulfilment of my destiny. In that hour I should die and at once satisfy and extinguish his malice. The prospect did not move me to fear; yet when I thought of my beloved Elizabeth, of her tears and endless sorrow, when she should find her lover so barbarously snatched from her, tears, the first I had shed for many months, streamed from my eyes, and I resolved not to fall before my enemy without a bitter struggle

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:01 am

There's none.

Maybe it was written (1820?) before the prescriptivists got all hoity-toity about it.

I defy you to make sense of this:

http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html

which seems to be old Fowler wrestlng with how things were and how he thought they should be:

"It is true that Would you like? is very commonly used, like the equally wrong I would like; but it is only correct when the answer is intended to be given by the asker:—No, of course you would not."

Manifestly bullocks, certainly now and probably then.

This is more sensible from a more up to date Fowler (via Wiki):

....... the Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, OUP, 2002, says of the rule for the use of shall and will: "it is unlikely that this rule has ever had any consistent basis of authority in actual usage, and many examples of English in print disregard it"

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:11 am

JuanTwoThree wrote:There's none.

Maybe it was written (1820?) before the prescriptivists got all hoity-toity about it.

I defy you to make sense of this:

http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html

which seems to be old Fowler wrestlng with how things were and how he thought they should be.:

"It is true that Would you like? is very commonly used, like the equally wrong I would like; but it is only correct when the answer is intended to be given by the asker:—No, of course you would not."

Manifestly poppy-*beep*, certainly now and probably then.

I'm not a Fowler fan miself.

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:12 am

I don't even keep track of the distinction, never did, never intend to. So do you keep track of it? Fowler mentions a south dialect that keeps the distinction — does your dialect do so?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:17 am

Are you saying that you would readily replace shall with will here?

...came a beautiful girl, fair as a pearl. But she sank on the ground calling out, " Water! Water! Give me a drop of water, only a drop, or I shall surely die. " One drop of water is not much to ask, but the king's son had none at all. So the poor girl grew paler and paler, her head dropped to the ground, and she died.

Could we replace will with shall here?

secret fears ("I am so ugly. I will surely give someone a heart attack … I have varicose veins in my

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:26 am

Perhaps not there, because of the archaic style.

But let me ask you this:

"Get me a cold beer or I'll die of thirst"

Do you honestly think that 'll represents "shall"?

And what about short answers? Does anybody, or did anybody ever, switch shall for will?

"Get me a cold beer!

Will you die of thirst if I don't?

Yes, I shall."

Surely not.