# Where is "SHALL" used?



## Alunarada

I think it is mainly spoken in England, but what about the other parts of United Kingdom? Although I don't think so, is it spoken anywhere outside the UK?

Thank you a lot


----------



## Brioche

Shall is certainly used in the United States.
Get a copy of the Constitution of the US and count how often _shall _appears!

For more information
see here:
< Link no longer works. >
This is an American source.

and here:
Shall and Will. Fowler, H. W. 1908. The King's English

and here:
English modal verbs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and here:
< Link no longer works. >


----------



## Alunarada

but the american constitution is older than 200 years, isn't it? so what about nowadays american english? Americans, do yu use "shall" in you everyday talk?

Thank you Brioche.



> *WR Rule #22* - Except as a topic of discussion, chatspeak and SMS style are not acceptable. *Members must do their best to write using standard language forms.* *<<This includes using capital letters where appropriate.>> *


----------



## TrentinaNE

Alunarada said:
			
		

> So what about current American English? Americans, do you use "shall" in your everyday language?


A few corrections to help improve your English.   

"Shall" turns up mostly in legal contracts where it means "will, must." In everyday spoken AE, the usage of "shall" is rare (in my experience, anyway).

Elizabeth


----------



## petereid

In ukenglish will used to express intention or a future action, often abbreviated
"I will go to the supermarket"   I'll go to the supermarket 
"I will go to the supermarket tomorrow"
Shall is usually used quite demonstratively
To a daughter or son: -- "You are not going out tonight". "I shall!"
But the interchange of "shall" and "will" varies all over the country and amongst social groups.


----------



## panjandrum

Not being from England, we don't distinguish shall and will as the English do.  However, we would sometimes use shall in questions - shall we dance, shall I blow your nose.


----------



## TrentinaNE

panjandrum said:
			
		

> However, we would sometimes use shall in questions - shall we dance, shall I blow your nose.


Outside of legal contracts, questions of this kind are the most common use of "shall" in AE, too.    Thanks, panj.

Elizabeth


----------



## Alunarada

Thank you! Your son/daughter example is quite good  for knowing when "shall" and "will" can be interchangable, as not always they are it 
So I understand you mean that it is spoken in the whole UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northen Ireland but as you said it varies)


----------



## river

Nobody uses "shall" in ordinary speech in AE unless (as Panj noted above) you happen to dance.

In legal language "must" is now preferred to "shall." The new _Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure_, for instance, use "must," not "shall." So do the proposed new _Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure_.


----------



## Aupick

An Irish friend of mine surprises me every time I see her by asking "Will I get you a cup of tea?" In my variant of English I would say "Shall I get you a cup of tea?" since to me _shall_ is what we use, in the first person in interrogative sentences, to make offers. _Will_ in the first person in an interrogative sentence is what you would say to the fortune teller: "Will I be rich? Will I fall in love?" because it suggests that I as the speaker have no control over the future. It's funny how much such fundamental pieces of language vary.

To me _shall_ includes a sense of promise on the part of the speaker, as well as determination and the ability to carry through with this act. 

• "Shall I get you a cup of tea?" indicates that you are willing and able to get that tea, and will follow through if the answer is yes. 

• Petereid's "I shall go out" expresses the determination of the defiant child. It's like "I will go out" + "come hell or high water".

• When Cinderella's fairy godmother says "You shall go to the ball", we know that Cinderella will definitely be there because her fairy godmother has the power to get her there and is promising to use it.

• When the US Constitution says "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives", this is not just an off-hand prediction but a legal enactment. The founding fathers have the power and authority to vest legislative powers in a Congress, and they do so by uttering these very words.

_Shall_ is a pretty cool word. It's a shame it's on its way out.


----------



## panjandrum

According to the New Fowler's Modern English Usage, the further you get from London, the less likely you are to find regular use of shall.
Out where I am, there is no general appreciation of the difference between will and shall.  Apart from the odd exceptions noted above, we use will.


----------



## moodywop

Trust Mr Dylan to go against the grain:

_We Shall Be Released_

_We Shall Be Free No 10_

But maybe the last lines of the second song offer a clue:

What's probably got you baffled more
Is what this thing here is for.
It's nothing
It's something I learned over in England


----------



## maxiogee

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Not being from England, we don't distinguish shall and will as the English do.  However, we would sometimes use shall in questions - shall we dance, shall I blow your nose.



This is totally off-topic, but I'm *dying* to know how person A goes about the process of blowing person B's nose.
(I take it for granted that the intention is not just to 'wipe' someone else's nose.)
I don't think I've ever heard anyone utter the words "Shall I blow your nose" and would be stunned were I ever to hear them.


----------



## SpiritosoBella

This probably wont help, but I know that in my school we all use "Shall" to annoy our teachers, or as a means of sarcasm.
Tatsy


----------



## maxiogee

I grew up to the background of television news broadcasts showing people singing "We shall not be moved" and "We shall overcome".


----------



## CAMullen

But those are titles and lyrics to old Spirituals (I don't have their dates handy).   I don't think that counts as current usage; do you?


----------



## petereid

maxiogee said:
			
		

> This is totally off-topic, but I'm *dying* to know how person A goes about the process of blowing person B's nose.
> (I take it for granted that the intention is not just to 'wipe' someone else's nose.)
> I don't think I've ever heard anyone utter the words "Shall I blow your nose" and would be stunned were I ever to hear them.


 


It's addressed to a child.

Mummy holds the hankie, child blows it's nose.


----------



## maxiogee

I'm old, but I'm not so old that my childhood counts as _time immemorial_! If I can remember it, it's current enough for me. They weren't being sung as spirituals when I heard them, they were active, plaintive and heartfelt words!


----------



## moodywop

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I'm old, but I'm not so old that my childhood counts as _time immemorial_! If I can remember it, it's current enough for me. They weren't being sung as spirituals when I heard them, they were active, plaintive and heartfelt words!


 
And Bob Dylan's _I Shall Be Released _is from 1967


----------



## Keith Davies

In current usage,  shall is only used in the first person interrogative form to convey a suggestion- Shall we go and see the film Shall we dance? Shall we meet at 8? or in an offer- Shall I help you with your suitcase? Shall I explain that again?


----------



## Brioche

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Not being from England, we don't distinguish shall and will as the English do. However, we would sometimes use shall in questions - shall we dance, shall I blow your nose.


 
_Shall I?_ _Shall we?_ addressed to another person is the only thing that makes sense. 

How can another person tell you what you are going to do? - which is what "_Will I?_" is asking.


----------



## Joelline

Certainly, "We shall not be moved" and "We shall overcome" were understood and heartfelt, but they were also in traditional (not to say old-fashioned) songs.  "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want" is another formulaic example.  But in everyday AE, no one really uses "shall" anymore unless they are quoting from something traditional or unless, like Bob Dylan, one is using the word poetically (especially in an effort to suggest a connection with the older, formulaic uses).


----------



## Alunarada

How or why does it bother them?


----------



## river

Regarding "shall" as a legal term: "In just about every jurisdiction, courts have held that “shall” can mean not just “must” and “may”, but also “will” and “is”. Increasingly, official drafting bodies are recognizing the problem. . .Many . . drafters have adopted the “shall-less” style. . . You should do the same." Bryan Garner, _Legal Writing in Plain English_, 2001, pp 105-06_ ._


----------



## ireney

Verring a bit from the main topic I would like to say that, for me, while I know that "we shall overcome" comes from old spriritual songs, judging from the fact that it was used in many cases (the movement for Civil Rights in the U.S. is the most prominent one in my mind, closely followed by the Tienanmen (sp?) Square "incident") shows, to my mind, that it trascends any time or religious borders


----------



## mjscott

Properly used in simple future tense:

1st person singular & plural:
 "I shall be telling this with a sigh ages and ages hence;"
 "We shall do whatever is needed to keep this thing going."

2nd & 3rd person singular & plural:
 "He will be at the party at eight."
 "You will need to take a test booklet and sharpen your pencil before sitting down."
 "They will fly out tomorrow morning."

If you switch the verbs shall and will--or switch the person, they become the command form of the verb:

1st Person singular & plural:
 "I will eat my broccoli, regardless of whether or not I like it!"
 "We will get out of debt, if it takes the rest of our lives!

2nd & 3rd person singular & plural:
 "You shall not hit your little brother!"
 "They shall have to play by the rules!"

The command form in the 1st person is for the most part nonexistent. As with previous posts, _will_, is the verb of choice in vernacular American English.  All people would understand you if you switched them out--most people wouldn't know which was the straightforward future tense, and which was the command determinate tense.


----------



## Kat LaQ

Alunarada, it bothers them because in the US _shall_ always has imaginary quotation marks around it. We know we are saying something considered archaic or at least very proper. We might even affect a British accent while saying it! (Apologies to our UK friends.)  It doesn't have to be rebellious, however.  "Shall I open the champagne?" can be quite seductive!
Bottom line: We never use shall in ordinary speech.  For questions where _will_ doesn't make sense _Will we dance?_  we just change the question to something like _Would you like to dance?_


----------



## ed800uk

At school in the North of England I was taught exactly the same as stated by mjscott.  I have always tried to adhere to this in writing.

This usage was reinforced by company standards (for writing specifications) which insisted on using "shall" (for the third person conjugation) to insist on the contractually essential nature of a requirement.

Such use of "shall" seems to be more elegant than "must", especially in the context of the definition of a product which does not exist at the time that the contract is agreed.

In speech, though, I know I am myself very lax about my own usage, and probably judge more by context and tone-of-voice to distinguish between "shall" and "will".


----------



## Alunarada

the "mixture" of "*sh*all" + "w*ould*" = "should" makes the sense of "shall" pretty clear to me, although sometimes "will" and "shall" seem to be interchangable.

I wonder what you think about this thought of mine 


THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS, ARE VERY HELPFULL AND KEEP THIS THREAD VERY INTERESTING  THANKS PEOPLE!!!!!!


----------



## se16teddy

As many speakers have commented, the use of 'shall' and 'will' is very variable.   I think the distinction I learned as a child sometimes seems a bit old fashioned, but I stick with it because it makes a useful distinction.  

For me, WILL indicates intention or consent on the part of the subject of the sentence, or indicates a probability, for example:
- Will you take this man to be your lawful wedded husband? - consent
- I will go to the shops today - intention
- It will rain tomorrow - indicates a probability and by implication a prediction (futurity).   

For me, SHALL indicates a duty, for example an agreement, or a command (the intention is not on the part of the subject of the sentence), and possibly also a certainty  e.g. 
- 'thou shalt not kill' - obligation / command
- A shall pay B on 3rd September (contractual duty)
- 'shall we dance?' (expects an instruction)
- 'we shall overcome' - certainty.  

Another modal that seems to be getting unfashionable is 'may' indicating permission.  

I wonder if 'shall' and 'may' are getting unfashionable because they originate in and tend to imply a hierarchical social structure that we are unwilling to acknowledge these days.


----------



## Yôn

"Shall we depart?"
"We shall."

I think "shall" works well in questions, and in regular statements about what "will happen."  Whereas "will" works best in commands.

"You shall find the answer soon enough."
"You will search for the answer until you find it."

If someone asks a question with "shall," I think it best to answer the question with "shall" (as in the first example):

"What shall we do about this problem?"
"We shall solve it in the easiest manner possible."

This one can be hard to non-native speakers.  It is often just a matter of knowing which one sounds best in the context.  The biggest problem is probably that they both mean almost the exact same thing, and in almost all cases can be used interchangeably; however, this can affect the "feel" of the sentence, and one usually will just "sound better" than the other.

I wish I could explain it better, but I really don't know the exact difference myself.  I just know which one to use when I come to it because I am a native speaker.  Maybe you have a specific sentence you want looked at?


Hope this makes a little sense,
Jon


----------



## lizzeymac

Hi - 
I am suprised at the number of Americans saying they "never" hear or use shall.  It is still in use where I live so perhaps it's a regionalism.  Of course, most of the people use it correctly, not interchageably with "will" and it isn't required that often in casual conversation.  A very common use is in a "shorthand" phrase.  If you are at a party or some large event & bored or tired and you want to leave, you might say quietly to your date "Shall we?" - meaning shall we get out of here?   It seems less impolite (to your host) than saying "Hey, are you as bored as I am?  Can we ditch this do?"  And of course, the "Shall we dance?" as mentioned previously. Nicely brought up men out to impress women say "Shall we..." or at least "_Would you like_ to dance?".

The "old spirituals' referred to earlier are also still alive & kicking in my church & many others.  You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a shall.
-


----------



## jdenson

river said:
			
		

> Nobody uses "shall" in ordinary speech in AE unless (as Panj noted above) you happen to dance.
> 
> In legal language "must" is now preferred to "shall." The new _Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure_, for instance, use "must," not "shall." So do the proposed new _Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure_.


 Hi River,
I hate to sound argumentative, but most people I know use "shall" regularly, albeit only in questions. This morning I asked "Shall I take out the garbage, or will you?". Last night my host asked "Shall we go in to dinner?". 
JD


----------



## se16teddy

Alunarada said:
			
		

> I think it is mainly spoken in England, but what about the other parts of United Kingdom? Although I don't think so, is it spoken anywhere outside the UK?
> 
> Thank you a lot


 

'Shall' is AVAILABLE for anyone to use if they wish to preserve a distinction between intention / consent (will) and obligation / command (shall), and to those who wish to preserve a distinction between a physical driver (must) and a contractual / legal / hierarchical driver (shall). Those who can't be bothered or think it's uncool don't use 'shall'.

Taking up River's point in the use of 'shall' in law, UK statutes still use 'shall' consistently, and I think most contracts still do. However, UK government publications avoid it. I work for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and our publications advising taxpayers of their rights and duties prefer the imperative, or sometimes hide behind 'must'. 'Shall' would make the power we hold over readers far too explicit!


----------



## river

jdenson said:
			
		

> Hi River,
> I hate to sound argumentative, but most people I know use "shall" regularly, albeit only in questions. This morning I asked "Shall I take out the garbage, or will you?". Last night my host asked "Shall we go in to dinner?".
> JD


 
No argument here. I'm happy to hear that "shall" is flourishing in Texas, but I never hear it in Illinois.  Maybe I need to get out more.


----------



## se16teddy

panjandrum said:
			
		

> According to the New Fowler's Modern English Usage, the further you get from London, the less likely you are to find regular use of shall.
> Out where I am, there is no general appreciation of the difference between will and shall. Apart from the odd exceptions noted above, we use will.


 

My perception is that where I am from in Yorkshire, older generations, educated or not, preserve the distinction (except where they have been completely confused by prescriptive grammars), and younger generations, educated or not, tend not to. My perception is that the Scottish, Welsh and Irish use 'shall' little.


----------



## Hockey13

It is not used anywhere near me. I grew up in New York City, lived in Boston for two years, lived in Maine for two years, currently go to school in North Carolina, and have been a resident of the state of California for some time. In none of these places have I ever heard the term "shall" outside of British mockery, spiritual songs, Bible quotes, or the totally awkward "shall we dance?" We all pretty much use will, would, should, or anything else that fits. Anybody who uses shall in this country usually needs to have a British accent not to be seen as a bit pompous.

It's use in Texas, as claimed by another user, is totally new to me, and it sounds ultra-formal.


----------



## papillon

lizzeymac said:


> <...> A very common use is in a "shorthand" phrase.  If you are at a party or some large event & bored or tired and you want to leave, you might say quietly to your date "Shall we?" - meaning shall we get out of here?



I fully agree with Lizzeymac. This short form "Shall we?" is what I encounter almost on a daily basis at my work in Boston.

Whens several of us at work plan to go out at the end of the work day, we'll generally  assemble around someone's desk and will discuss the latest office gossip until everyone's finished their work. The signal inevitably comes in the form of a "Shall we?" which starts everyone heading for the door.


----------



## Hockey13

I know what you mean, but still it's only used in a dated form in _specific_ phrases. I wouldn't call it a big part of AE if it shows up in a few phrases, all of which are some variation of "Shall we?" It still sounds very ancient, very formal, or very comical...at least to my generation.


----------



## Iona

and what about 'shan't' for the negative 'shall not'  ..I use it  ... but my kids (20 and 25)  use 'won't'...


----------



## Alxmrphi

Hockey13 said:


> I know what you mean, but still it's only used in a dated form in _specific_ phrases. I wouldn't call it a big part of AE if it shows up in a few phrases, all of which are some variation of "Shall we?" It still sounds very ancient, very formal, or very comical...at least to my generation.



I know what you mean about comical, like occasionaly for no particular reason people just talk differently as a joke, or when immitating someone, and that is when someone would use "shall" 

Personally I'd never use it in a serious conversation, even in very formal situations, never.


----------



## mirx

Keith Davies said:


> In current usage, shall is only used in the first person interrogative form to convey a suggestion- Shall we go and see the film Shall we dance? Shall we meet at 8? or in an offer- Shall I help you with your suitcase? Shall I explain that again?


 

In this case, as far as I can a interpret, the meaning is more like "should" and not "will"

*Shall I close the door?*
Should I close the door? the other peson might have done or siad something that makes you think probably he/she wants you to close it

will I close the door? the other person may wonder why you want to close the door.


----------



## gomie2003

I think the only times I ever use "shall" is in the phrase "Shall we?" when there is an understood but unspoken verb after it:

(Shall we go?  Shall we dance?  Shall we eat?) --> "Shall we?"

Any other time I use "should" in place of "shall".  Thus, I would also never use "shan't" unless I was trying to imitate another dialect in an attempt to be funny.


----------



## caballoschica

I've heard it and used it.  I live in Ohio.  I haven't been anywhere else long enough to pay attention to the usage of shall.  I don't hear it used often, especially in rural areas of Ohio.  Shall, here at my college, is not used in a mockery of British English.  I hardly ever hear shan't, but if I ever would, it wouldn't be mocking British English.  We would not dare mock England, nor its culture, nor its language. We rather appreciate, and in some cases, adore England.


----------



## gomie2003

I mock with respect   I am intrigued by foreign dialects and sometimes I imitate them to amuse people (usually myself).  "Mock" sounds so harsh to me.


----------



## winklepicker

gomie2003 said:


> I am intrigued by foreign dialects and sometimes I imitate them to amuse people (usually myself).


 
Then you can use Northern Irish:

'Will I open the door?' or 'Will I pass you the salt?'


----------



## Thomas1

As indicated by a few members _shall_ is used by some speakers in the US for offers/suggestions (_Shall we dance/go?_), I guess in contracts implying some sort of obligation (_A shall pay the rent untill the 30 of May._) and in some quotations where it exists. I am wondering whether the American English speakers ever use _shall_ for the first persons to imply that they will do someting in the future, e.g.:
_I shall be off at 4 pm._
_We shall go to the Faroe Islands in June._?


Tom



river said:


> Nobody uses "shall" in ordinary speech in AE unless (as Panj noted above) you happen to dance.
> 
> In legal language "must" is now preferred to "shall." The new _Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure_, for instance, use "must," not "shall." So do the proposed new _Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure_.





lizzeymac said:


> Hi -
> I am suprised at the number of Americans saying they "never" hear or use shall. It is still in use where I live so perhaps it's a regionalism. Of course, most of the people use it correctly, not interchageably with "will" and it isn't required that often in casual conversation. A very common use is in a "shorthand" phrase. If you are at a party or some large event & bored or tired and you want to leave, you might say quietly to your date "Shall we?" - meaning shall we get out of here? It seems less impolite (to your host) than saying "Hey, are you as bored as I am? Can we ditch this do?" And of course, the "Shall we dance?" as mentioned previously. Nicely brought up men out to impress women say "Shall we..." or at least "_Would you like_ to dance?".
> 
> The "old spirituals' referred to earlier are also still alive & kicking in my church & many others. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a shall.
> -


 


jdenson said:


> Hi River,
> I hate to sound argumentative, but most people I know use "shall" regularly, albeit only in questions. This morning I asked "Shall I take out the garbage, or will you?". Last night my host asked "Shall we go in to dinner?".
> JD


----------



## arasta

Hi to all
in my opinion and what have i learnd is 
you use SHAll when you are sure 100%
for example: i shall go to the cinema. That means you will go 100% to the cinema
but if you are not sure but in your mind that you want to go you will say
i will go to the cinema. and maybe you dont go

you can use shall just with  I   and  WE

i hope it was useful
Azoo


----------



## Orange Blossom

arasta said:


> Hi to all
> but if you are not sure but in your mind that you want to go you will say
> i will go to the cinema. and maybe you dont go



If we aren't certain we will go to the cinema, we don't use 'will'.  Instead we say, _I would like to go to the cinema_.

I use shall only in question form in much the same way as mirx suggested.

Shall I close the door? <-- Do you want me to close the door?  Using _will _here doesn't make sense.  Using the _shall_ form of the question instead of the _do you want_ form sounds much more polite to me.

Shall we leave?  <-- I'm ready to leave if you are, or I'm willing to leave if you really want to, or I'm willing to leave if you need to.

Shall I tell you the story of Beauty and the Beast? <-- Do you want me to tell you the story of Beauty and the Beast?

Orange Blossom


----------



## Thomas1

As far as I remember, traditionally _shall_ merely describes what will happen in the future:
_I shall go to the cinema tomorrow._ (no intention implied)
and _will_ expresses intention:
_I will go to the cinema tomorrow._ (I intend to go there)

Tom


----------



## chamyto

Hi, according to my grammar book , shall is still used to form the Simple future ( I´ll go ) . Where do you use in sense of future ?


----------



## Loob

chamyto said:


> Hi, according to my grammar book , shall is still used to formed the Simple future ( I´ll go ) . Where do you use in sense of future ?


Hi chamyto

Did you look at the earlier posts in the thread? If so, you'll have seen that there are lots of different answers to your question.

My answer is (1) sometimes; and (2) especially (but not exclusively) when I want to sound a bit old-fashioned and teacher-ish.

--------

EDIT: Ah, I've just looked again at your post. My answer concerns when I use "I shall go/We shall go". I use the contracted form 'll *all the time*: it stands, of course, for both will and shall.


----------



## natkretep

Thanks for rejuvenating this thread.

Matt Redman, the British Christian songwriter now living in the US, brought out an album entitled 'We shall not be shaken' last year (2009). Here are the lyrics to the song containing those words.



> When everything is breaking,
> We are left unshaken;
> When everything is tumbling down,
> You’re [You=God] the solid ground ...
> We shall not be shaken.



Would people have preferred _will _here?


----------



## Loob

Would you say that is 'straightforward future', Nat? (Chamyto's asking, as I understand it, about use of _shall_ for the future tense.)

It seems to me to have pretty hefty overtones of '_We shall not be moved'. _Which always seemed to me to have (rightly or wrongly) hefty overtones of _'You shall not move us':_ ie not 'straightforward future' at all....


----------



## natkretep

Yes, I agree it's future. I also agree that there's also a present tense meaning: 'we remain unshaken'.

Matt Redman is based in Georgia, and I'm wondering what Americans who say they don't use _shall_ would make of its use here.


----------



## iskndarbey

It works in a religious context. It sounds biblical.


----------



## se16teddy

Loob said:


> It seems to me to have pretty hefty overtones of '_We shall not be moved'. _Which always seemed to me to have (rightly or wrongly) hefty overtones of _'You shall not move us':_ ie not 'straightforward future' at all....


Yes, that was my impression too. God is, or we are, shaping a future in which we are not moved: so the future is not merely predicted, it is *pre-set, determined, *an *effect*. This is how _shall _is used in the familiar older Bible translations, and I guess that the author knows these, and expects his audience to know them, even if they dont use _shall _in this way in everyday speech.


----------



## sound shift

I might say "I shall have to remember to get some batteries" or similar. If there's anything Biblical in that, it escapes me .


----------



## Andygc

This was an interesting thread to find reopened as I was not here the first time around. The diversity of usage in BE alone is a curiosity, especially as several of those contributing are around my age.

I was most firmly brought up to understand that "shall" is the normal form for the first person singular and plural and "will" for the second and third person. The reversal - I will, you shall - is the emphatic form. Looking back there seems to have been only one other contributor who saw it the same way.

For me, the song "We shall overcome" has a pretty run-of-the-mill title: it should have been "We will overcome". Similarly, "we shall not be moved" seems to me to be in no way a forceful statement - far better to have sung "we will, we will not be moved" to indicate that you _shall _not move us.

I do, however, recognise that these distinctions are now probably somewhat outdated and that "I will" to most BE speakers is now the normal form.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

"What shall I do?": "Shall I check it for you?"; "You shall never marry that sponger!"; "Rule, Britannia; Britannia rule the waves; Britons never never never shall be slaves."; "We shall be landing at Gatwick Airport in ten minutes from now"; "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight ....."(Sir W. Churchill);"What shall we do with the drunken sailor, ..."(song); ....


----------



## Loob

Giorgio, the examples you have come up with are valid. But most of them represent an older tradition - the one that Andygc describes in his post 59.

The exceptions, to my mind, are is "What shall I do?": "Shall I check it for you?" and "What shall we do with the drunken sailor, ...". I think (and as I recall previous threads bear me out on this) that it is still usual - except in certain varieties of English, including Scottish and Irish English - to use "shall" in first person interrogatives, especially when making an offer or suggestion. I don't believe, myself, that the modal "shall" is being used in these examples as a 'straightforward future'.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Thank you, Loob. 
I believe that words such as _shall, do, to_, etc., ie all the so called "empty/function words" have an _invariant_ meaning—some prefer the word core-meaning—which is always there, regardless of the different _senses_ of the individual sentences. As far as _shall_ is concerned, I see in it a precise stance of the speaker, which reflects itself in the lack of autonomy of the _subject of the sentence_. That said, I think that, say, "We shall overcome" is a very powerful blend of [promise+engagement of speaker+futurity]. It is not a simple prediction, nor is it an expression of strong will. Rather, the speaker shows that things will go that way because he can't help it. Which thing gives the whole expression a granitic strength that would be searched for in vain if another modal were used. We are not so far removed from the linguistic structure of the Commandments: in  "You shall not kill" there's certainly the expression of the Speaker's will, but there is also a sort of "divine bet", as it were, where God defies the subject of the sentence: Things will go that way because I say so, want to bet?".


----------



## Andygc

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> We are not so far removed from the linguistic structure of the Commandments: in  "You shall not kill" there's certainly the expression of the Speaker's will, but there is also a sort of "divine bet", as it were, where God defies the subject of the sentence: Things will go that way because I say so, want to bet?".


I suggest that you may be reading too much into this. The King James Bible translation of "Thou shalt not kill" is the archaic form of "you shall not kill" which is the emphatic form of the future 2nd person as in my earlier post. "We shall overcome" as an emphatic form is AE, which in the more traditional BE form should be "We will overcome", because "shall", in the first person, was the normal simple future form until recently.

In your biblical example the God of the Jews is hardly defying his chosen people, he's telling them what they have to do if they want to stay chosen. It is nothing more than an instruction, hence "shall" and not "will".

As a daily user of the words "shall" and "will", and using them the way I have always used them, I'm afraid I can only describe your theory as nonsense - at least as far as my version of BE is concerned.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Thank you, Andygc. One final question: If s.o. tells me "Don't worry, you shall have your money back", am I to take it as an instruction?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Thank you, Andygc. One final question: If s.o. tells me "Don't worry, you shall have your money back", am I to take it as an instruction?



Ciao Giorgio,

It means "you will get your money back".
It's not an instruction, but a statement that the money will be returned to you.


----------



## Andygc

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Thank you, Andygc. One final question: If s.o. tells me "Don't worry, you shall have your money back", am I to take it as an instruction?


No, it is an emphatic statement. 
"You will get your money back" = simple future, it is something that is going to happen in the future.
"You shall get your money back" = emphatic. It is a guaranteed certainty that it is going to happen.


----------



## se16teddy

Andygc said:


> No, it is an emphatic statement.
> "You will get your money back" = simple future, it is something that is going to happen in the future.
> "You shall get your money back" = emphatic. It is a guaranteed certainty that it is going to happen.


I'm not sure that 'emphatic' is quite the right word. The point of_ shall_ here is that it doesn't express a mere prediction, but expresses the consequence of some aspect of the world. The OED calls this a 'determined future'. So when I say 'You shall get your money back' I am thinking of a reason such as
- my, or someone else's, honesty *or*
- my, or someone else's promise or contract *or*
- the law
of which the natural outcome is you getting your money back.

_Shall _does not always imply any kind of prediction. 
_- Thou shalt not kill_ and
_- You shan't do that again, you naughty little boy!_ 
contain no prediction that killing or the naughty act won't recur. The emphasis is rather on the attempt to control the future, to effect an outcome.


----------



## Andygc

se16teddy said:


> I'm not sure that 'emphatic' is quite the right word. The point of_ shall_ here is that it doesn't express a mere prediction, but expresses the consequence of some aspect of the world. The OED calls this a 'determined future'. So when I say 'You shall get your money back' I am thinking of a reason such as
> - my, or someone else's, honesty *or*
> - my, or someone else's promise or contract *or*
> - the law
> of which the natural outcome is you getting your money back.
> 
> _Shall _does not always imply any kind of prediction.
> _- Thou shalt not kill_ and
> _- You shan't do that again, you naughty little boy!_
> contain no prediction that killing or the naughty act won't recur. The emphasis is rather on the attempt to control the future, to effect an outcome.


Context is all. I was replying to a specific question, and my response to that question was correct. See Alxmrphi's last post above. I used "emphatic" because I couldn't think of a better word, and I still can't, although "determined future" helps.

The use of "you shall"/"thou shalt" as a command was already covered, and that resulted in the question to which I responded.


----------



## zhaobb

Here is a quiz from our grammar course book

Sorry to be late. You ____ for some time.

A will have been waiting  B Shall have been waiting 

The answer is A.  Students asked me why B is not correct. I am wondering if B OK. If not, how to explain it to my students. Can you help me?


----------



## yakor

<Added to this thread. Nat, Moderator>
Hello!
Could you please tell the principle difference between two in every pair?
1) I shall come tomorrow.
2)I will come tomorrow.
-----------------
1)The Sun shall set in an hour.
2) The Sun will set in an hour.


----------



## Chez

In practical usage, we rarely use 'shall' these days except when making offers: Shall I wash the dishes?

Strictly traditionally, l shall come tomorrow is a straightforward statement of intent, whereas I will come tomorrow is a strong declaration (I'm determined to come, nothing will stop me).
 So, in the first pair, both are possible, but 2) is much more likely and expected these days (especially since we'd usually say 'I'll', thus avoiding the full verb anyway).

In your second pair, only 2) is possible. Shall is never used in this context.


----------



## heypresto

The 'shall/will' question has been asked numerous times before. I suggest you look through a few of the hundreds of previous threads listed here: Forum thread titles for "shall" - WordReference.com


----------



## Chasint

> The Sun shall set in an hour.





Chez said:


> {...}
> In your second pair, only 2) is possible. Shall is never used in this context.



Unless you are God, in which case it is a decree.


----------



## yakor

Chez said:


> In your second pair, only 2) is possible. Shall is never used in this context.


Thank you for your answer. 



Chasint said:


> Unless you are God, in which case it is a decree.


Thanks.


----------



## Snodv

There was a slightly twisted book of usage when I was a student that said "_I_ shall, but _you_ and _s/he_ will."  This is not correct now, if it ever was.  Historically _shall_ meant "ought to" and _will_ meant "want to."  They evolved into alternative future tense markers.  But that's the reason for "Shall I do the dishes," for instance:  it is the same as "Should I do the dishes?"  And the King James Bible translation of the commandments with "Thou shalt not" don't indicate simple futurity either, but rather obligation.


----------



## velisarius

Snodv said:


> There was a slightly twisted book of usage when I was a student that said "_I_ shall, but _you_ and _s/he_ will." This is not correct now, if it ever was.



It was correct when I was taught to read and write in BE, and I will not reveal how long ago that was , but not so many people today say or write_* I/ we shall *(do something). _It's rather old-fashioned to make the distinction, or to make a distinction based on meaning _(_with_ I *shall*_ being more emphatic). 

In (BE) speech I usually contract the auxiliary (_I'll do that_), so nobody really knows whether I'm  thinking "I shall do that" or "I will do that".

Yakor would do well to read the whole thread, plus a few of the many relevant threads to be found through a WRF dictionary search.


----------



## yakor

_I don't know when he will come._ OR_  I don't know if he will come._
How do you make difference if "will come" is a simple future tense or the intention to come?


----------



## Andygc

yakor said:


> _I don't know when he will come._ OR_  I don't know if he will come._
> How do you make difference if "will come" is a simple future tense or the intention to come?


Context, as usual.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Snodv said:


> There was a slightly twisted book of usage when I was a student that said "_I_ shall, but _you_ and _s/he_ will."  This is not correct now, if it ever was.



I'm sorry, but this is not correct: the reversal of the use of "shall" and "will" between first person on the one hand, and second and third person on the other, remains just as correct and valid as ever.

Simple expression of futurity:
I/We shall
You will
He/She/They will

Command or expression of certainty or determination:
I/We will
You shall
He/she/they shall.

I spend a fair amount of my time at work writing or revising directives or regulations for a hierarchical, paramilitary law enforcement agency, in which a careful distinction is typicallymade between the use in the third person of the simple future "will", and the order-to-be-followed "shall."  In the same way, when legislation is drafted carefully, the drafters also distinguish between "will" and "shall" for the same reasons.  One may note the recent attention given in the press in the United States to the controversy over the obligation of the Secretary of the Treasury to hand over Donald Trump's income tax returns to a certain Congressional committee, because the phrasing of the law says that upon such a request the Secretary "shall" do so.

Steven Mnuchin is evidently violating a clear-cut law to shield Trump's tax returns. Will the courts side with him?


----------



## Uncle Jack

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> I'm sorry, but this is not correct: the reversal of the use of "shall" and "will" between first person on the one hand, and second and third person on the other, remains just as correct and valid as ever.


Not in Britain. Here are the current guidelines for parliamentary drafting (https://assets.publishing.service.g...ile/727629/drafting_guidance_July_2018.2..pdf):
“Shall”​1.2.9 Office policy is to avoid the use of the legislative “shall”.1 There may of course be exceptions. One reason for using “shall” might be where the text is being inserted into an Act that already uses it.​_______​1. For reasons for avoiding “shall”, see for example Xanthaki H., _Thornton’s Legislative Drafting_ (Bloomsbury Professional, London, 5th ed., 2013).​
Although no mention is made of "must" in the text, "must" appears widely in the examples included within the document. 

Blake Morgan (a UK law firm) says this (https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/using-will-shall-and-must-in-commercial-contracts/):
Interestingly, English legislation avoids the use of ‘will’ or ‘shall’ in favour of ‘must’. ‘Must’ always suggests an absolute obligation.​
From what I can tell, this change from "shall" to "must" in British legislation took place in the 1990s, over twenty years ago.

In ordinary English, there are still many people who habitually preserve the "shall"/"will" distinction in their everyday language, but there are many more people without any conception that there is anything to be distinguished.

Although the distinction still exists in everyday English when making a suggestion in the form of a question ("Shall I open the window?"), the rarity of equivalent second or third person usage ("Will you wait in the corridor?") hides the fact that "shall" is used in the first person instead of "will".


----------

