# Shall - emplois



## Jocaste

Hi everyone !
I've some trouble understanding the meaning of "_shall_".
So if anyone is able to explain me the nuances or knows a website which explains its usage, it will be gratefully appreciated 
Thanks in advance


----------



## pyan

There are two linked uses for "shall."

The most current use is a modal to express determination or an order.
Little Joe is badly behaved, but he shall do as he's told. (He will definitely do what he is told.)
You shall not do that again. (You are ordered not to do it again)
He shall give up smoking. (Determined, strong way to say he will give up smoking.)

A long time ago "shall" was the first person singular and plural of the future. So I learned *I shall, you will, he will, we shall, you will, they will. *It was old fashioned  in the 1950s but some people still use it and, of course, it appears in literature.

I hope this helps.


----------



## pieanne

There's also the "shall I, shall we...?"

Shall I drive you to your friend's?
> Est-ce que tu veux que je te conduise... ?

Shall we go to the movies tonight?
> Et si on allait au cinéma ... ?


----------



## Jocaste

Sure, it helps a lot !
Thank you very much Pyan and Pieanne


----------



## pieanne

Despite our nicks, we're not twins, mind you!


----------



## kiwi-di

pyan said:


> There are two linked uses for "shall."
> 
> The most current use is a modal to express determination or an order.
> Little Joe is badly behaved, but he shall do as he's told. (He will definitely do what he is told.)
> You shall not do that again. (You are ordered not to do it again)
> He shall give up smoking. (Determined, strong way to say he will give up smoking.)
> 
> A long time ago "shall" was the first person singular and plural of the future. So I learned *I shall, you will, he will, we shall, you will, they will. *It was old fashioned  in the 1950s but some people still use it and, of course, it appears in literature.
> 
> I hope this helps.



I have never used shall in the contexts you've described above.  Maybe it's an antipodean (Australia/NZ) thing, not to do so?

I, too, was brought up to think of "I and We take Shall, and all the rest take Will", and I suspect I don't use them in speaking.  But I still do in [formal] written English.  Was it really old-fashioned in the 50s?  I thought it was current usage.   Maybe in the antipodes we were "old fashioned".


----------



## pyan

kiwi-di said:


> I have never used shall in the contexts you've described above. Maybe it's an antipodean (Australia/NZ) thing, not to do so?
> 
> I, too, was brought up to think of "I and We take Shall, and all the rest take Will", and I suspect I don't use them in speaking. But I still do in [formal] written English. Was it really old-fashioned in the 50s? I thought it was current usage. Maybe in the antipodes we were "old fashioned".


 
The reason Jocaste asked the question was because of the confusion. Modern English teaches people to use "will" where we learned to use "shall". 

I'm trying to stop myself using "shall" for my beginners' English classes. It is difficult to change , but I see how much easier it is to use "will".

It's easy when speaking or writing informally, we can use "I'll."

Jocaste, Pianne was quite right about the "Shall we..." This does not sound old-fashioned.


----------



## fleury

In America, our usage is really _very _close to that reported for UK by *pyan*.  The _shall/will/will _with 1st/2nd/3rd person (respectively) for simple _declaration _of future event was -- in "traditional" prescriptive grammar -- reversed to _will/shall/shall _to signify _intent_.

But I confess that I don't know anyone still alive in the US who follows that rule (tell us, someone, if you do!).  Rather, _will _is used in all persons to indicate simple declaration of the future.  _Shall _is always special, and is either an _indirect_ _imperative_, or an indication of _intent_.

When Gen. Douglas MacArthur, retreating from the Philippines in 1942, announced "I _shall _return", he was indicating his absolute determination, not just a prediction of the future.  (It was almost a first person imperative, if you can imagine one.)

When Anna, in the words of Oscar Hammerstein, asks the King of Siam "_Shall _we dance?", she is asking whether he shares her intent to dance.  She is not asking for a prediction of the future.

It seems that, in this, UK and American English are in contrast to Australian and New Zealand English.  Interesting.


----------



## pieanne

I also think that the "shall" for the future (now replaced by "will") and the "shall" "imperative" were not pronounced in the same way.

I sh'll (not accentuated) be back tomorrow (= I'll be back tomorrow) is in the simple statement of a future fact
I sh*a*ll be back tomorrow (because I want to!) is quite different


----------



## kiwi-di

pyan said:


> The reason Jocaste asked the question was because of the confusion. Modern English teaches people to use "will" where we learned to use "shall".
> 
> I'm trying to stop myself using "shall" for my beginners' English classes. It is difficult to change , but I see how much easier it is to use "will".


 I totally agree.   It was the other examples you used I was having problems with.  Or as a pedant, should I say, "With which I was having problems"?



> It's easy when speaking or writing informally, we can use "I'll."


  Aren't we lucky?  



> Jocaste, Pianne was quite right about the "Shall we..." This does not sound old-fashioned.


D'accord - absolument!


----------



## Qcumber

pyan said:


> The most current use is a modal to express determination or an order.
> Little Joe is badly behaved, but he shall do as he's told. (He will definitely do what he is told.


Not quite. Little Joe will have to behave himself even if he would have his own way.
*Shall *means that ego is submitted to the authority of id. Id can be the law, a religion, another person, circumstances, etc.

Incidentally, "he shall do as he's told" is a promise obviously made by an adult, but there is no certainly this will be that easy.


----------



## Chicbeans

"Shall" is also very commonly used in legal English texts. It is used to mean "will" - "x shall happen when y." That's the most common context in which I've heard it used...


----------



## pieanne

Qcumber said:


> Incidentally, "he shall do as he's told" is a promise obviously made by an adult, but there is no certainly this will be that easy.


 
Especially by today's standards    BTW, how old is Little Joe?​


----------



## Qcumber

pieanne said:


> BTW, how old is Little Joe?


If he's called "Little Joe", he is a small boy.


----------



## Qcumber

Chicbeans said:


> "Shall" is also very commonly used in legal English texts. It is used to mean "will" - "x shall happen when y." That's the most common context in which I've heard it used...


In legal English, *will* expresses *volition* while *shall* expresses *obligation*.
It seems the man-in-the-street doesn't understand this difference, which disappeared from colloquial English a long time ago.


----------



## Jocaste

Eh bien merci à tous !
Si avec tout ça, je n'y arrive pas, je ne sais pas ce qu'il me faudrait de plus !
So thank you a bundle


----------



## kiwi-di

pieanne said:


> I sh'll (not accentuated) be back tomorrow (= I'll be back tomorrow) is in the simple statement of a future fact


 Agreed.

_I sh*a*ll be back tomorrow (because I want to!)_ is quite different. This emphasises the [1950's] rule.   Ditto - He *will* be back tomorrow (because he wants to be).  

In my opiion, one would *never* use "He *shall* be back tomorrow" (because he wants to be - or for any reason  ).



			
				Chicbeans said:
			
		

> "Shall" is also very commonly used in legal English texts. It is used to mean "will" - "x shall happen when y." That's the most common context in which I've heard it used...


in AE legal texts perhaps, but I don't think it's common in BE.  (How do you express Australian or NZ English in these forums - there are differences between us and the Brits!!)


----------



## Nicomon

Qcumber said:


> In legal English, *will* expresses *volition* while *shall* expresses *obligation*.
> It seems the man-in-the-street doesn't understand this difference, which disappeared from colloquial English a long time ago.


 
Et en français, comment les différencier?

Mon effort `
will : s'engage a
shall : doit / a l'obligation de

Je crois que dans bien des cas, shall peut être remplacé par should ou must.  Ai-je raison de le penser?


----------



## Chicbeans

kiwi-di said:


> in AE legal texts perhaps, but I don't think it's common in BE. (How do you express Australian or NZ English in these forums - there are differences between us and the Brits!!)


 
I'm not sure, but I had a legal English text published by Cambridge (which covered both American and British legal English) and they had a whole explanation of the usage of "shall" and "may" as particular legal terms. Unfortunately, I had to return the text to its owner a couple days ago, so I don't have it on hand. But I think the idea of obligation is it - if you say the company _shall_ do x, y or z, it means that they must. If you use _may_, it implies a choice. As far as I remember, it didn't make a distinction between UK and US usage (which it often did for other particular vocabulary (i.e. _bylaws_).

Hope this isn't more confusing than it is helpful!


----------



## Qcumber

Nicomon said:


> Et en français, comment les différencier?


Le problème s'est posé au début du Marché Commun et a perduré jusqu'à l'heure actuelle. Les resposables se sont aperçu que le français, comme les autres langues romanes, a trois temps fondamentaux: le passé, le présent et le futur alors que l'anglais a deux temps fondamentaux: le passé et le présent.
L'intervention des deux auxilaires en anglais fait qu'il est très difficile, juridiquement parlant, de traduire d'une langue dans une autre.
En bref, ces traductions sont conventionnelles. Toutes fois que c'est un texte de loi, *shall* est utilisé en anglais là où le futur est utilisé en français.


----------



## Qcumber

Chicbeans said:


> if you say the company _shall_ do x, y or z, it means that they must. If you use _may_, it implies a choice.


You've put the whole thing in a nutshell.


----------



## Nicomon

Qcumber said:


> Toutes fois que c'est un texte de loi, *shall* est utilisé en anglais là où le futur est utilisé en français.


 
Merci Qcumber. Mais will + verbe est futur aussi, si je ne m'abuse. 
Donc en juridique, on revient à will = volition (s'engage de plein gré) et shall = obligation future



Chicbeans said:


> if you say the company _shall_ do x, y or z, it means that they must. If you use _may_, it implies a choice.


 
Thanks Chicbeans. So I was right assuming that _shall _can be replaced by _must _(post 18).  


Il y en a sûrement d'autres et des meilleurs, mais j'ai trouvé ce petit texte, à propos de shall _vs _will et aussi cet article de Wikipedia


----------



## Qcumber

Dans les textes juridiques, on ne peut pas remplacer *shall* par* must* car la loi est permanente. À la limite on pourrait remplacer *shall* par *have to*, mais ce ne serait plus du langage juridique.


----------



## Nicomon

Qcumber said:


> Dans les textes juridiques, on ne peut pas remplacer *shall* par* must* car la loi est permanente. À la limite on pourrait remplacer *shall* par *have to*, mais ce ne serait plus du langage juridique.


 
Oui, oui, bien compris.  J'aurais dû préciser... pour la compréhension. C'est à dire que si je vois *shall* dans un texte juridique, je peux le traduire de la même façon que je traduirais *must *dans un texte de tous les jours.  On est d'accord là-dessus, oui ?


----------



## L'insoumis

kiwi-di said:


> Agreed.
> 
> _I sh*a*ll be back tomorrow (because I want to!)_ is quite different. This emphasises the [1950's] rule.   Ditto - He *will* be back tomorrow (because he wants to be).
> 
> In my opiion, one would *never* use "He *shall* be back tomorrow" (because he wants to be - or for any reason  ).
> 
> in AE legal texts perhaps, but I don't think it's common in BE.  (How do you express Australian or NZ English in these forums - there are differences between us and the Brits!!)



In an Australian legal context, shall is used to show obligation. It is actually rather common.


----------



## Louf

> In my opiion, one would *never* use "He *shall* be back tomorrow" (because he wants to be - or for any reason  ).



Couldn't one say: "He shall be back tomorrow; I will see to it!"


----------



## Qcumber

Nicomon said:


> Oui, oui, bien compris. J'aurais dû préciser... pour la compréhension. C'est à dire que si je vois *shall* dans un texte juridique, je peux le traduire de la même façon que je traduirais *must *dans un texte de tous les jours. On est d'accord là-dessus, oui ?


Pas tout à fait.  Il faut traduire par "have to".
ex. The company shall send the subscriber a copy of the contract ...
The company has / have to send ...


----------



## Nicomon

Qcumber said:


> Pas tout à fait.  Il faut traduire par "have to".
> ex. The company shall send the subscriber a copy of the contract ...
> The company has / have to send ...


 
Oui mais... pour traduire en français, peut-on vraiment faire une nuance entre have to et must? 

ex.: The company *must* return the signed contract by February 23. (qu'on n'écrirait peut-être pas en juridique) 
_vs _: The company *has to* (shall) return the signed contract by February 23. 

N'écrirait-on pas *doit* (devra)/*a l'obligation de*, dans les deux cas? La traduction juridique me donne de l'urticaire !


----------



## Qcumber

Nicomon said:


> N'écrirait-on pas *doit* (devra)/*a l'obligation de*, dans les deux cas? La traduction juridique me donne de l'urticaire !


S'agissant d'expliquer ce que signifie le texte de loi, oui , *doit* et *a l'obligation de* conviennent parfaitement, tout comme *has to* et *is obliged* *to* en anglais. D'ailleurs, il me semble que c'est ainsi que les avocats, etc. expliquent la loi à leurs clients.


----------



## Nicomon

Merci Qcumber.


----------

