# Using "shall".



## M56

Do you use these, or similar, in your variant of English?

1) I shall be back soon, so don't worry.

2) Shall I get some drinks in?

3) You shall do exactly as I say!

4) What shall we have for supper tonight? Any ideas?


----------



## fenixpollo

In my variant of English (SWAE), _shall_ is very seldom used, except ironically or when imitating BE speakers.

Saludos.


----------



## judkinsc

Correctly, "Shall" is the conjugation for the first person singular and plural, while "will" is correct for the second and third persons.
The catch:
"Shall" can be in the third person for emphasis, and "will" can be in the first person for emphasis.

The correct form is "I shall/we shall", though the incorrect (also "emphatic) form is more prevalent...


----------



## M56

judkinsc said:
			
		

> Correctly, "Shall" is the conjugation for the first person singular and plural, while "will" is correct for the second and third persons.
> The catch:
> "Shall" can be in the third person for emphasis, and "will" can be in the first person for emphasis.
> 
> The correct form is "I shall/we shall", though the incorrect (also "emphatic) form is more prevalent...


 
I'm afraid you're incorrect and using a partial rule that comes from traditional prescriptivism. The basic semantic meaning of "shall" for those BrEng speakers that differentiate between "will" and "shall" is this:

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

_Shall_ has the meaning of "will" and the additional meaning of "if it's anything to do with me (the speaker)". In questions, it is "if it's anything to do with you (the listener)".

"We shall overcome" is not incorrect, it is applying the basic semantic meaning of "shall", i.e. "if it is anything to do with us".


----------



## lmarfell

I actually use & hear "shall" quite often, though I would be happy to accept that it is less and less common in less 'educated' (per se) spheres.

I often use/hear the following:
"Shall I?"
"Shall we?"
"We shall!"

This causes me to wonder, actually - is "shan't" the negative form of "shall"? I assume it would be.

EDIT: I ask the above question because I believe I hear "I shan't" more than "I shall", which is... interesting.


----------



## timpeac

M56 said:
			
		

> I'm afraid you're incorrect and using a partial rule that comes from traditional prescriptivism.


 
M56 - you may well be right, but... proof? source? What are you basing your opinion on?

I heard of a story - perhaps apocryphal - which highlights the fact that the traditional English interpretation of the verbs (which you explain above) was inverted in comparison with the Scottish -

A Scot falls into a river and calls out "I will drown no one shall save me!". An Englishman walking past assumed he was intent on his own end and left him to drown.

Now I haven't any evidence to show that this is a true regional difference - it's just an aside I once heard - so I'm not saying that another interpretation is necessarily incorrect by that.


----------



## M56

timpeac said:
			
		

> M56 - you may well be right, but... proof? source? What are you basing your opinion on?
> 
> The basic semantic difference between "shall" and "will" in British English.
> 
> I heard of a story - perhaps apocryphal - which highlights the fact that the traditional English interpretation of the verbs (which you explain above) was inverted in comparison with the Scottish -
> 
> Now I haven't any evidence to show that this is a true regional difference - it's just an aside I once heard - so I'm not saying that another interpretation is necessarily incorrect by that.


 
Great. In my variant, the traditional rule is incorrect. As for the story, it also nonsense, because in BrEng "I shall drown" would mean *if it is anything to do with me*, it is inevitable that I will drown". The Scottish person was using the "will" for _logically inevitable,_ we use it in the same way in BrEng.

We would normally have no need to say, "If you don't help me, I shall drown". We'd use "will", but not because it has anything to do with first/third person, etc. It's becuase of the basic semantic meaning of the two words.


----------



## jimreilly

M56 said:
			
		

> Do you use these, or similar, in your variant of English?
> 
> 1) I shall be back soon, so don't worry.
> 
> 2) Shall I get some drinks in?
> 
> 3) You shall do exactly as I say!
> 
> 4) What shall we have for supper tonight? Any ideas?


Where I live in the Midwest USA "shall" is not completely unheard but it is increasingly rare. Here is how many people would actually speak (I'm not prescribing, just reporting):

1) I'll be back soon, (so) don't worry.
2) Should I get some drinks in?
3) Do exactly what I say/exactly what I tell you!
4) What'll we have for supper tonight? Any ideas?


----------



## river

In American English _shall _typically appears only in first-person questions (Shall we go?) or in third-person legal talk (the debtor shall pay within ten days). In most contexts,_ will_ is preferred.


----------



## timpeac

M56 said:
			
		

> Great. In my variant, the traditional rule is incorrect. As for the story, it also nonsense, because in BrEng "I shall drown" would mean *if it is anything to do with me*, it is inevitable that I will drown". The Scottish person was using the "will" for _logically inevitable,_ we use it in the same way in BrEng.
> 
> We would normally have no need to say, "If you don't help me, I shall drown". We'd use "will", but not because it has anything to do with first/third person, etc. It's becuase of the basic semantic meaning of the two words.


 
M56 - I think you miss my point - I was not trying to show there was any truth in the little story, just a jokey way of saying that we can all say anything without proof.

I am in interested - on what do you base your assertions?

"The basic semantic difference between "shall" and "will" in British English." is no different from saying "coz I say so".

Ps - in answer to your original question which I omitted to answer, I could imagine using all of those phrases on occasion.


----------



## M56

jimreilly said:
			
		

> Where I live in the Midwest USA "shall" is not completely unheard but it is increasingly rare. Here is how many people would actually speak (I'm not prescribing, just reporting):
> 
> 1) I'll be back soon, (so) don't worry.
> 2) Should I get some drinks in?
> 3) Do exactly what I say/exactly what I tell you!
> 4) What'll we have for supper tonight? Any ideas?


 
Many thanks, Jim.



			
				river said:
			
		

> In American English _shall _typically appears only in first-person questions (Shall we go?) or in third-person legal talk (the debtor shall pay within ten days). In most contexts,_ will_ is preferred.


 
Thanks, river.



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> "The basic semantic difference between "shall" and "will" in British English." is no different from saying "coz I say so".
> 
> .


 
The difference is... I, and many others. have looked at thousands of examples of native speaker use. So, it not coz I say so, it's because thousands upon thousands of native speakers say so throughout history.


----------



## timpeac

M56 said:
			
		

> The difference is... I, and many others. have looked at thousands of examples of native speaker use. So, it not coz I say so, it's because thousands upon thousands of native speakers say so throughout history.


 
Fine - I wasn't say it _was_ just "coz I say so", I was saying that without naming your source it is identical to saying "coz I say so" . Who is the main authority who supports this view?


----------



## cuchuflete

M56 said:
			
		

> Do you use these, or similar, in your variant of English?
> 
> 1) I shall be back soon, so don't worry.
> 
> 2) Shall I get some drinks in?
> 
> 3) You shall do exactly as I say!
> 
> 4) What shall we have for supper tonight? Any ideas?



Truth in packaging disclaimer:  My answers are based on what I hear in the northeastern part of the US, typically among people who are not ashamed to read books other than popular fiction.

1) I'll be back soon, don't worry.  
1a) Don't worry, I'll be back soon.

2) Incomprehensible at first...  
On reflection:  Shall I get us some drinks?
More common:  Would anyone like a drink?

3) You will do exactly as I say!

4) What shall we have for supper tonight? Any ideas?


----------



## MrPedantic

Hello M56

Southern English ("southern jessie") version:

1) I shall be back soon, so don't worry.

If I said this, I would give myself the impression of sounding "arch". It seems a little too deliberate. I also feel a slight difference in register between the first clause and the second. Change to: "I'll be back soon, so don't worry".

However, if someone said simply "I shall be back soon", I would take it for humorous over-precision. It would have an air of the theatrical. 

On the other hand, it wouldn't be as tiresome as a Captain Oates reference.

2) Shall I get some drinks in? => 
2a) Shall I get the drinks in?

"Some" doesn't sound right here; but 2a seems ok to me. (I'm interested in Jim's version: "Should I...")

3) You shall do exactly as I say!

This seems less natural than "You'll do what I say!" 

4) What shall we have for supper tonight? Any ideas?
4a) What shall we have to eat tonight?

4a sounds fine to me. 

MrP


----------



## Moogey

Hmm, there are quite a lot of opinions; too many for me to read.

I will say that I _do_ use it, but I'm confident that it's considered very fancy speech. It definitely wouldn't be heard in regular conversational English, at least in my area 

-M


----------



## Isotta

M56 said:
			
		

> Do you use these, or similar, in your variant of English?
> 
> 1) I shall be back soon, so don't worry.
> 
> 2) Shall I get some drinks in?
> 
> 3) You shall do exactly as I say!
> 
> 4) What shall we have for supper tonight? Any ideas?


My grandmother* from Appalachia would say all of these, with the exception of the third sentence, for she's frightening in a more discreet manner. I would use one and two, never three, and maybe four. It would depend on the sentence. I probably use "shall" in the first person as often as "will;" my usage does not follow the supposed shot-callers.

Z.

*She draws it out: shaaayl.


----------



## la reine victoria

Did Cinderella's Fairy Godmother say '_You shall go to the ball'?_


----------



## M56

timpeac said:
			
		

> Fine - I wasn't say it _was_ just "coz I say so", I was saying that without naming your source it is identical to saying "coz I say so" . Who is the main authority who supports this view?


 
Main authority? Why would you need a main authority to tell you how English is used?


----------



## river

Did the prince say "Shall we dance?"


----------



## M56

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Truth in packaging disclaimer: My answers are based on what I hear in the northeastern part of the US, typically among people who are not ashamed to read books other than popular fiction.
> 
> 1) I'll be back soon, don't worry.
> 1a) Don't worry, I'll be back soon.
> 
> 2) Incomprehensible at first...
> On reflection: Shall I get us some drinks?
> More common: Would anyone like a drink?
> 
> 3) You will do exactly as I say!
> 
> 4) What shall we have for supper tonight? Any ideas?


 
Thanks for showing me how it is used in your variant, cuchuflete. Interesting how you use shall in some of the above cases, but not in others.



			
				MrPedantic said:
			
		

> Hello M56
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Shall I get some drinks in? =>
> 2a) Shall I get the drinks in?
> 
> "Some" doesn't sound right here;
> 
> MrP


 

Really? Why is that?



			
				Moogey said:
			
		

> Hmm, there are quite a lot of opinions; too many for me to read.
> 
> I will say that I _do_ use it, but I'm confident that it's considered very fancy speech. It definitely wouldn't be heard in regular conversational English, at least in my area
> 
> -M


 
Which sentence are you referring to?



			
				Isotta said:
			
		

> My grandmother* from Appalachia would say all of these, with the exception of the third sentence, for she's frightening in a more discreet manner. I would use one and two, never three, and maybe four. It would depend on the sentence. I probably use "shall" in the first person as often as "will;" my usage does not follow the supposed shot-callers.
> 
> Z.
> 
> *She draws it out: shaaayl.


 
Many thanks, Isotta.



			
				la reine victoria said:
			
		

> Did Cinderella's Fairy Godmother say '_You shall go to the ball'?_


 
I hope so.


----------



## Moogey

M56 said:
			
		

> Which sentence are you referring to?


 
Sorry for not being specific, I meant the word itself 'shall'

I'd use all of these sentences because I often like to speak fancy 

-M


----------



## Isotta

M56 said:
			
		

> Main authority? Why would you need a main authority to tell you how English is used?



A lot forum members are big fans of dictionaries, grammars and linguistic studies.

I would be interested to see a source. I feel as though "will" and "shall" is becoming more arbitrary these days.

Z.


----------



## M56

Isotta said:
			
		

> A lot forum members are big fans of dictionaries, grammars and linguistic studies.
> 
> I would be interested to see a source. I feel as though "will" and "shall" is becoming more arbitrary these days.
> 
> Z.


 
You can look towards Michael Lewis or David Crystal if you like. Remember, I'm not prescribing anything, merely talking about the basic semantic meaning of "shall". That meaning may be lost, or unimportant, to some users - and that's fine.


----------



## M56

How about these? Do you use such?

- Shall we say around six?

- Billingsgate is, shall we say, a little tired.

- And all we shall have to do is to stick together and...

- There are exceptions, which we shall come to later. 

 - We hereby solemnly declare that we shall use no forcible means to apprehend, confine, or...

-  We shall have to wait and see


----------



## timpeac

M56 said:
			
		

> Main authority? Why would you need a main authority to tell you how English is used?


 
I don't need one to tell me how English is used, you need one to support your assertions. I see that you have been a member here for quite a few months - surely you have seen the wide-ranging and sometimes quite staggering differences in usage and opinion between foreros across the world and even between those from the same location. What is an obvious truism for you could be utter balderdash for someone else.

Apart from that, you seem to be attacking the subject from a serious point of view which is great but you need to be rigourous in your evidence.

In my personal experience of the British English speaking world "shall" is seldom used which is why I was interested in your opinion - and I do agree that the times it is used is often in the sentences you provide. And what about speakers, English and other, from other parts of the world - why would they take you at your word? Man is a suspicious beast and if you tell him something he has not heard before he will not believe you without evidence.

You seem to be making a conclusion and working back from there with your examples. I was interested in how you got to your conclusion in the first place (which I am certainly not saying is necessarily wrong just rather sweeping without, yes, evidence).

Edit - ah I see that Isotta had taken up the cause and you've answered her above with your sources. Thanks.

What was the sample they used to come to this conclusion?


----------



## M56

timpeac said:
			
		

> I don't need one to tell me how English is used, you need one to support your assertions. I see that you have been a member here for quite a few months - surely you have seen the wide-ranging and sometimes quite staggering differences in usage and opinion between foreros across the world and even between those from the same location. What is an obvious truism for you could be utter balderdash for someone else.
> 
> Apart from that, you seem to be attacking the subject from a serious point of view which is great but you need to be rigourous in your evidence.
> 
> In my personal experience of the British English speaking world "shall" is seldom used which is why I was interested in your opinion - and I do agree that the times it is used is often in the sentences you provide. And what about speakers, English and other, from other parts of the world - why would they take you at your word? Man is a suspicious beast and if you tell him something he has not heard before he will not believe you without evidence.
> 
> You seem to be making a conclusion and working back from there with your examples. I was interested in how you got to your conclusion in the first place (which I am certainly not saying is necessarily wrong just rather sweeping without, yes, evidence).
> 
> Edit - ah I see that Isotta had taken up the cause and you've answered her above with your sources. Thanks.
> 
> What was the sample they used to come to this conclusion?


 
<What is an obvious truism for you could be utter balderdash for someone else.>

And? I told you how things work in *my* variant. If you want to state that they do not work that way in my variant, do so. 

<Apart from that, you seem to be attacking the subject from a serious point of view which is great but you need to be rigourous in your evidence.>

Are you *rigorous* in your posts?

<And what about speakers, English and other, from other parts of the world - why would they take you at your word?>

They needn't, they can go search out other sources and then draw conclusions.

<You seem to be making a conclusion and working back from there with your examples. I was interested in how you got to your conclusion in the first place (which I am certainly not saying is necessarily wrong just rather sweeping without, yes, evidence).>

I got to my conclusion after 47 years of speaking and writing my variant, doing endless searches in various corpora and attending linguistics seminars all over the world. What experience of my variant do you have?

Let me suggest that you be more specific if you disagree with any description of the way we use "shall" in my variant. If not, you could be accused of trolling here.

Tell me *exactly *what it is that you disagree with regarding the conclusions I've reached regarding "shall" in *my* variant.


----------



## timpeac

M56 said:
			
		

> <What is an obvious truism for you could be utter balderdash for someone else.>
> 
> And? I told you how things work in *my* variant. If you want to state that they do not work that way in my variant, do so.


 
And if someone questions why you believe something then that is reasonable, and not normally a problem for people who know their subject. I do not wish to state they don't work that way in your variant, I wanted to know the evidence that leads you to believe what you do.


			
				M56 said:
			
		

> <Apart from that, you seem to be attacking the subject from a serious point of view which is great but you need to be rigourous in your evidence.>
> 
> Are you *rigorous* in your posts?


In the sense that I give the basis on which I am asserting something, particularly if someone asks me, yes.


			
				M56 said:
			
		

> <And what about speakers, English and other, from other parts of the world - why would they take you at your word?>
> 
> They needn't, they can go search out other sources and then draw conclusions.


 
Why should they have to? This forum is for all to learn in. If you have knowledge why shouldn't you just impart with with the basis on which you formed it?


			
				M56 said:
			
		

> <You seem to be making a conclusion and working back from there with your examples. I was interested in how you got to your conclusion in the first place (which I am certainly not saying is necessarily wrong just rather sweeping without, yes, evidence).>
> 
> I got to my conclusion after 47 years of speaking and writing my variant, doing endless searches in various corpora and attending linguistics seminars all over the world. What experience of my variant do you have?


 Fine. Now we are getting somewhere. "47 years of speaking my variant" comes down to "coz I say so" and we've been through that but your second point is more relevant - I have no reason to believe you are not a person of your word so that is compelling evidence. Wouldn't it have been easier to state that when first asked?


			
				M56 said:
			
		

> Let me suggest that you be more specific if you disagree with any description of the way we use "shall" in my variant. If not, you could be accused of trolling here.


I don't necessarily disagree with you. However I do not take bald statements at face value, which is why I asked you what evidence you had, no more no less. As for trolling, that is an accusation I take seriously, and frankly smacks of desperation. If you would like to complain to another mod you have my word that I will not intervene in trying to influence their conclusion or action. Since one aspect of trolling is making baseless (but not necessarily untrue comments) I suspect it may back-fire on you though.


			
				M56 said:
			
		

> Tell me *exactly *what it is that you disagree with regarding the conclusions I've reached regarding "shall" in *my* variant.


I think that this quote seems to encapsulate the problem here. At no point do I say I disagree with your conclusions. All I have done is ask on what basis you believe what you do. The offense that you have taken at what for most people is a simple and reasonable request is perplexing. I can only presume that you are used to people accepting what you say without question. Well we are all equal here and I'm afraid your word does not carry any more weight than anyone else's.

Anyway, what sample did Michael Lewis or David Crystal use in coming to this conclusion?


----------



## foxfirebrand

Could we be specific about whose variant is whose, here? Braised ribless standing roast of year-old grass-fed Hereford bullock, with a dash of Woostershire? Or are we in deepest urbanity here? What a delightful surprise to find out it was Cheshire we were talking about-- no jokes about disappearing cats, I swear, it's just that I have ancestors from Over Peover and I've always wondered how they said _anything_ with a straight face.

Enough shilly-shallying, then-- of which variant shall we speak? I'm serious about hoping it's Cheshire, in fact I'll start a pool and put two bucks on that choice. And please do say _where_ in Cheshire.

No, not a _Welsh_pool, that's in Montgomeryshire, well to the south and west.
.


----------



## M56

> I wanted to know the evidence that leads you to believe what you do.


 
And now you know, what next?



> In the sense that I give the basis on which I am asserting something, particularly if someone asks me, yes.


 
Ok, let's test that - if you don't mind. How would you advise upon the use of "shall" and "will"? What would be your sources?



> Why should they have to? This forum is for all to learn in. If you have knowledge why shouldn't you just impart with with the basis on which you formed it?


 
It isn't good advice to accept only one viewpoint regarding English usage. Students should consult a number of sources.



> I have no reason to believe you are not a person of your word so that is compelling evidence. Wouldn't it have been easier to state that when first asked?


 
Do you read all the posts in each thread? I have already supplied sources beyond your idea of "coz i say so". *You are going in circles here and filling this thread with off-topic discussion.* As I said, you either accept what I say about usage in my variant or you reject it and go elswhere. It's up to you. No obligation.



> I think that this quote seems to encapsulate the problem here. At no point do I say I disagree with your conclusions. All I have done is ask on what basis you believe what you do. The offense that you have taken at what for most people is a simple and reasonable request is perplexing. I can only presume that you are used to people accepting what you say without question. Well we are all equal here and I'm afraid your word does not carry any more weight than anyone else's.


 
I can see we need to end this discussion right here and now. 



> Anyway, what sample did Michael Lewis or David Crystal use in coming to this conclusion?


 
I gave you the names of two people that have discussed the meaning of "shall" and "will". Now you should do the reading. I cannot assist you more.


----------



## judkinsc

M56 said:
			
		

> ...
> I gave you the names of two people that have discussed the meaning of "shall" and "will". Now you should do the reading. I cannot assist you more.


 
You could quote them, provided you have access to them.  Apparently, you are familiar with them, whereas otheres are not.

Do you enjoy simply being argumentative?  Every post of yours is like this.


----------



## timpeac

M56 said:
			
		

> And now you know, what next?


Nothing. Thank you for finally answering my simple question all that time ago. It bears remembering that this was simply


> M56 - you may well be right, but... proof? source? What are you basing your opinion on?





			
				M56 said:
			
		

> Ok, let's test that - if you don't mind. How would you advise upon the use of "shall" and "will"? What would be your sources?


Why on earth are you so defensive? I have nothing to prove as I didn't make the initial assertion. If I make an assertion and you are uncertain of the basis I have made it on please feel free to ask and I shall do my best to clarify.


			
				M56 said:
			
		

> It isn't good advice to accept only one viewpoint regarding English usage. Students should consult a number of sources.


No, and especially one with no back-up of where the opinion comes from. However I wasn't suggesting they rely solely on your opinion, just that there is no reason that you should prevent them from relying on it at all by refusing to provide your sources.


			
				M56 said:
			
		

> Do you read all the posts in each thread? I have already supplied sources beyond your idea of "coz i say so". *You are going in circles here and filling this thread with off-topic discussion.* As I said, you either accept what I say about usage in my variant or you reject it and go elswhere. It's up to you. No obligation.


I have read all the posts in this thread. As a result of my initial question, my pressing the issue and someone else pressing the issue you finally gave two names who you claim would corroborate what you say. It is a non-sequitur to go from this to claiming I am going in circles. I am explaining to you why you need to provide some sort of back-up for your assertions which you don't seem to understand, not criticising the back-up you eventually provided. 

Surprisingly you still seem to think I should either accept or reject what you say simply based on the fact you have said it. Maybe I haven't been clear enough - you need to provide evidence for what you say because I don't know you and therefore do not have any preconceptions as to whether you are likely to spread gems of wisdom or clods of rubbish. This is precisely on topic because I am trying to get you to clarify your beliefs on the BE usage of "shall" which I believe is the title of this thread. Feel free to appeal to another mod if you think this is off-topic.


			
				M56 said:
			
		

> I can see we need to end this discussion right here and now.


We can leave it either when you decide you don't want to continue the discussion or all parties are satisfied that the issue is closed. Until that point it will remain open. Perhaps again I wasn't clear enough above. To save you the trouble of flicking back allow me to remind you -


> I can only presume that you are used to people accepting what you say without question. Well we are all equal here and I'm afraid your word does not carry any more weight than anyone else's.


The issue is not closed simply because you say so. 


			
				M56 said:
			
		

> I gave you the names of two people that have discussed the meaning of "shall" and "will". Now you should do the reading. I cannot assist you more.


Since this is the sum of the back-up you are willing to provide people can either judge your comments based on the fact this is all the back-up you are able to muster or they can go and check out the sources themselves, the choice is theirs.


----------



## M56

judkinsc said:
			
		

> You could quote them, provided you have access to them. Apparently, you are familiar with them, whereas otheres are not.
> 
> Do you enjoy simply being argumentative? Every post of yours is like this.


 
Excuse me, but I do not have ready access to the sources. If you like, you can search Google. The nanes of M Lewis and D Crystal do appear there often, but finding specific quotes may be time consuming.

As for "argumentative", yes, I will argue my case if challenged. I have already informed the questioner about the origin of my conclusions regarding "shall" and "will" in *my* variant. I feel I can do no more until he/she has accessed those sources and read in detail the explanations of "shall" and "will" there.

BTW, what sources did you use in your conclusions and advice giving regarding "shall" and "will"?


----------



## judkinsc

M56 said:
			
		

> BTW, what sources did you use in your conclusions and advice giving regarding "shall" and "will"?


Here:


> *the traditional rules**.* The traditional rules state that you use _shall_ to show what happens in the future only when _I_ or _we_ is the subject: _I shall_ (not _will_) _call you tomorrow. We shall_ (not _will_) _be sure to keep in touch._ _Will,_ on the other hand, is used with subjects in the second and third persons: _The comet will_ (not _shall_) _return in 87 years. You will_ (not _shall_) _probably encounter some heavy seas when you round the point._ However, you can use _will_ with a subject in the first person and _shall_ with a subject in the second or third person to express determination, promise, obligation, or permission, depending on the context. Mod edit: please limit quotations to 4 sentences so WR doesn't get into copyright battles.  Thanks, Cuchuflete


http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/056.html

And here is an explanation for odd Southern British uses:

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

I believe these explain my "rule" from the beginning of this thread, as well as your objections, M56.


----------



## M56

judkinsc said:
			
		

> Here:
> 
> 
> http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/056.html
> 
> Interesting how that item continues:
> 
> 
> *the reality**.* The English and some sticklers about usage are probably the only people who follow these rules, and then not with perfect consistency. In America, people who try to adhere to them run the risk of sounding pretentious or haughty. Americans normally use _will_ to express most of the senses reserved for _shall_ in British usage. Americans use _shall_ chiefly in first person invitations and questions that request an opinion or agreement, such as _Shall we go?,_ and in certain fixed expressions, such as _We shall overcome._ _ Mod edit: please limit quotations to 4 sentences so WR doesn't get into copyright battles.  Thanks, Cuchuflete_
> 
> 
> _..........._
> 
> And here we see how some variants still use the forms:
> 
> "When Sh. and W. retain the full original meanings of command and wish, each of them is used in all three persons, so far as it is required."
> 
> http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html


----------



## judkinsc

You asked for the rules; the rules and their source were quoted to you.

Modifications in colloquial and native usage are not "the rules".


----------



## foxfirebrand

Excuse me, but you still aren't answering my question, which was plenty friendly-- which variant are you talking about?  What region, dialect, whatever-- "Britain" hardly pins it down for me.

Questions don't get any simpler, and I'm disappointed to wake up this morning and find mine unanswered.  Note that I didn't ask for documentation.

If you're a native speaker of a specific place, and lived there much of your life, your personal authority would be taken much more at face value, or sight unseen.  Even if it's your style to state things categorically, to do so on behalf of the way English is spoken in the more rural environs of Runcorn is a sight more credibly brought off than pronouncements about the whole English-speaking world north of Normandy.

By dwelling on Cheshire, by the way, I'm not facetiously implying that you might be reticent out of shame for the region you hail from-- I have family from there myself, as I said.  In fact, so much family it's a wonder they left anybody behind to man the forts.
.


----------



## M56

judkinsc said:
			
		

> You asked for the rules; the rules and their source were quoted to you.
> 
> Modifications in colloquial and native usage are not "the rules".


 
It has been shown time and time again that traditional grammar concepts cannot always be trusted. 

"In linguistics, *traditional grammar* is a cover name for the collection of concepts and ideas about the structure of language that Western societies have received from ancient Greek and Roman sources. The term is used to distinguish these ideas from those of contemporary linguistics, which are intended to apply to a much broader range of languages, and *to correct a number of errors in traditional grammar."*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_grammar

I'm not a traditional grammarian - even though I realise its value in *helping* to understand English usage. I'm sure there's room for both the traditional grammarian and the modern linguist on this forum, isn't there?

--------

I see it this way:

"Linguistics is in many ways more descriptively rigorous, because it goes after accurate description as its own end. In traditional grammar, description is often only a means towards formulating usage advice. "

http://forum.wordreference.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=526742

Each to his/her own, I guess.


----------



## M56

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Excuse me, but you still aren't answering my question, which was plenty friendly-- which variant are you talking about? What region, dialect, whatever-- "Britain" hardly pins it down for me.
> 
> 
> .


 

Sorry about that, I didn't realise the question was directed at me. I'm from Saddleworth, Lancs. _Grammar schooled_ in the south of England during the mid-to-late 60s and early 70s. Trained as an actor at RADA and then worked in RSC for 5 years.


----------



## foxfirebrand

M56 said:
			
		

> Sorry about that, I didn't realise the question was directed at me. I'm from Saddleworth, Lancs. _Grammar schooled_ in the south of England during the mid-to-late 60s and early 70s. Trained as an actor at RADA and then worked in RSC for 5 years.


Thanks.  That makes you a linguistic hybrid for sure, if I'm not mistaken, a bit like me-- does the reference to schooling mean you ended up speaking RP?  

Which is not to imply you didn't start out that way.  I checked out http://multimap.co.uk to see if you were from anywhere near Scouse territory, but couldn't find a Saddleworth.  There's a Saddleworth Moor ten miles or so west of Manchester, but that would be too eerie-- Over Peover is the same scant difference to the south.  Cousin!

But across county lines, I see.  D'you think our ancestors spoke the same language?
/


----------



## river

In legal documents the _shalls_ and _shall nots_ mean that noncompliance could result in  fines, but the _wills_ and _will nots_ are nonpunitive instructions.


----------



## M56

> foxfirebrand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. That makes you a linguistic hybrid for sure, if I'm not mistaken, a bit like me-- does the reference to schooling mean you ended up speaking RP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in certain contexts (the theatre world and such.), but my family are originally from Ireland and I haven't lived in Britain for around 15 years.
> (Hey, do you think these posts will be deleted for being of topic and chatty?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not to imply you didn't start out that way. I checked out http://multimap.co.uk to see if you were from anywhere near Scouse territory, but couldn't find a Saddleworth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look for villages such as Delph, Uppermill and Dobcross. It's the _posh_ part of Oldham. Up in the Pennines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But across county lines, I see. D'you think our ancestors spoke the same language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If yours spoke Gaelic, then yes.
Click to expand...


----------



## cuchuflete

Ladies and Gents--

Wearing the floppy mod hat, may I ask you to refrain from the geography discussion and other off-topic stuff?  Thanks.

Cuchuflete


----------



## foxfirebrand

Well, it's borderline chatty but I say it goes to establishing your linguistic influences. The last long thread we had around here about _shall,_ I was surprised to find out the shall/will distinction was nowhere near as hardy in BE as I'd assumed all these years. People from different regions opined about it, and I now have the impression that the old forms are on pretty shaky legs.

I do have some gaelic-speaking ancestors, but you have to go back before Hastings to find them. Most of my British ancestors spoke a mangled form of Medieval French, then grunted out a simulacrum of Middle English-- even the ones who lived in Ireland. Just as we were getting the hang of early Modern English, along came Cromwell and we had to ford the great Pond and take up digs elsewhere. 

To bring this back on-topic, I imagine the Roundheads rid the language of _shall-_holdouts, by the herd. Or maybe not. Whatever else we may say about shall/will, the distinction they draw is a relic of the OE component of English, not the French or Celtic.

edit:
Guess I was writing this as you were posting your admonition, Cuchu-- hope I don't have any chalk on my shoe from stepping on the sideline.
.


----------



## cuchuflete

FFB- I detect no shoechalk. Obviously you've become adept at dancing fast. No surprise when one has lots of experience with people shooting at one's feet?

So, for those lacking your ancestry, could you translate the geography into a simple statement of what "my variant" means. I'm lost between town names, and despite a careful reading of the entire thread, I can't figure out what variant the lady/gentleman is talking about.

thanks,
Cuchu


----------



## moodywop

I don't know if it is of any interest but most grammar books aimed at foreign learners usually state that in AE "shall" is hardly ever used to express the future and that its use is mainly restricted to legal documents or to "shall I/we..?"(where, however, it is often replaced by "should I/we..?"). This may be oversimplified but a similar description of AE usage can be found in an academic grammar - _A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, _by R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik(Longman).

As far as BE is concerned, here are two quotes from _CGEL: _

" Especially in BrE, prescriptive tradition forbids _will _as a future auxiliary with _I _or _we, _but this prescription is old-fashioned and is nowadays widely ignored"

"_You shall do exactly as I say...._In these cases _shall _is archaic and "authoritarian" in tone"


----------



## MrPedantic

Hello M56

1. Shall we say around six?

— I wouldn't myself use this. 

2. Billingsgate is, shall we say, a little tired.

— no; too arch.


3. And all we shall have to do is to stick together and...

— no; the "shall" sounds out of place here. Simply "all we have to do".

4. There are exceptions, which we shall come to later. 

— no; "...will come to later".

5. We hereby solemnly declare that we shall use no forcible means to apprehend, confine, or...

— sounds ok.


6. We shall have to wait and see.

— no; "...will have to".

In reply to your earlier question about:

2) Shall I get some drinks in? => 2a) Shall I get the drinks in?

"Some" doesn't sound quite right here because "some drinks" implies "not necessarily drinks for everyone".

MrP

Edit: "southern counties British English". I wouldn't say my choices were unusual, for this region.


----------



## M56

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> Hello M56
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Shall we say around six?
> 
> — I wouldn't myself use this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. BTW, that "wouldn't myself" sounds a bit odd to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Billingsgate is, shall we say, a little tired.
> 
> — no; too arch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, up to a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. And all we shall have to do is to stick together and...
> 
> — no; the "shall" sounds out of place here. Simply "all we have to do".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But where's the fururity in the "all we have to do"? Without "shall", it could be referring to the present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reply to your earlier question about:
> 
> 2) Shall I get some drinks in? => 2a) Shall I get the drinks in?
> 
> "Some" doesn't sound quite right here because "some drinks" implies "not necessarily drinks for everyone".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see. In my variant it implies "a few drinks for those among us who want one". It's the same as "who would like a drink?"
> 
> Thanks, Mr P.
Click to expand...


----------



## MrPedantic

MrPedantic said:


> Hello M56
> 
> ...
> 
> Edit: "southern counties British English". I wouldn't say my choices were unusual, for this region.


 
I came across this thread today and wondered whether that last statement was slightly misleading; although those choices aren't "unusual", "shall" is still quite often used to form ordinary future tenses in the first person, in standard southern British English.

MrP


----------

