# should have talked or would talk



## joygogo

There are 4 choices for the following question originally, but I cross out the other two.  The answer is (a), but how about (b)?  Could it be an acceptable one?

I was shocked that he _____ to me in such a rude manner.

(a) should have talked   (b) would talk


----------



## roxcyn

Hi joygogo!  Could you tell us the source and do you have any more context for the sentence?  Thank you!


----------



## joygogo

Hi, roxcyn,

It's a test question on English grammar.  I just copy as it is on the test paper.


----------



## roxcyn

Okay, thanks joygogo!  I don't agree with the answer given by the test book because you're stating a fact: he talked to me in such a rude manner.  I would use the simple past:

"I was shocked that he *talked* to me in such a rude manner."

"Could have" or "would have" can work, too:

"I was shocked that he *could/would have talked* to me in such a rude manner."

Does it say why they selected "should have"?  Also, what were the other options?


----------



## joygogo

Hi, roxcyn,

No, there is no explanation but the answer.  The other choices are (c) shouldn't have talked  (d) needn't have talked

Does "should" imply "How dare!" here?


----------



## roxcyn

"should have" is a synonym of "ought to".  

Do you think it sounds okay with "should have talked"?


----------



## joygogo

Hi, roxcyn,

Let me give you another two sentences first.

(1) I'm sorry it *should* be this way.

(2) It's strange that he *should* be absent.

Do the two sentences make sense to you?

The mood or the tone of *should* in them is what I meant "how dare".  

So, the 4 choices for that question are not given properly, are they?


----------



## joygogo

One more sentence

(3) It is strange that he *should* have done such a thing.

How do you express that tone?


----------



## roxcyn

Should is a helping verb and means that it's a good idea, advisable or "ought to".  Your first two examples sound okay.  The third one doesn't sound right.  I would say "he could/would".  However, maybe another member can help you to see if they agree with my assessment.


----------



## joygogo

So, you've never used or heard of any sentence like Example 3?

Well, "It is strange that he *would* have done such a thing" sounds fine to me, but "It is strange that he* could* have done such a thing" sounds odd to me.  Any nuance between them?


----------



## joygogo

Hi, Roxcyn,


How about the two following sentences which I copy from my Chinese-English grammar book.  Do they sound OK to you?

(4) It is surprising that he *should* be so foolish.

(5) It is natural that he *should *have treated her so well.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, joy.

In formal British English, _should_ is used in _that_-clauses after nouns or adjectives expressing the importance of some event, action, etc. Some call it "putative" should.
That said, all your numbered sentences are perfectly correct and idiomatic. 
In the US they usually prefer the so-called present Subjunctive, which is nothing but the base for of the verb for all persons: e.g., "It's surprising that he be so foolish", etc.
As for the meaning of "should", I don't think it has anything to do with "how dare...?". Rather, I believe the modal _should_ is used to reassert and strengthen the semantics of the preceding adjective (important, necessary, essential, etc.), verb (recommend, etc.): "I strongly recommend that he (should) contact Mr Parish". 

GS


----------



## DonnyB

I agree with Giorgio 

All five of the sentences are natural in British English, conveying the "mood" commonly expressed in other languages by the use of the subjunctive.  The use of "should" here *doesn't *convey the sense of _ought to _or _dare to._


----------



## joygogo

Hi, Giorgio Spizzi,




> In the US they usually prefer the so-called present Subjunctive, which is nothing but the base for of the verb for all persons: e.g., "It's surprising that he be so foolish", etc.



Let me make sure what you said--"It's surprising that he *should *be so foolish" is perfect British English, but Americans tend to omit *should* in _that-clause_?



> That said, all your numbered sentences are perfectly correct and idiomatic.
> 
> As for the meaning of "should", I don't think it has anything to do with "how dare...?".



I have no problem with the general usages of "should", including the sentence you gave here "I strongly recommend that he (should) contact Mr. Parish".  However, as far as the above sentences (1) to (4) are concerned, the tone of them is very different from that of the others which imply "to say or ask what is the correct or best thing to do".  And sorry, I have to admit "how dare!" is not a good term to express the mode here.  Instead, maybe I should say the tone of the 4 sentences is to express "to speaker's surprise; unexpectedly; unbelievably".  What do you think?


----------



## joygogo

Hi, DonnyB,



> The use of "should" here *doesn't *convey the sense of _ought to _or _dare to._



Exactly!  That's what I think, but in your opinion, what kind of sense do Sentences (1) to (4) convey?


----------



## DonnyB

They're all emotional reactions on the speaker's part - regret, surprise, shock (in the original sentence).  Other similar ones might be fear, annoyance, disappointment or unhappiness. These are commonly conveyed in other languages by the use of a tense of the subjunctive, but in modern English the expressions "should" and "would" are used instead.
So we'd say for example: "I'm disappointed that *you should be *so reluctant to listen.


----------



## RM1(SS)

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> In the US they usually prefer the so-called present Subjunctive, which is nothing but the base for of the verb for all persons: e.g., "It's surprising that he be so foolish", etc.


Actually, most Americans I know would substitute "would" for "should."


----------



## roxcyn

Getting back to the example, do you guys agree it should be: "I was shocked that he _should have talked_ to me in such a rude manner."?  Or would/_could_ "_would have talked_" be better?


----------



## DonnyB

I think "*should have talked*" is a better alternative for conveying the underlying subjunctive usage here.  Of the other two "*would have talked*" might work, but "*could have talked*" implies to me that he didn't (talk).


----------



## joygogo

Hi, RM1(SS),



> "It's surprising that he be so foolish"
> 
> Actually, most Americans I know would substitute "would" for "should."



So, "It's surprising that he (should) be so foolish" and "It's surprising that he should have been so foolish" are grammatically correct, but in the US, you guys prefer to use "It's surprising that he would be/would have been so foolish"?


----------



## joygogo

Hi, roxcyn,

Thanks for bring the discussion back to the original sentence.


----------



## RM1(SS)

In my experience, _should_ is most commonly used in AE with the meaning "ought to."  I remember my ninth-grade English teacher went on and on about the difference between _would_ and _should_ (with its non-"ought to" meaning), but I never could get it straight - in part, I'm sure, because no one I knew actually used _should_ in that manner.


----------



## joygogo

Hi, DonnyB,

I think it is the 4 choices of the test question that limits the all possible answers we can think of.  What you guys said makes sense to me.  It's very nice to have you all in this discussion.  Thank each of you.  You are so helpful!


----------



## joygogo

Hi, RM1(SS),

Thank you for sharing me your experience.


----------



## EStjarn

I think the key here is that you're being taught British English. In some aspects, British English and American English are different. You have stumbled upon one of those aspects: the putative 'should'. That's why option a) - 'should have talked' - seems foreign to AmE speakers while natural to BrE speakers.

(I agree that 'would' would also be correct in the topic sentence.)


----------



## joygogo

Hola, EStjarn,




> In some aspects, British English and American English are different. You have stumbled upon one of those aspects: the putative 'should'. That's why option a) - 'should have talked' - seems foreign to AmE speakers while natural to BrE speakers.
> 
> (I agree that 'would' would also be correct in the topic sentence.)



Oh, I see.  Thank you for telling me this by pointing it out.


----------



## Hissemar

I personally apologize to the monarchy because as an Australian I've only heard the "should have talked to me" in English Literature because here "Should" is only EVer used as in "ought to" and "Should Have" usually sounds like "Shoulda". I wish we all spoke correct British English because nearly everyone says "Shoulda" Which may mean "Should have" or "Should of" but they still have completely different completely different meanings. In short although we supposedly learn British English if you learn English as a second language and come here you will probably speak it better English than most Australians. God save the Queens colonies.


----------



## Phil-Olly

I have always been confused about "should" and "would".

My mother (i.e. an older generation even than me!) tended to use "should" in this sense:

"I should have thought it was obvious."

To me, the word "should" seemed to imply "ought to" although I knew she didn't mean that.

I would have said, "I would have thought ...."

A friend of mine suggested that at one time  "should" and "would" exactly corresponded to "shall" and "will", i.e.
"should" for first person singular and plural, "would" for second and third persons.

Does anyone know if that's true?


----------



## roxcyn

Phil-Olly there are a lot of grammar sources about should versus would.  Yes, "should" is the past form of "shall", and "would" is the one for "will".  "Could" is the one for "can."  
About.com Grammar page includes "Should and Would": http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/shouldgloss.htm
BBC.co.uk "Learning English" describes the differences between: will, shall, would and should: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv43.shtml


----------



## DonnyB

Phil-Olly said:


> A friend of mine suggested that at one time  "should" and "would" exactly corresponded to "shall" and "will", i.e.
> "should" for first person singular and plural, "would" for second and third persons.
> 
> Does anyone know if that's true?


It's certainly "true" in the sense that this is what I was taught at school (and presumably everyone else was as well in those days).  "Shall/should" was the correct form for the first person and "will/would" for the second and third.  So if writing a letter, for example, the correct combimation was "I *should* be grateful if you *will*...".


----------



## joygogo

Hi, Phil-Olly,



> A friend of mine suggested that at one time "should" and "would" exactly corresponded to "shall" and "will", i.e.
> "should" for first person singular and plural, "would" for second and third persons.
> 
> Does anyone know if that's true?



Yes, that's what I was taught!


----------



## joygogo

Hi, roxcyn,

Thank you very much for finding such great links for us!  You are so helpful!


----------



## joygogo

Hi, DonnyB,



> It's certainly "true" in the sense that this is what I was taught at school (and presumably everyone else was as well in those days).



Yes, so was I.  




> So if writing a letter, for example, the correct combimation was "I *should* be grateful if you *will*...".



But I prefer to write "I *will *be grateful if you* could*..." because it sounds less formal and as the same as polite.  Am I right?


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, joy.

I don't think it's a very good idea. Can you "promise your _gratitude_" for the other person's _ability_ to do something? 

GS


----------



## joygogo

Hello, GS,

Thanks for your reply. So, the best way to say it is as DonnyB's suggestion:"I *should* be grateful if you *will*..."? What if I use "I *shall *be grateful if you *would*..."? Is that acceptable and does it sound more polite?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

roxcyn said:


> [...]  Yes, "should" is the past form of "shall", and "would" is the one for "will".


Hello Roxcyn,

I worry that people may find this misleading.

I wonder if you could possibly explain what you mean, please.


----------



## roxcyn

From the WR dictionary: shall is the past tense of should: "vb  ( past should)" (see: http://www.wordreference.com/definition/should).  Of course, the words are used in other senses, too.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

roxcyn said:


> From the WR dictionary: shall is the past tense of should: "vb  ( past should)" (see: http://www.wordreference.com/definition/should).  Of course, the words are used in other senses, too.





roxcyn said:


> Originally Posted by *roxcyn*
> [...]  Yes, "should" is the past form of "shall", and "would" is the one for "will".


Thank you , Roxcyn, but we seem deeper in the mire now.  Three questions:

1.  Why does one sentence say_ form_ and the other _tense_?

2.  Why does the first say that _shall_ is the past of _should_, and the second say what looks like the opposite, that _should_ is the past of_ shall_?  Do you really think that either is correct?

3.  Can a verb form which has no infinitive (we don't say _to should_) have a past tense?

Learners find _would_'s and _could_'s and _might_'s and _may_'s exceptionally difficult in English, so I feel we need to be extremely clear about them.


----------



## roxcyn

Hi Thomas!
1) Yes, "past tense (form)".  That's what I meant. I do apologize, and no I'm not trying to confuse the English learners out there.  
2)  That's what the dictionary says that shall is the past tense of should.  As we see above, the verb forms "should", and "would" are used in other situations other than the past tense.  
3)  The future forms are "shall" and "will".  They are usually followed by other verbs: "I will do it."


----------



## joygogo

Hi, roxcyn,

Happy New Year!



> I do apologize, and no I'm not trying to confuse the English learners out there.



   I believe in you.  You are very helpful.




> 2) That's what the dictionary says that *shall* is the past tense of *should*.



But when I clicked the link, what I saw is "*should* /ʃʊd/ vb    the past tense of *shall*" 


By the way, would you please take a look at the question I posted on #35?


----------



## joygogo

Hello, Thomas Tompion,

Happy New Year!



> 1. Why does one sentence say_ form_ and the other _tense_?
> 
> 3. Can a verb form which has no infinitive (we don't say _to should_) have a past tense?



You asked two good questions that I have never thought about too much.    But I think of a good example for your Question One.  Take "be" for example.  Its form for the present tense can be "am", "are" or "is".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Thank you very much, Roxcyn.

I know you are not trying to confuse learners.  These things are difficult for them and natural for natives, and we need to be very careful what we say.

There is no sense I can think of in which the first part of your 2) is true.  When the dictionary says of _shall_, *vb**  ( past should)*, I'm sure it means that _should_ can be a past form of _shall_, and not the contrary.  The _vb_ means that we are dealing with verbal forms.

I think that to say that _should_ is the past form of _shall_ is liable to be misleading because it often isn't true.  Take this sentence for instance:

a. _I am saying that I shall be there at eight o'clock._

Put it into the past:

 b. _I was saying that I would be there at eight o'clock._

The sentence which the WR dictionary seems to suggest is correct - _I was saying that I should be there at eight o'clock_ - introduces an element of uncertainty not present in b.

I expect that there are circumstances in which _should_ can be the past form of _shall_, but not vice versa.  What caused me to draw your attention to the matter was the suggestion that we were dealing simply with two forms, one the present and the other the past.  Learners need to know that it's more complicated than that.


----------



## DonnyB

Thomas Tompion said:


> I think that to say that _should_ is the past form of _shall_ is liable to be misleading because it often isn't true.  Take this sentence for instance:
> 
> a. _I am saying that I shall be there at eight o'clock._
> 
> Put it into the past:
> 
> b. _I was saying that I would be there at eight o'clock._


At the risk of confusing everyone still further, I would beg to disagree with you over this.  The way I was taught to do the tenses here is this:

a. _I am saying that I shall be there at eight o'clock. _Put it into the past: _I was saying that I *should* be there at eight o'clock.
b. I am saying that I *will *be there at eight o'clock. _Put it into the past:  _I was saying that I would be there at eight o'clock.

_I am, of course, casting my mind back to the days when schoolboys were taught that it was correct to use the "sh-" forms for the first person and the "w-" for the second and third person.  As I indeed mentioned in post #30.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

joygogo said:


> But when I clicked the link, what I saw is "*should* /ʃʊd/ vb    the past tense of *shall*"
> 
> 
> By the way, would you please take a look at the question I posted on #35?


Hello Joygogo,

I think you are using the words _tense_ and _form_ correctly in your post.

I looked at your question in #35.  Briefly, I'd say this:

1.  Are you clear whether you are learning American English or British English?  They are rather different in their use of these auxiliaries.  I speak BE, so anything I say is applicable to BE, and may not be correct in AE.

2.  When Donny suggests "_I_ _should be grateful if you will.._.", I'd find your suggestion _"I should be grateful if you would..._" much more likely and less peremptory in tone.  But maybe you wish to sound peremptory, in which case Donny's suggestion is better.

3.  This whole matter is complicated.  Many of the members contributing here, and I'm not exempting myself in this, are amateurs: they lack experience teaching this issue.  My advice is to treat what they say with a great deal of scepticism, remembering to note whether they speak BE or AE, and to have more faith in a good grammar book written by a competent professional, than trust implicitly what is posted by members here.


----------



## joygogo

Hi, DonnyB,



> The way I was taught to do the tenses here is this:
> 
> a. _I am saying that I shall be there at eight o'clock. _Put it into the past: _I was saying that I *should* be there at eight o'clock.
> b. I am saying that I *will *be there at eight o'clock. _Put it into the past: _I was saying that I would be there at eight o'clock.
> 
> _



Yes, I agree with you.  That's what I was taught.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

DonnyB said:


> At the risk of confusing everyone still further, I would beg to disagree with you over this.  The way I was taught to do the tenses here is this:
> 
> a. _I am saying that I shall be there at eight o'clock. _Put it into the past: _I was saying that I *should* be there at eight o'clock.
> b. I am saying that I *will *be there at eight o'clock. _Put it into the past:  _I was saying that I would be there at eight o'clock.
> 
> _I am, of course, casting my mind back to the days when schoolboys were taught that it was correct to use the "sh-" forms for the first person and the "w-" for the second and third person.  As I indeed mentioned in post #30.


Hello Donny,

Do you think that what you were taught is true now?

Don't you sense a possible doubt in *I was saying that I should be there*, which is not present in *I am saying that I shall be there*?  The deontic_ should_ can easily be understood over the epistemic one these days, in my view.

You suggest ('casting my mind back') that people don't talk like that any more.  In this question, I'm interested in how people talk now.


----------



## DonnyB

Thomas Tompion said:


> Do you think that what you were taught is true now?


I'd have said probably not.  But then the inference from joygogo's post #45 is that it still is.  So I don't know.


> Don't you sense a possible doubt in *I was saying that I should be there*, which is not present in *I am saying that I shall be there*?  The deontic_ should_ can easily be understood over the epistemic one these days, in my view.


I agree that there is nowadays often an element of doubt over the precise meaning of "should" owing to its widespread use as being synonymous with ought to.  I suspect, though, that in most cases it's going to be obvious from the context.  



> You suggest ('casting my mind back') that people don't talk like that any more.  In this question, I'm interested in how people talk now.


That being the case, I'm curious as to why you chose for your example "I shall" rather than the more commonly-used (in my estimation) "I will".  It was what I saw as the mix of formats in that sentence which I was afraid was liable to give rise to possible confusion in peoples' minds over the correct way to render the tense combinations there.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hi Donny,

Many thanks for your post.

If you agree with me that it's not true, then I don't think we should be talking about it much.  Joygogo has received the impression that it's true from what has been said, and we need to make it clear to her that it isn't.

It's easy to explain why I chose an example using *I shall*: I was busy trying to show that *I should* is not always the past form of* I shall*.  Clearly to do this I had to choose an example which used *I shall.*  I don't doubt that I could have found a better example, but one which used *I will* rather than* I shall *obviously would not have served my purpose.


----------



## joygogo

Hi, Thomas Tompion,

It's very interesting to read the discussion between you and DonnyB.  But don't worry about me, I finally came to realize your point and I do know that the word *should* has other usages.  



> 1. Are you clear whether you are learning American English or British English? They are rather different in their use of these auxiliaries. I speak BE, so anything I say is applicable to BE, and may not be correct in AE.



We learn American English mainly.



> My advice is to treat what they say with a great deal of scepticism, remembering to note whether they speak BE or AE, and to have more faith in a good grammar book written by a competent professional, than trust implicitly what is posted by members here.



Thanks for your advice.  I will keep that in mind.  Well, what good grammar book(s) are you using or are adopted by most schools in England?


----------

