# I should [British English]



## lancer99

I hope the mods won't delete this question out of hand -- I've searched the forums and can't find an answer to this question.

One of my UK buds has what seems an unusual use of the phrase "I should," by which he means "YOU should," or maybe "If I were you, I would..."


Me:  "It's raining and I see you have your umbrella.  Do you think I should bring mine?"
Friend:  "I should."

Me: "My company offered me a pay rise if I move to the Outer Hebrides."
Friend:  "I should think about that carefully."

Do I just have an odd friend or is that usage more widespread?

Thanks, cheers, and ta


----------



## lucas-sp

Funny that you ask, when pretty much the same thing is going on over here: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2320207

In BE, "I should" can stand in for "I *would*" - which is completely allowable in AE in this same context ("Should I do X?" "I sure would."). I think it's relatively common in BE.


----------



## lancer99

It was that thread that reminded me.....maybe it's a simple substitution of "I would," but none of my other UK friends  used the same construction, so I was curious as to whether that was common or not.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Where is your BE friend from? Is he an older speaker?
This sounds completely strange to me but could be regional or if not maybe a bit archaic and used in different circles to the ones I find myself in.


----------



## Pertinax

I too wonder how common "I should" is in present-day BrE, compared to "I would".

In Fowler 1926, the forms "I will" and "I would" (outside their nuanced use) were considered _a mark of Scottish, Irish, provincial, or extra-British idiom_.

Yet Coates 1983 (Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries, p221) states that _"I should" is, in defiance of prescriptive opinion, the less common first person form_.

My impression is that "I should" has continued to decline.


----------



## lancer99

Alxmrphi said:


> Where is your BE friend from? Is he an older speaker?
> This sounds completely strange to me but could be regional or if not maybe a bit archaic and used in different circles to the ones I find myself in.



Grew up in Devon, married to a Durhamite (I only mention that because it might be an influence), age around the half-century mark.  Not posh, but he doesn't say "oi, guv" either.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

The ngrams suggest that_ I should_ has been declining for some time, where_ I would_ has remained pretty constant. The ngrams only reflect the written language, of course, and there's no division between BE and AE, though I imagine that the %ages of the two languages in Google books is different in different periods.


----------



## ewie

Hullo Lancer.  Are you more interested in the fact that your friend says *I* when he means *you*? or in the fact that he says _I *should*_ when you'd expect him to say _I *would*_?

I certainly do the first of these


----------



## Thomas Tompion

So do I, Mr E.


----------



## Andygc

I should jolly well hope so too. I may be gradually becoming archaic, but I still use _I should_ and _I shall_, and _I should_ be sorry to see them die out.


----------



## PaulQ

There is a common construction in BE, "I should, if I were you." 

Me:  "It's raining and I see you have your umbrella.  Do you think I should bring mine?"
Friend:  "I should [bring yours, if I were you.]"

Me: "My company offered me a pay rise if I move to the Outer Hebrides."
Friend:  "I should think about that carefully, [if I were you.]"

I should is simply the ellipsis.

* Shall, *as the form of *will, *in the 1st person singular and plural, is still heard frequently.


----------



## ewie

PaulQ said:


> Me:  "It's raining and I see you have your umbrella.  Do you think I should bring mine?"
> Friend:  "I should [bring yours, if I were you.]"
> 
> Me: "My company offered me a pay rise if I move to the Outer Hebrides."
> Friend:  "I should think about that carefully, [if I were you.]"


The reason I asked the question in post #8 is that I'd respond to both of these with _I *would*_, not _I *should*_


----------



## lancer99

ewie said:


> Hullo Lancer.  Are you more interested in the fact that your friend says *I* when he means *you*? or in the fact that he says _I *should*_ when you'd expect him to say _I *would*_?
> 
> I certainly do the first of these


I can't really separate them out...I just remember how striking his use of the phrase "I should" was.  Maybe he used other phrases where *I* meant *you* or _*shou*_*ld* meant _*would*_ but they probably passed under this AE speaker's radar.


----------



## lancer99

PaulQ said:


> There is a common construction in BE, "I should, if I were you."
> 
> Me:  "It's raining and I see you have your umbrella.  Do you think I should bring mine?"
> Friend:  "I should [bring yours, if I were you.]"
> 
> Me: "My company offered me a pay rise if I move to the Outer Hebrides."
> Friend:  "I should think about that carefully, [if I were you.]"
> 
> I should is simply the ellipsis.
> 
> * Shall, *as the form of *will, *in the 1st person singular and plural, is still heard frequently.



Is it really common?  The reason I ask is that I had a fair number of friends when I lived in the UK, and only one used this construction.


----------



## Phil-Olly

I think it's common - but maybe it's a generational thing.

Perhaps it was also considered more polite at one time to say "(If I were you) I should do the following...." than the clearly directive "You should do the following ...."

Notice that in the first example "should" is very definitely conditional, whereas these days to say "this is what you should do" appears equivalent to "you must do this."


----------



## Loob

lancer99 said:


> Is it really common?


Unlike Phil and PaulQ, I'd say it's no longer common. On the other hand, I don't think I'd raise my eyebrows in astonishment if I heard "I should" for "I would", and I suppose I _might_ even say it myself on the odd occasion.

In both PaulQ's post 11 examples, though, my overwhelming inclination would be to use "would".


----------



## PaulQ

As it is advice, politely given but to be accepted, *should *works where *would* wouldn't.


----------



## Loob

PaulQ said:


> As it is advice, politely given but to be accepted, *should *works where *would* wouldn't.


I really don't understand your point, Paul.  Can you explain in different words?


----------



## PaulQ

Are you asking for the difference between *would *and *should*?


----------



## Loob

I'm asking what you meant by your comment:





PaulQ said:


> As it is advice, politely given but to be accepted, *should *works where *would* wouldn't.


I'm asking because I don't understand your comment.
More broadly, I don't understand why you feel "should" works rather than "would" in the OP's examples and in your examples in post 11.
Are you suggesting, perhaps, that in your usage "I should do X" is more polite than "I would do X"?


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

I believe "should" is still alive and kicking (if you forgive the cliché) and wonder why some think it's being superseded by "would". The two modal auxiliaries have different functions in the sentence and contribute different meanings to utterances. What follows is a short, hardly representative list of uses of should where I wouldn't dream of substituting "would":

1. I've recently come to the conclusion that I should study the uses of Arabic tenses in greater depth.
2. What should I do, do you think? Call her and tell her perhaps?
3. In case you shouldn't find me, tell my wife.
4. I know that I ought to tell him about his cancer, but should I?

and then some.

Happy Christmas everyone!.

GS


----------



## Loob

I have no problem with your examples, Giorgio.

In (1), (2) and (4) "should" means "ought to"; in (3), it's a 'subjunctive substitute'.

I don't think that's what we're talking about here - we're talking about "I would"/"I should" as a straightforward conditional....

Merry Christmas to you too!


----------



## PaulQ

Ah! 

I should [do this if I were you] = Yes, you would be well-advised to do this, (and I am advising you to do so.)
I would [do this if I were you] = Yes, this is what I would do in your position, (but I am not making a judgement on your future actions, so you are free to make up your own mind.)


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Using "I *should* ( if I were you)" when "I *would *( if I were you)" might be expected, strikes me as fine, nothing wrong or unusual about it. I can't say how common it is, nor can I say which I might use, or choose, dependent on context. I'd say it's some relic of that ghastly _" I/We shall/will_ and _everybody else_ _"will/shall" _business, largely irrelevant in functional grammar  and massively obscured by the similar contractions, I'll/We'll.
I think it might be generational and I think it might be dying out. Maybe when I do use it, I do so a little self -consciously, in a slightly 'posh' accent.

Perhaps I say "I *would" *when I am being more definite. 

"My partner beats me up regularly. Shall I leave her?"
"I *would*!" (Most definitely!)

"The forecast is rain. We're going on a picnic. Shall I take my umbrella or not?"
"I should."

Possible sub-text: "What sort of daft question is this? If I were you I would be taking my umbrella. I would be saying to myself "I shall definitely take my umbrella because the forecast is rain". I would not be asking other people what I should do. If I were you, I'd be saying "I'll take my umbrella". This is also the contraction for "I shall take my umbrella" So, my answer to you is that "I would be saying to myself 'I shall definitely take my umbrella' Since I am not you, I will say "I should _(take my umbrella if I were you)"
_
Or something like that - just call it an "idiom" 


Be happy!

Hermione


----------



## Loob

PaulQ said:


> Ah!
> 
> I should [do this if I were you] = Yes, you would be well-advised to do this, (and I am advising you to do so.)
> I would [do this if I were you] = Yes, this is what I would do in your position, (but I am not making a judgement on your future actions, so you are free to make up your own mind.)


Thanks, Paul.

I confess, the distinction you draw isn't one I would draw....  To me, _I should do this if I were you _and_ I would do this if I were you_ have exactly the same meaning: it's just that one is more common than the other.





Hermione Golightly said:


> I'd say it's some relic of that ghastly _" I/We shall/will_ and _everybody else_ _"will/shall" _business, largely irrelevant in functional grammar  and massively obscured by the similar contractions, I'll/We'll.
> I think it might be generational and I think it might be dying out.  Maybe when I do use it, I do so a little self -consciously, in a  slightly 'posh' accent.


I agree with Hermione


----------



## PaulQ

100% with George:

On seeing an interesting gadget:
"I would have one of those." I desire one of those and would not feel out of place with one. 
"I should have one of those" By rights, I should own/be given one of those." argument of compulsion/necessity.
"I ought to have one of those" "My life would be enhanced by one of those." moral argument


----------



## Thomas Tompion

PaulQ said:


> 100% with George:
> 
> On seeing an interesting gadget:
> "I would have one of those." I desire one of those and would not feel out of place with one.
> "I should have one of those" By rights, I should own/be given one of those." argument of compulsion/necessity.
> "I ought to have one of those" "My life would be enhanced by one of those." moral argument


Hi Paul,

I don't think we are considering this sort of case, are we? I thought the question concerned the straightforward conditional tense, and whether _I should_ or_ I would_ were true alternative forms.

I don't think anyone would contest that we use_ I should _to express things like moral obligation and necessity and in a variety of modal (non-conditional) uses where _I would_ is inappropriate, and I don't think that's the issue.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

A moral obligation to take an umbrella?

Hermione


----------



## Loob

OK, let's summarise.....

The older version of the conditional tense paradigm was _I should, you would, he would, we should, you would, they would_. {"Should", here, is to be distinguished from "should = ought to" or "should = 'subjunctive substitute'.}

For most people - both BrE and AmE speakers - , this "I/we should" has now been overtaken by "would" in all persons.

Paul, uniquely, seems to feel that conditional "I should" has a different meaning from conditional "I would".

I don't see it, myself.  But I'll be interested to know whether anyone else sees it...


----------



## cicikuş

Is it a new trend that native English speakers ask here many questons?


----------



## Loob

cicikuş said:


> Is it a new trend that native English speakers ask here many questons?


No, not particularly, cicikuş.  This forum is about English usage: it's open to native English speakers as well as speakers of other languages.


----------



## PaulQ

The original post (OP)





lancer99 said:


> One of my UK buds has what seems an unusual use of the phrase "I  should," by which he means "YOU should," or maybe "If I were you, I  would..."
> 
> Me:  "It's raining and I see you have your umbrella.  Do you think I should bring mine?"
> Friend:  "I should."
> 
> Me: "My company offered me a pay rise if I move to the Outer Hebrides."
> Friend:  "I should think about that carefully."





Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi Paul,
> 
> I don't think we are considering this sort of case, are we? I thought  the question concerned the straightforward conditional tense, and  whether _I should_ or_ I would_ were true alternative forms.


I agree, and showing they are not is important to the answer.





> I don't think anyone would contest that we use_ I should _to express things like moral obligation and necessity and in a variety of modal (non-conditional) uses where _I would_ is inappropriate, and I don't think that's the issue.


In which case, you agree with me that "I should...", as per the OP, is advice that the speaker intends be taken as opposed to a mere shrug of the shoulders as per #23.

The examples at #26 are as a result of Loob's question and are not intended to be exhaustive, merely illustrative.


----------



## PaulQ

Hermione Golightly said:


> A moral obligation to take an umbrella?
> 
> Hermione


Absolutely! "The Archbishop kindly lent me his suit, and now it's raining heavily; I ought to take an umbrella"


----------



## Loob

I still have no idea what point you're making about conditional _would/should_, Paul.

But I'll bow out now.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

PaulQ said:


> In which case, you agree with me that "I should...", as per the OP, is advice that the speaker intends be taken as opposed to a mere shrug of the shoulders as per #23.
> 
> [...]


Indeed, I thought we had established that back in the dark ages, and that the discussion had moved on to the albeit side issue of whether or not _I should_ was still a common variant for _I would_ in the first person singular of the conditional.

We must keep these very different issues separate.

The buildings in Edinburgh are very tall and Sydney Smith, walking in the city, saw two women shouting at each other across the street from third floors.  'Those two will never agree', he remarked.  'They are arguing from different premises'.

A very merry Christmas to all my readers.


----------



## Pertinax

If I have read these responses correctly, then I find only one poster who actually owns up to using "I should" instead of "I would". (Three cheers for Andygc.)  Of everyone else, Hermione uses it only when assuming her "posh" accent, and Loob lobs in an "I should" every now and then as a tease. 

I am sorry to say that I have never heard "I should" for "I would" in Australia, aside from my father and a handful of other older English speakers.  I don't use it myself.

I would love to know the percentage of how many people under 30 still use "I should" in England.  I wouldn't be surprised if it is almost extinct in that age-bracket, and perhaps with good reason.  Anyone who uses "I should" in the would-sense is liable to be misunderstood as saying "I ought to".  All the same, there is a certain old-fashioned charm to "I should" which I should be sorry to see extinguished.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I think this ngram is more interesting than the one I posted previously, because _I should like to_ almost excludes the moral imperative sense of _should_.

It shows _I would_ catching up and overtaking _I should_, but _I should_ is still very much in use.

ps I see you can analyse BE and AE separately and you get very much the same picture; in BE _I would_ overtook _I should_ around 1975 and in AE around 1955.


----------



## sound shift

I find that my father uses "I should" in this way. I haven't noticed whether he does so to the exclusion of "would". He is getting on a bit: in 1975, when "I would" overtook "I should" in BE, he was already forty-eight.


----------



## PaulQ

lancer99 said:


> One of my UK buds has what seems an unusual use of the phrase "I should," by which he means "YOU should," or maybe "If I were you, I would..."
> 
> Me: "It's raining and I see you have your umbrella. Do you think I *should *bring mine?"
> Friend: "I *should*."


It is probable that here your friend is simply repeating your verb form - common enough in questions.


> Me: "My company offered me a pay rise if I move to the Outer Hebrides."
> Friend: "I *should *think about that carefully."


In this case, Friend: "I *should *think about that carefully." in full =
Friend: "I *should *think about that carefully, _if I were you_."

Your friend puts himself symbolically as you and then compels himself (should = must or at least "to have a duty to") to consider the matter and intends that you too will compel yourself - he is giving an indirect command, which is polite. So now, "You *must *think about that carefully."

With "I *would *think about that carefully." = "[If I were] In your position, I *would *think about that carefully - take or leave that advice, as I am not you."





> Do I just have an odd friend or is that usage more widespread?


Apparently, *should *is being used less; it may be that people are simply less willing to be assertive or assume authority than in the past.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

PaulQ said:


> [...]With "I *would *think about that carefully." = "[If I were] In your position, I *would *think about that carefully - take or leave that advice, as I am not you."Apparently, *should *is being used less; it may be that people are simply less willing to be assertive or assume authority than in the past.


We've had the ngrams to help us on the point in this particular thread.

Are you saying, Paul, that_ I should like to do something_ sounds more assertive than_ I would like to do something_?  The alternative is too terrible to consider in the light of the history of this thread.

I'm surprised at the suggestion.  I can't sense a difference in authoritative tone between the two.


----------



## PaulQ

In your second paragraph, you are (i) adding to the example and (ii) modifying the main verb (to do) with "like to". By those additions, you are moving away from the question as posed.

I think there is little dispute that "I should go to town, if I were you" has more compulsion about it than "I would go to town, if I were you."

It is not without its reason that *should *is used as *must *in the conditional imperative:
"You should drive no faster than 30mph in built-up areas." 
as opposed to say,
"A good driver would not exceed 30mph in a built-up area." which leaves open, "OK, I'm not a good driver and I'm doing 40mph, so what?" and a plethora of other quibbles, as *would *is without authority.

I am a little puzzled by 





> Are you saying, Paul, that_ I should like to do something_ sounds more assertive than_ I would like to do something_?  The alternative is too terrible to consider in the light of the history of this thread.


 as 





> Are you saying, Paul, that_ I should like to do something_ sounds more assertive than_ I would like to do something_?


is precisely what I am saying, and thus the unthinkably terrible consequences of the alternative do not arise.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

The unthinkable consequences are that you are again moving away from the straightforward conditional.

You cannot have forgotten that it was your habit of doing this which made Loob flip.


----------



## Keith Bradford

This is really related to the _will/shall _debate, you know; these are just the conditionals of those.  And the will/shall distinction is this: In the first person and the first person only, _will _indicates desire/determination and _shall _indicates the future.  This is the opposite of the second- and third-person usage.

So "I should (if I were you)" is simply a statement of future fact if a certain condition (= me becoming you) were fulfilled. It's more polite because it doesn't force my desires on you. I'd use it unhesitatingly.


----------



## PaulQ

Setting Loob aside, could you say what you mean by "the straightforward conditional."?

Keith (above) reflects my post #39 (somewhat more concisely.)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

PaulQ said:


> Setting Loob aside, could you say what you mean by "the straightforward conditional."?
> 
> Keith (above) reflects my post #39 (somewhat more concisely.)


I think Keith (above) puts very well what I'm talking about.  I thought this part of the discussion was concerned with the will/shall debate, not with the use of _should_ to project a sense of obligation.

You say:



> I think there is little dispute that "I should go to town, if I were you" has more compulsion about it than "I would go to town, if I were you."



Try removing the person who might feel the compulsion, if there were any:

Do you think 'I *should* go to a restaurant, if I were in Paris' has a more authoritative ring about it than 'I *would* go to a restaurant, if I were in Paris'?  I must say I don't sense much difference still.


----------



## PaulQ

Thomas Tompion said:


> I think Keith (above) puts very well what I'm talking about.  I thought this part of the discussion was concerned with the will/shall debate, not with the use of _should_ to project a sense of obligation.


Well, as 
(i) Mods don't like drifting off topic, and 
(ii) it would be difficult to debate *will/shall *without speaking of *would/should* and 
(iii) it was you who wrote, "Are you saying, Paul, that_ I should like to do something_ sounds more assertive than_ I would like to do something_?" and thus introduced the conditional would/should.

thus, I see your point as having presentational difficulties.



> Try removing the person who might feel the compulsion, if there were any:
> 
> Do you think 'I *should* go to a restaurant, if I were in Paris' has a more authoritative ring about it than 'I *would* go to a restaurant, if I were in Paris'?  I must say I don't sense much difference still.


If you are saying, "The authoritarian/compulsion meaning of "should" is not always easy to identify in some sentences." then we are in agreement.

WRF has a thing about context, doesn't it? Your choice above between *would *and *should *could well depend upon it.

As a purely rough and ready example, (please do not get hung up on the precise figures) would you accept that *Should* has a 45% to a 100% authoritarian implication, whereas *Would *has a 0% to 55% authoritarian implication? This is an off-the-top-of-my-head concession and may be too great.

Finally, unless I have missed it, you have not explained, "... could you say what you mean by "the straightforward conditional."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

The straightforward conditonal point was whether we use_ I *should*_ or _I *would*_ in the conditional - I'm not the first to think that this is closely related to whether we use _I shall_ or_ I will_ in the future.  And no, I was far from proposing that we start talking about future forms here.

Maybe you won't agree that_ I should do that_ can have A. a conditional sense (_if X, then* I should *(_or _*would*)* do that*_) or B. a sense attaching obligation (_*I ought to*, _or_ *would be well advised to*_, _*do that*_).  It may have other senses too, of course, but that's by the way.

I'm trying to concentrate on A.  It was your repeated refusal to limit the discussion to A which caused Loob to flip.  Are you now really saying that you don't see the difference?  Or could you perhaps really be talking about the choice between _should_ and _would_ in sense A, as I am?

I feel it's important to be clear about this, for otherwise we are back in Edinburgh.


----------

