[austechwriter] Re: usage question: will vs would, shall vs should

  • From: "Peter G. Martin" <peter.martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:52:28 +1000

Chris Newby:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:27:33 +1000, you are alleged to have=
 written:
>
>My 3rd grade English teacher said "shall is only used with I and=
 we".
>
>Here endeth the ancient history lesson.
>
>

Now let's get this straight, shall we ?

1.  I shall, you will, they will, we shall, you will, they will=
 when future
tense is intended.   "shall" is future for 1st person.

2. When imperative is involved: I will, you shall, they shall, we=
 will, you
shall, they shall   -- the reverse !     Oh, real handy !

Now have we got that straight ?     Or is it wrong ?  Who cares ?=
  It's just
stupid to expect it works that way any more. If it ever did.   =
 It's nonsense
to work on the distinctions between "will" and "shall" and think=
 people know 
they mean imperatives rather than future tense.

Particularly in a country where by far the majority of native=
 English speakers
don't know the distinction -- and the large ESL population hasn't=
 got any
chance of picking up the distinction in normal conversation.

So the Government (and Australian Standards) wording conventions=
 are absolute
bullshit   if they are intended as effective communication of=
 intentions and
nuances of meaning and try to force "shall" to become (wrongly) a=
 new
universal imperative.



Must works to indicate the imperative, and is not ambiguous in=
 this context.

"May" and "should" work for me, and don't have the force of must,=
 therefore
serve as useful contrasts to the "must" imperative.    I'd=
 suggest they also 
work for most of the rest of the population except for the=
 lawgivers and 
drafters, most of whom  find it difficult to end sentences and=
 paragraphs and 
can't end the sentence and start again because someone might=
 latch onto what 
is actually intended and get upset about it, thereby giving rise=
 to 
difficulties with the masses actually understanding something=
 without needing 
lawyers to get their little grubby fingers on the prose and turn=
 it into a 
huge income based on prolixity and confusion, notwithstanding the=
 lack of a 
need for the aforesaid intervention. 


And keep will and shall, if you must, for the future tense.

Or something. 



-Peter G. Martin, Technical writer, Proxima Technology


**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to 
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to 
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.

To search the austechwriter archives, go to 
www.freelist.org/archives/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to 
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

Other related posts: