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

From: "Steve Hudson" <cruddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:31:52 +1000
Thou art being annoyingly argumentative tonight, to say the least.

> but if I were to accuse anyone of not knowing what they were
talking about I'd pick you.

As your self-appointed podium would tend to indicate. Be more specific huh?
Sure, pay me to give a shit and I might bother. While we are at it, why
don't you?

> Using the simple present tense (not current tense) generally does not
express imperative - which is what we're talking about here.


Actually we are talking about something else - should versus shall etc. It
twas MY opinion that stated imperative is best.



> When you say "the company sucks eggs" (subject + verb + object) you're
simply describing
what the company does, not telling the company to suck eggs.


Good policy. The instructions would describe HOW.


> You can use the imperative, that is, "Suck eggs" (verb + object - no
declared subject) or
put it in the passive and say "Eggs are sucked by the company" ((Grammatical
subject (real object) + verb in passive + grammatical object (real
subject)).

Yes, but the passive sucks, universally agreed.


> You can also use "will", "must", etc.

Already dealt with in preceding message. Yes you can, just like you can make
scrambled eggs in a cement mixer; it can be done, but badly.



> There are various
recommendations about whether you should use "must", "will", the imperative,
the passive or whatever.


Now, for someone accusing me of inspecificness, you are doing a real good
job of avoiding references and generally being vague.



> In the past the passive was common, but now, due to
its wordiness, it's generally frowned on.

More so than that, our biggest market is Yankville and they groove to
active. Additionally, after quite some _experience_ in writing, active is
generally easier to understand than passive.


> And as you say, "shall" is considered archaic.

OMG- a partial agreement. I hope Allan Charlton is listening, he wont feel
quite so alone anymore :-) HAHHAHAHAHAHAHA


> Thus, the imperative (not the simple present) is a very
popular way to give instructions because it's the most concise.

And the HEART of Tech writing is? Oh good.


> However, in
my own experience I find that sticking to one of way of giving instructions
all the time gets a little repetitive and sometimes, in fact, you may wish
to use more words simply for the sake of variety. It also depends on
context.


Oh dear. Yes, I know exactly what you are talking about. That's why I
_creatively_ write as well - there's your variety. Good tech writing has
none which is why I turn to creative art outlets to express that deep
burning desire within me for such. Good tech writing is repetitive and
boring because its easier to comprehend when there is variation. Please, I
didn't write the rules for Standardised English, other knowledgeable dudes
did. You are disagreeing with them, so argue with them, not me.

If I have fallen so far, it's only because I fell from the shoulders of
giants... :-)

Steve Hudson

Word Heretic, Sydney, Australia
Tricky stuff with Word or words for you.
Email:      steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Products:   http://www.geocities.com/word_heretic/products.html
Spellbooks: 728 pages of dump left and dropping...


-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Petra Liverani
Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2003 9:32 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [austechwriter] Re: usage question: will vs would, shall vs
should


Steve,

It is not appropriate to make a general accusation such as "most of you
crowd have no idea of what the flip you are talking about yet
try to pass off like you do". Be more specific. I found most replies
sensible but if I were to accuse anyone of not knowing what they were
talking about I'd pick you.

Using the simple present tense (not current tense) generally does not
express imperative - which is what we're talking about here. When you say
"the company sucks eggs" (subject + verb + object) you're simply describing
what the company does, not telling the company to suck eggs. You can use the
imperative, that is, "Suck eggs" (verb + object - no declared subject) or
put it in the passive and say "Eggs are sucked by the company" ((Grammatical
subject (real object) + verb in passive + grammatical object (real
subject)). You can also use "will", "must", etc. There are various
recommendations about whether you should use "must", "will", the imperative,
the passive or whatever. In the past the passive was common, but now, due to
its wordiness, it's generally frowned on. And as you say, "shall" is
considered archaic. Thus, the imperative (not the simple present) is a very
popular way to give instructions because it's the most concise. However, in
my own experience I find that sticking to one of way of giving instructions
all the time gets a little repetitive and sometimes, in fact, you may wish
to use more words simply for the sake of variety. It also depends on
context.

Petra





----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Hudson <cruddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <tien.sieh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 6:26 PM
Subject: [austechwriter] Re: usage question: will vs would, shall vs should


> There's so many answers I shant bother to read them <giggles at clever
> irony>.
>
> Have had this debate with ISO dudes etc.
>
> Would, could, should - all indicate indecisiveness.
>
> Shall - archaic
>
> Will - future tense - unnecc, use current tense
>
> BAD:
>
> The company shall suck eggs regularly.
> The company could suck eggs regularly.
> The company will suck eggs regularly.
>
>
> GOOD:
>
> The company sucks eggs regularly.
>
>
> Say it the way it is. Say it short. Be imperative. Work well.
>
> Steve Hudson
>
> Word Heretic, Sydney, Australia
> Tricky stuff with Word or words for you.
> Email:      steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Products:   http://www.geocities.com/word_heretic/products.html
> Spellbooks: 728 pages of dump left and dropping...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> tien.sieh@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2003 10:05 AM
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [austechwriter] usage question: will vs would, shall vs should
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is a novice grammar tense question.
>
> Under which conditions would a person use "would" (besides the one I just
> used) as opposed to "will"?
>
> For example, which is more correct? I've put in my notes as well for
> correction/comment.
>
> a) The company will comply with the conditions specified in the document.
>
> <indicating assent and compliance in the future if I am the company,
> expressing a request if I am telling the company>
>
> b) The company would comply with the conditions specified in the document.
>
> <indicating ?>
>
> c) The company shall comply with the conditions specified in the document.
>
> <indicating strong intention if I am the company, indicating a command if
I
> am telling the company>
>
> d) The company should comply with the conditions specified in the
document.
>
> <indicating ?>
>
> I normally use a) for when I am the company and c) for when I am telling
> the company.
>
> Thanks all,
>
> tien
>
> **************************************************
> 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
> **************************************************
>
> **************************************************
> 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
> **************************************************
>


**************************************************
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
**************************************************

**************************************************
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
**************************************************
References:
- [austechwriter] Re: usage question: will vs would, shall vs should
  - From: Petra Liverani
[austechwriter] Re: usage question: will vs would, shall vs should

Other related posts:
