My books on "good English usage" tell me that 'will' and 'shall' have different meanings. 'Shall' is used for the first person singular and plural, while 'will' is used for the others. This conveys a normal future tense. Using the opposite pattern (I will, you shall) conveys an intention or command in the future. Does anyone make this distinction? Is it more common in England?
Will vs. Shall
In America saying "Shall" would sound archaic, people would think there was something wrong with you.
>>My books on "good English usage" tell me that 'will' and 'shall' have different meanings. 'Shall' is used for the first person singular and plural, while 'will' is used for the others. This conveys a normal future tense. Using the opposite pattern (I will, you shall) conveys an intention or command in the future. Does anyone make this distinction? Is it more common in England?<<
Such a pattern really only has been prescribed in England, and has never really been followed in North America to begin with. Rather, in North America, primarily "will" and "going to" have been used to form the usual future tense, and "shall" has been somewhat archaicized, being primarily used in expressions and deliberately formal/poetic speech.
Such a pattern really only has been prescribed in England, and has never really been followed in North America to begin with. Rather, in North America, primarily "will" and "going to" have been used to form the usual future tense, and "shall" has been somewhat archaicized, being primarily used in expressions and deliberately formal/poetic speech.
I'm English and I think:
1) The distinction has largely been lost in England.
2) "Will" is more popular than "shall" in everyday use
3) There is nothing wrong with someone using "shall".
I suppose we like our traditions over this side of the Atlantic.
Where are you Josh?
1) The distinction has largely been lost in England.
2) "Will" is more popular than "shall" in everyday use
3) There is nothing wrong with someone using "shall".
I suppose we like our traditions over this side of the Atlantic.
Where are you Josh?
I live in Ottawa, Canada. I suspected it was archaic in England as well. There's a story about a Scot (apparently this distinction wasn't made in Scotland at the time) who fell into a river in England and wasn't saved because he yelled "I will drown! No one shall save me!". The first sentence was interpreted as a desire and the second as a command. Of course this story is surely fictional.
Not to me. I actually follow the prescribed rule and use "shall" for "I shall" and "we shall", and will for the rest, except for the 2nd person singular "thou wilt".
My mother says "shall" for first person... So it doesn't sound archaic to me, but I can imagine it would to other Americans...
oh, and Ken... It's "thou willst" "wilt" was never used... normal conjugation in Middle/Early Modern English would be I break, thou breakst, he/she/it breaketh... "Will" however would be conjugated I will, thou willst, he/she/it will, b/c it's a modal and they don't have the third person conjugation, similar to modern German.
oh, and Ken... It's "thou willst" "wilt" was never used... normal conjugation in Middle/Early Modern English would be I break, thou breakst, he/she/it breaketh... "Will" however would be conjugated I will, thou willst, he/she/it will, b/c it's a modal and they don't have the third person conjugation, similar to modern German.
There was a hollywood movie I watched a couple of months ago and its name was "Shall we dance?" starring J.Lo and Richard Gere.
my father is old-fashioned because he was born in 1930s, still use shall for I and We.
It is not completely out of use, I still hear its usage on radio shows by different anchors but not as frequent as will.
my father is old-fashioned because he was born in 1930s, still use shall for I and We.
It is not completely out of use, I still hear its usage on radio shows by different anchors but not as frequent as will.
Josh Lalonde-
Yeah, now that you mention it, it probably would be 'thou breakest' normally... In my defense 'breakst' probably did appear at the end of the Early Modern English period... lol
Yeah, now that you mention it, it probably would be 'thou breakest' normally... In my defense 'breakst' probably did appear at the end of the Early Modern English period... lol
<<It's "thou willst" "wilt" was never used>>
What do mean by that? "Thou wilt" is used in the King James Bible, and I was under the impression that this was what was used. A Google search for "thou willst" turns up only a few hundred examples, and they are all from modern people writing in "faux" Early Modern English.
What do mean by that? "Thou wilt" is used in the King James Bible, and I was under the impression that this was what was used. A Google search for "thou willst" turns up only a few hundred examples, and they are all from modern people writing in "faux" Early Modern English.
Shall I/we?
is normally used in the USA.
shall I open the window?
nothing archaic about it
is normally used in the USA.
shall I open the window?
nothing archaic about it
I agree with Norma that "shall" can still be used in first-person questions like that without sounding archaic.
"I suppose we [the English] like our traditions over this side of the Atlantic."
British English is no more "conservative" about language usages than American English.
There are many instances where "older" or more "traditional" usages survive in AE but have been, or are being, dispensed with in BE (i.e., "gotten" and the subjunctive).
British English is no more "conservative" about language usages than American English.
There are many instances where "older" or more "traditional" usages survive in AE but have been, or are being, dispensed with in BE (i.e., "gotten" and the subjunctive).