Pedants' Paradise

[jean]

It's an idiomatic phrase, so I don't think it should be formally parsed. I see it as (Jean probably knows the proper term - 'attenuating'?) a 'softening' expression, like saying 'I would [sic] like' rather than 'I want'.

That's all true, but isn't really the point, because what we are talking about here is the difference between I should like (correct according to the 'rule' about shall being the proper form for the first person unmarked future), and I would like which breaks that 'rule'. Both should and would here derive from the future rather than the modal uses of their respective verbs.

Perhaps this is the moment to point out that all these future forms are a bit of a fudge, because Germanic languages originally had no future tense and it was presumably only when they came into contact with Latin that they began to think they might like one. The Germans bypassed their modals sollen and wollen and settled on werden, and its use as a future auxiliary seems to coexist quite happily and unambiguously with its original meaning to become.

We messed up a bit because we used both shall and will, perhaps interchangeably at first, but then the grammarians tried to codify what we were doing and so gave us 'rules' to break - and all the while the modal meanings were interfering with the future ones.

[french frank]

That's all true, but isn't really the point, because what we are talking about here is the difference between I should like (correct according to the 'rule' about shall being the proper form for the first person unmarked future), and I would like which breaks that 'rule'.

In that case I misunderstood the poster who said "I, personally, would never say 'I should like to thank you'" . I didn't think he meant that he would say 'I would like to thank you' but was objecting that 'should' meant 'ought to', 'supposed to'. I don't think it does when used in that way.

[visualnickmos]

...
I should think everyone could agree with that description....

Oh, would that they could!

[visualnickmos]

In that case I misunderstood the poster who said "I, personally, would never say 'I should like to thank you'" . I didn't think he meant that he would say 'I would like to thank you' but was objecting that 'should' meant 'ought to', 'supposed to'. I don't think it does when used in that way.

That is a perfect example of the beauty of English - "when used in that way"

But I absolutely would say "I would like to thank you"

and never in a million years would I say "I should like to thank you"

[visualnickmos]

... ah well, me all over, I s'pose

vints: you are most definitely NOT awkward and wrong, and/or very old-fashioned!

[visualnickmos]

This thread could go on for longer than humankind will exist in it's present form - thereby becoming at some future point redundant, anyway!

[visualnickmos]

That's all true, but isn't really the point, because what we are talking about here is the difference between I should like (correct according to the 'rule' about shall being the proper form for the first person unmarked future), and I would like which breaks that 'rule'. Both should and would here derive from the future rather than the modal uses of their respective verbs.

Perhaps this is the moment to point out that all these future forms are a bit of a fudge, because Germanic languages originally had no future tense and it was presumably only when they came into contact with Latin that they began to think they might like one. The Germans bypassed their modals sollen and wollen and settled on werden, and its use as a future auxiliary seems to coexist quite happily and unambiguously with its original meaning to become.

We messed up a bit because we used both shall and will, perhaps interchangeably at first, but then the grammarians tried to codify what we were doing and so gave us 'rules' to break - and all the while the modal meanings were interfering with the future ones.

Hello Jean

Your knowledge of languages is clearly stunning and fascinating (to say 'interesting' would sound pejorative) but the point I have underlined is intriguing; how was the future expressed? Forgive me, my English is OK, I think, but I'm not an expert in it's roots, origins and development, although I adore the language.

You have perhaps, answered my question in the remainder of your post, but I can't quite 'pick it out......' in plain English(!!!)

[jean]

The whole idea of a future tense is strange really; how can you make statements about something that hasn't happened and possibly never will?

So perhaps the Germanic languages were quite sensible to begin with.

I have found this quite entertaining article about the development of the future tense in German.

I've also found Fowler's The King's English online, and here is his chapter - pages and pages of it -on the shall/will distinction. He travels into the furthest reaches of should and would, where I imagine few will wish to follow him. But you should at least have the chance!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I always think Radio 3 is moving headlong into the pluperfect.

[Serial_Apologist]

I always think Radio 3 is moving headlong into the pluperfect.

Yes, we've been had there.

[ahinton]

The whole idea of a future tense is strange really; how can you make statements about something that hasn't happened and possibly never will?

If we all held to that, no one would ever speculate on anything!

So perhaps the Germanic languages were quite sensible to begin with.

I have found this quite entertaining article about the development of the future tense in German.

In the midst of the elaborate pedantry to be found therein, I have to say that I particularly like "He sky turns dark"....

[vinteuil]

The whole idea of a future tense is strange really; how can you make statements about something that hasn't happened and possibly never will?

... and of course Semitic languages don't have our Indo-European sense of three main tenses - past/present/future - they have a binary perfective/imperfective take on the world, things that are definitely concluded and those that are not. I often think we get wrong what a 'prophecy' meant to those who created/received the Bible - we tend to see it (using our Indo-European tense system) as obviously a reference to "the future" - 'this will happen' - ; whereas it is really not that at all - more a sort of "Divine Present" - possibilities still available...






.

[jean]

If we all held to that, no one would ever speculate on anything!

Speculation is allowed, nay encouraged, by modal verbs, and the Germanic languages have those in abundance; what is odd, I suggest, is making statements about future facts.

(You didn't mean to include my So perhaps the Germanic languages were quite sensible to begin with as part of your post, did you?)

[french frank]

By request:

‘Bath council encourages busking as being appreciated by casual tourists’

Bath – name of chief city of BANES, as descriptor of council

council – noun, subject of encourages

encourages – verb, pres tense, 3rd pers sing

busking – verbal noun, object of ‘encourages’

as – conjunction introducing non-finite participial clause expressing reason (in conformity with, or in consideration of, the fact that; it being the case that; inasmuch as; since)

being - pres participle of vb ‘to be’, dependent upon conjunction ‘as’

appreciated – sort of past participle thing used adjectivally referring to ‘busking’

by – preposition indicating agency

casual – adjective describing ‘tourists’

tourists – principal agent governed by ‘by’

I think it's the amplification that's the killer

[vinteuil]

By request:

‘Bath council encourages busking as being appreciated by casual tourists’

...

I think it's the amplification that's the killer

... I think amplification is indeed something that is required to make the sentence a bit more comfortable. To my ears it is painfully elliptic. I think it is saying something along the lines of -

‘Bath council encourages busking as being [something that is] appreciated by casual tourists’