Phrases/words that set your teeth on edge.

[mangerton]

Or even: 'Can I get' instead of 'May I have, please'.

Both a bit formal, shurely? Here we have "See's a.....", or sometimes "gonnae gi'es a....."

The other day miss m mentioned a new one which is causing her to shake her head at work. "Thanks for reaching out". I hadn't encountered this before but when I returned to work yesterday after a week off, sure enough, in my inbox, someone was "reaching out" to me. If it happens again, their hands will get a firm smack. Email or phone will be just fine, thank you.

[Pabmusic]

Although I acknowledge that this distinction, which I was taught, probably has no basis in histoprical usage, I do hear second- and third-person shall with the sense of intent or obligation, and the post in a recent obituary thread here he shall not be forgotten sounds odd, unless the writer is able to achieve this in some measure.

I'm with you, Jean. The thing we can't know is whether we hear that distinction because we're used to the convention; it might seem different to us if we'd been brought up with the 'reverse' convention.

That said, I try to follow it precisely for the reason you say.

[french frank]

I'm with you, Jean. The thing we can't know is whether we hear that distinction because we're used to the convention; it might seem different to us if we'd been brought up with the 'reverse' convention.

That said, I try to follow it precisely for the reason you say.

Interesting example from Binyon where, I would say, the convention is preserved - even though the expression is the 'wrong way round' (convention 'preserved' as in 'a distinction is being made':

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
We will remember them.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Interesting example from Binyon where, I would say, the convention is preserved - even though the expression is the 'wrong way round' (convention 'preserved' as in 'a distinction is being made':

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
We will remember them.

Sorry - in what sense "the wrong way round", please?

[Pabmusic]

Interesting example from Binyon where, I would say, the convention is preserved - even though the expression is the 'wrong way round' (convention 'preserved' as in 'a distinction is being made':

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
We will remember them.

I think Binyon meant "they will" and "age will not" (ie: a matter of fact, rather than obligation) but artistic taste tells against using "will" both times as well as "will" for "we will remember them" (which is clearly an obligation). A very good example of why it's really a silly 'rule'.

[french frank]

Sorry - in what sense "the wrong way round", please?

They shall, We will instead of They will, We shall which is the "rule".

Pabs, you're right that 'They shall not grow old' pits puny man against a Great Immortal in a battle of wills where man can stamp his foot as much as he likes. But I don't think three 'wills' would have been stylistically or artistically infelicitous: rather the reverse.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

They shall, We will instead of They will, We shall which is the "rule".

But going back to the older ("Coriolanian") usage - the one scotty doesn't hold with - Binyon is exact: those who die shall not grow old; there's no option here - this is what is going to happen, whether they (or we or anyone else) want it or not. Whereas the mourners will remember them - that is what they wish and intend to do.

The "rule" (if such it is) complicates an otherwise straightforward and precise use of language.

[jean]

The problem is that it is not within the power of a speaker to declare the wish of another, and therefore if we take 'will' to denote volition in the first person. it cannot have the same significance in the second and third.

[gurnemanz]

The problem is that it is not within the power of a speaker to declare the wish of another, and therefore if we take 'will' to denote volition in the first person. it cannot have the same significance in the second and third.

How about this? If someone expresses their will to you and you then report will that to someone else.

Friend to you: I will meet you at eight o'clock.

You to another friend: He says he will meet me at eight o'clock.

[jean]

It's a good time to be discussing this, since when you listen to the Last Night of the Proms, as you surely will, you'll hear half the audience sing Britons never, never, never will be slaves while the ones who remember their school grammar lessons and are too mean to buy programmes are convinced that it's shall.

[jean]

How about this? If someone expresses their will to you and you then report will that to someone else.

Friend to you: I will meet you at eight o'clock.

You to another friend: He says he will meet me at eight o'clock.

Whether your friend said simply that he was going to come ('I shall', according to the old 'rule') or added a bit of extra determination ('I will'), your only option in reporting what he said is to use the unmarked future form he will, since if you said he shall you'd be adding a bit of inappropriate determination of your own.

According to the 'rule', anyway.

.

[teamsaint]

Napoleon Complex.

Short Man Syndrome.


And the prats who use these expressions.

And yes, I am a 5 ft 5 male and don't give my height a second thought from one week to another, unless I can't reach something on a high shelf.
But these utterly unfounded and prejudiced expressions get right up my nose.

Although I suspect that those who use them have unresolved issues.


............And relax.
I feel better already.

[Pabmusic]

It's a good time to be discussing this, since when you listen to the Last Night of the Proms, as you surely will, you'll hear half the audience sing Britons never, never, never will be slaves while the ones who remember their school grammar lessons and are too mean to buy programmes are convinced that it's shall.

The original (by James Thomson of Glasgow, published in his collected works, 1763) reads "Britons never will be slaves".

Arne's setting from 1740 has the same words (Musica Britannica, vol XLVII).

So there you go.

[french frank]

According to the 'rule', anyway.

Though let's not deride the 'rule'. According to the OED, it dates back to early Middle English. A key paragraph:

In Middle English the present [tense] early ceased to be commonly employed in futural sense [as it was in Old English], and the future was expressed by either shall or will, the former being much more common. The usage as to the choice between the two auxiliaries has varied from time to time; since the middle of the 17th c. the general rule (subject to various exceptions) has been that mere futurity is expressed in the first person by shall, in the second and third by will. In indirectly reported speech, usage permits either the retention of the auxiliary used by the original speaker or the substitution of that which is appropriate to the point of view of the person reporting.

We can't blame those fuddy-duddy Victorians this time.

The 2015 Fowler divides the discussion into four parts:

A The tradional rule (no quotes round 'rule']
B The reality
C Conclusion
D History

Mr Butterfield, tongue firmly in cheek as usual, concludes: "There is not much doubt that will will win, and shall shall lose, in the end."

[ahinton]

It's a good time to be discussing this, since when you listen to the Last Night of the Proms, as you surely will, you'll hear half the audience sing Britons never, never, never will be slaves while the ones who remember their school grammar lessons and are too mean to buy programmes are convinced that it's shall.

But I will not listen and shall not (just to cover all bases) listen to it anyway - and there might in any case be an argument that neither is in any case true in that some Britons are slaves, even today and perhaps some of them are not so much too mean to buy programmes as unable to afford them - to say nothing of And did those feet in ancient time (well, from 1895 onwards, anyway) / Walk up and down the Proms arena thinking what a bargain tickets for that area are...

I'm also wondering whether, in this context, any meaningful conclusion might be drawn from, on the one hand, Britons never shall and Britons never should be slaves and, on the other, Britons never will and Britons never would be slaves.