Phrases/words that set your teeth on edge.

[jean]

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.

That was the point of my post!

In the programme it's as Arne set it.

(I know this because I once went to the Last Night and did not even have to buy my own programme because I was a guest in the BBC box.)

[Pabmusic]

[jean]

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."

But third-person 'shall' keeps popping up in (to me) unexpected senses. So the end seems a long way off.

The original Fowler exposition (from the King's English, not MEU) takes up a whole chapter:

http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

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.

??? But Binyon doesn't do this - "we (first person) will" - "they shall".

frenchie said that the "rule" says that it should (!) be "they will" - which is "declaring the wish of another".

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

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.

It might not be "meaningful", but the Shakespearean usage does make a differentiation - "Britons don't want ever to be enslaved" (and so will do whatever is necessary to prevent this) as opposed to "There's no chance that Britons could ever be enslaved" (so we needn't do anything to prevent it) - which is tempting fate rather.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Has any brave person at the altar ever said "I shall"?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Has any brave person at the altar ever said "I shall"?

Talk about "tempting fate"!

[jean]

??? But Binyon doesn't do this - "we (first person) will" - "they shall".

frenchie said that the "rule" says that it should (!) be "they will" - which is "declaring the wish of another".

I wasn't referring specifically to the Binyion, but here is the whole post:

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.

If I read that according to the 'rule'. I get the speaker's determination throughout - I am determined that they will not grow old, and I shall do whatever is in my power to prevent it.

The expression is only the wrong way round if you want to interpret both as a simple statement of future. And I think you're misinterpreting frenchie, who doesn't say that they will is declaring the wish of another (or am I misinterpreting you?)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I wasn't referring specifically to the Binyion, but here is the whole post:



If I read that according to the 'rule'. I get the speaker's determination throughout - I am determined that they will not grow old, and I shall do whatever is in my power to prevent it.

The expression is only the wrong way round if you want to interpret both as a simple statement of future. And I think you're misinterpreting frenchie, who doesn't say that they will is declaring the wish of another (or am I misinterpreting you?)

frenchie wrote the expression is the 'wrong way round' to which I asked for clarification. frencie thereupon replied They shall, We will instead of They will, We shall which is the "rule" which I interpreted to mean "The 'rule' is it should be 'They will/We shall' rather than ''They shall/We will". If that is "misinterpretation" then, yes I have indeed misinterpreted it - to the point where I do not see what else those words in that order could possibly mean, and, if they can mean anything else, I would appreciate further clarification from frenchie, please.

If the "rule" is causing anyone to understand "They shall not grow old, as we who are left grow old" to mean "I am determined that they will not grow old and shall do whatever is in my power to prevent it", then this merely demonstrates how useless the "rule" is and how essential it is for it to be ditched.

Shakespeare (a Kalishnikov with night vision and infra red) vs Fowler (a feather pillow) - I know which I'm choosing in a Duel.


(Although I am allergic to feathers.)

[ahinton]

It might not be "meaningful", but the Shakespearean usage does make a differentiation - "Britons don't want ever to be enslaved" (and so will do whatever is necessary to prevent this) as opposed to "There's no chance that Britons could ever be enslaved" (so we needn't do anything to prevent it) - which is tempting fate rather.

Well, that is indeed a material definitional difference that makes sense and I suspect that the text of Rule! Britannia was originally intended to convey the former rather than the latter. That said (and if I might be forgiven for mentioning something that I may have mentioned previously), when a certain current Prime Minister of a certain country immediately north of France was asked not so long ago who composed the music for Rule! Britannia he seemed rather embarrassed and, following a pause, replied "not sure - Elgar, was it?", thereby proving what some of us had long since suspected, namely that he doesn't know his Arne from his Elgar...

[french frank]

The original Fowler exposition (from the King's English, not MEU) takes up a whole chapter:

http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html

Yes, Butterfield made reference to that and declared it 'a classic'; he only took issue where Fowler 'too narrowly insists on the preservation of fast-fading traditional distinctions'. He (F) also quotes the old chestnut: I will be drowned, no-one shall save me.

[ahinton]

frenchie wrote the expression is the 'wrong way round' to which I asked for clarification. frencie thereupon replied They shall, We will instead of They will, We shall which is the "rule" which I interpreted to mean "The 'rule' is it should be 'They will/We shall' rather than ''They shall/We will". If that is "misinterpretation" then, yes I have indeed misinterpreted it - to the point where I do not see what else those words in that order could possibly mean, and, if they can mean anything else, I would appreciate further clarification from frenchie, please.

Hmm...

Well, I suppose that one would be more likely to say "I shall make a will" than "I will make a will", still less "I will or shall make a shall"...

[QUOTE=ferneyhoughgeliebte;503642]Shakespeare (a Kalishnikov with night vision and infra red) vs Fowler (a feather pillow) - I know which I'm choosing in a Duel.
Shall I assume from this that you'd choose Will? - i.e. the former or, to put it another way, he who evidently thought better of writing Will I compare thee to a summer's day?...

[jean]

Shakespeare (a Kalishnikov with night vision and infra red) vs Fowler (a feather pillow) - I know which I'm choosing in a Duel...

Well, it was Shakespeare who made Titania say to Bottom

Out of this wood do not desire to go:
Thou shalt remain here, whether thou wilt or no.

[jean]

frenchie wrote the expression is the 'wrong way round' to which I asked for clarification. frencie thereupon replied They shall, We will instead of They will, We shall which is the "rule" which I interpreted to mean "The 'rule' is it should be 'They will/We shall' rather than ''They shall/We will". If that is "misinterpretation" then, yes I have indeed misinterpreted it - to the point where I do not see what else those words in that order could possibly mean, and, if they can mean anything else, I would appreciate further clarification from frenchie, please.

But

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

is only the pure future half of the rule.

Why you might want to reverse them is the nub of this discussion.

(Sorry for preempting frenchie's reply)

[french frank]

(Sorry for preempting frenchie's reply)

Just pointing out that 'the wrong way round' should be a 'double quotation': ferney quoting what I said but had deliberately put between quotes (as a nudge that the words should not be taken at their face value).

At primary school we were taught sh-w-w, sh-w-w. Thus our village schoolteacher was relying on the custom regularised in the 17th c. Perhaps.