Words they use in England
Feb 17th, 2005, 12:18 AM
#103
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the difference between shall and will has been mostly lost in American English. But there are phrases where you can't freely substitute one for the other.
For example: "Shall we dance?" If you said "Will we dance?" the meaning would be different.
Same with "Shall we go now?" and others.
"Will" often implies wanting to do something -- "Will he drive or walk to school?"
For example: "Shall we dance?" If you said "Will we dance?" the meaning would be different.
Same with "Shall we go now?" and others.
"Will" often implies wanting to do something -- "Will he drive or walk to school?"
Feb 17th, 2005, 01:23 AM
#105
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From "Elements of Style" - Strunk
Shall. Will. In formal writing, the future tense requires shall for the first person, will for the second and third. The formula to express the speaker's belief regarding a future action or state is I shall; I will expresses determination or consent. A swimmer in distress cries, "I shall drown; no one will save me!" A suicide puts it the other way: "I will drown; no one shall save me!" In relaxed speech, however, the words shall and will are seldom used precisely; our ear guides us or fails to guide us, as the case may be, and we are quite likely to drown when we want to survive and survive when we want to drown.
Shall. Will. In formal writing, the future tense requires shall for the first person, will for the second and third. The formula to express the speaker's belief regarding a future action or state is I shall; I will expresses determination or consent. A swimmer in distress cries, "I shall drown; no one will save me!" A suicide puts it the other way: "I will drown; no one shall save me!" In relaxed speech, however, the words shall and will are seldom used precisely; our ear guides us or fails to guide us, as the case may be, and we are quite likely to drown when we want to survive and survive when we want to drown.
Feb 17th, 2005, 02:47 AM
#106
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody heard him, the dead man,
But still he lay moaning:
I was much further out than you thought
And not waving but drowning.
Poor chap, he always loved larking
And now he's dead
It must have been too cold for him his heart gave way,
They said.
Oh, no no no, it was too cold always
(Still the dead one lay moaning)
I was much too far out all my life
And not waving but drowning.
But still he lay moaning:
I was much further out than you thought
And not waving but drowning.
Poor chap, he always loved larking
And now he's dead
It must have been too cold for him his heart gave way,
They said.
Oh, no no no, it was too cold always
(Still the dead one lay moaning)
I was much too far out all my life
And not waving but drowning.
Feb 17th, 2005, 03:41 AM
#107
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Will' is used in place of 'shall' more commonly in Scotland than in England, as in "will be go now ?".
Also apparently in Ireland. ckenb, thank you for reminding me of this great story from Dublin's longrunning series of corruption tribunals. It was related that after two guys had paid a bribe to a politician, guy A said to guy B "will we get a receipt for that ?" and guy B said "Will we f*ck !". The lawyer relating this in court then asked "I take it that was not an invitation ?"
Also apparently in Ireland. ckenb, thank you for reminding me of this great story from Dublin's longrunning series of corruption tribunals. It was related that after two guys had paid a bribe to a politician, guy A said to guy B "will we get a receipt for that ?" and guy B said "Will we f*ck !". The lawyer relating this in court then asked "I take it that was not an invitation ?"
Feb 17th, 2005, 04:14 AM
#110
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi ck,
"In relaxed speech, however, the words shall and will are seldom used precisely; ...."
For myself, I use "will" when it is inevitable (The Sun will rise tomorrow) and "shall" the rest of the time, and no longer bother with the rules.
Hardly anyone knows the difference, and those who do don't care anymore.
"In relaxed speech, however, the words shall and will are seldom used precisely; ...."
For myself, I use "will" when it is inevitable (The Sun will rise tomorrow) and "shall" the rest of the time, and no longer bother with the rules.
Hardly anyone knows the difference, and those who do don't care anymore.
Feb 17th, 2005, 04:36 AM
#112
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ted - yes, Stevie Smith.
Ira - I agree with you, but it's just of those things that creeps in. Perhaps there's some underlying notion in Britain that if you differ, you stand in opposition to something, but in America you've got the space to stand back and make a comparison...?!
Ira - I agree with you, but it's just of those things that creeps in. Perhaps there's some underlying notion in Britain that if you differ, you stand in opposition to something, but in America you've got the space to stand back and make a comparison...?!
Feb 17th, 2005, 05:57 AM
#113
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grammarians are unanimous that, wherever you are in the English speaking world, you should always differ FROM things. It's another of those hokey Latinisms, because the prefix in "differ" is a "from" prefix.
Britons who don't know or don't care about this phoney "rule" do tend to say "different to"; their American equivalents say "different than". Those of us - on both sides of the pond - who don't want to be thought of as ill-taught say "different from" and cringe at either 'misuse'. Even if, rationally, we know it's a nonsense. Though in my case, the Jesuits' use of the ferula for repeated bad grammar contributed to this sensitivity as well.
Thus do grammarians (and Jesuits) make wimps of us all.
Britons who don't know or don't care about this phoney "rule" do tend to say "different to"; their American equivalents say "different than". Those of us - on both sides of the pond - who don't want to be thought of as ill-taught say "different from" and cringe at either 'misuse'. Even if, rationally, we know it's a nonsense. Though in my case, the Jesuits' use of the ferula for repeated bad grammar contributed to this sensitivity as well.
Thus do grammarians (and Jesuits) make wimps of us all.
Feb 17th, 2005, 06:16 AM
#114
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding archaic forms:
Recently, on one of my artists lists (the majority of members being American), we giggled at someone's use of the word 'whilst', laughing at such an outdated word. 'Who uses that word anymore? Not even lawyers!' was the general consensus. We assumed the writer was saying it to sound educated, and ended up sounding pompous.
Since then, of course, I've seen it in many British posts. Evidently not so dead after all!
Recently, on one of my artists lists (the majority of members being American), we giggled at someone's use of the word 'whilst', laughing at such an outdated word. 'Who uses that word anymore? Not even lawyers!' was the general consensus. We assumed the writer was saying it to sound educated, and ended up sounding pompous.
Since then, of course, I've seen it in many British posts. Evidently not so dead after all!
Feb 17th, 2005, 07:19 AM
#118
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi flanner,
>Britons who don't know or don't care about this phoney "rule" do tend to say "different to"; their American equivalents say "different than".<
I don't know why you say "phoney" rule.
To me the logic is that "than" is used in making comparisons of like things, "a meter is longer than a yard".
"From" is used in making comparisons of unlike things, "an apple is different from an orange".
I cannot fathom "different to" at all.
>Britons who don't know or don't care about this phoney "rule" do tend to say "different to"; their American equivalents say "different than".<
I don't know why you say "phoney" rule.
To me the logic is that "than" is used in making comparisons of like things, "a meter is longer than a yard".
"From" is used in making comparisons of unlike things, "an apple is different from an orange".
I cannot fathom "different to" at all.
Feb 17th, 2005, 12:23 PM
#119
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all can one of the floating editors FIX THIS SCREEN, please???
I heard a new expression to me last nigh- from the West Midlands- a client told me he had a new member of staff he was setting on.
As in "I'm setting on two engineers on Monday" meaning starting them in a new job- totally new on me.
I heard a new expression to me last nigh- from the West Midlands- a client told me he had a new member of staff he was setting on.
As in "I'm setting on two engineers on Monday" meaning starting them in a new job- totally new on me.
