Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006

Given the last sentence as it stands, I don't see a need for mroe
commas - indeed, I can't see where I'd put any.  There's a tendency on
first reading to trip over the "do so", but commas wouldn't solve
that, and once it's read aloud in the right sort of British voice all
such dificulties disappear.

Re shall and will, in this context "will" is what's wanted because
it's expressing intention (or a promise, indeed) rather than
prediction.  It could be replaced with the conditional "would" (with
the implied "if you were to let me go, I would not ...").  And if the
"realy" were omitted, "I shall not interfere" would be possible but
would slightly alter the meaning, so as to imply that it's taken for
granted that she expects to go, rather than that she's asking
permission to go.

Today, people of my generation and older (I was born during the second
world war) are still likely to distinguish between "shall" and "will"
along the lines of the celebrated joke about the foreigner who fell
into the water and cried out despairingly "I will drown, and no-one
shall save me!" and so, of course, respecting his wishes, they didn't.
In other words, "I shall" and "he/she/it will" is simple future,
whereas "I will" and "he/she/it shall" is an expression of deliberate
intention ("this is my will") or command.

Nowadays everyone uses "will" for all purposes, and you'd be unlikely
to hear these constructions in everyday speech from any post-war
British (though I'm sure there are exceptions); and anyone under about
40 won't be familiar with the distinction unless they're language
and/or literature students.  It's a useful one to be aware of, though,
because it's ubiquitous in British writers up to the 1930s and
probably beyond.

Marius Hancu <NOSPAM@videotron.ca> had it:

It has a combination of reasons - it's partly emphasis, and it's
partly pleading by promising something.  A child might say "Please
let me go - I *will* be good this time".  These are very fine points
though.

Feel the need, perhaps, but there's nowhere suitable to put one.

In that sentence "will" is used to express strong determination.

COED has a usage note about shall and will.
This applies particularly to English English.[1]
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/shall?view=uk

   USAGE Strictly speaking "shall" should be used with "I" and "we"
   to form the future tense, as in _I shall be late_, while "will"
   should be used with "you", "he", "she", "it", and "they", as in
   _she will not be there_. This, however, is reversed when strong
   determination is  being expressed, as in _I will not tolerate
   this_, and _you shall go to school_. In speech the distinction
   tends to be obscured, through the use of the contracted forms
   "I’ll", "she’ll", etc.

[1] It is claimed that the use of will and shall is reversed in
Scottish English.

Today, especially because "will/shall" are almost always reduced to
" 'll", the use of "shall" has almost disappeared except in questions.
However, at that time, I would judge "I shall" was the norm for future
meanings, so "I will" must mean "I want (to)".

In that context I think it means "I have no intention of interfering", which
is the classic English English use of the term. I am informed by Fowler that
the Scottish use is exactly the opposite, using the example:

"I shall drown, no one will save me"

In EE, that is said with the stress on "drown", and is an expression of
despair.

In ScE it is said with the emphasis on "shall", and is an expression of
determination to commit suicide.

Whether Fowler is right, and real Englishmen and Scotsmen spoke like that 80
years ago,  may be a moot point.

No.