BrE: "should" in subordinate clauses

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Marius Hancu - 05 Nov 2006 14:45 GMT

Hello:

For the Brits out there: I'd appreciate some pointers re the use of
"should" (as opposed to "would") in subordinate clauses, in the formal
BrE.

Clear rules in effect would be best, also links.

Swan mentions in Practical English Usage, esp wrt BrE:

---
- use "should" in "that"-clauses expressing the importance of an
action:
It's necessary that he SHOULD talk to me when he gets here.

- after words expressing personal judgement/reactions:
It's astonishing that she SHOULD say that sort of thing to you,
---

but I don't think I've found in Swan any clear rules which apply to
these contexts:

-------------
[After Mrs. Wilcox's death, a letter is delivered to the family by the
matron of the nursing home where she had been cared for.]

Mrs. Wilcox had desired her, when the funeral SHOULD be over, to
forward the enclosed.

......

[Mrs. Wilcox, before her death, had left the house at Howard's End to
a friend, Margaret Schlegel, not to her own family.]

But she has a house of her own. Why SHOULD she want another?

E. M. Foster, Howard's End, p. 110
-------------

Thanks.
Marius Hancu

Reply to this Message

Mike Lyle - 05 Nov 2006 15:57 GMT

> Hello:
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Mrs. Wilcox had desired her, when the funeral SHOULD be over, to
> forward the enclosed.

That's now, I think, obsolete: we'd always say "when the the funeral
was over". I think it's close to, but not the same as, Matthew's
"...Herod...demanded of them where Christ should be born" in the
K.James Bible. For that, I'd use "had been born"; in a reported-future
sense, I'd write "was to be born" and probably say "was going to be
born".

> ......
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> E. M. Foster, Howard's End, p. 110

That's another "should" entirely. I think it's "should" in its guise as
a kind of "ought"; but it seems best to treat it as a set pattern for
rejection or incomprehension. "Why should I do that?" "How should I
know?" (=I don't see why I should).

Signature

Mike.

Reply to this Message

Marius Hancu - 05 Nov 2006 16:18 GMT

> > Mrs. Wilcox had desired her, when the funeral SHOULD be over, to
> > forward the enclosed.
>
> That's now, I think, obsolete: we'd always say "when the the funeral
> was over".

OK, but would you know what the rules might have been 100 years ago?
Because I am sure he couldn't have chosen "would."

Thanks.
Marius Hancu

Reply to this Message

Wood Avens - 05 Nov 2006 16:37 GMT

>> > Mrs. Wilcox had desired her, when the funeral SHOULD be over, to
>> > forward the enclosed.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>OK, but would you know what the rules might have been 100 years ago?
>Because I am sure he couldn't have chosen "would."

I don't disagree with Mike, but to me "when the funeral should be
over" carries an implication of "whenever that is", a future time not
known to the speaker, and entirely apposite given that this is being
reported of Mrs Wilcox, who's not in a position to know when her own
funeral will be over.

Yes, "would" would have been wrong here. I don't think it's a matter
of rules being any different 100 years ago, because I could still use
that construction today and be understood and, in a sense, "correct",
but I'd be thought very old-fashioned. I bet it's still used in
obscure corners of the House of Lords, though.

Signature

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

Reply to this Message

Marius Hancu - 05 Nov 2006 16:49 GMT

> >> > Mrs. Wilcox had desired her, when the funeral SHOULD be over, to
> >> > forward the enclosed.

> Yes, "would" would have been wrong here. I don't think it's a matter
> of rules being any different 100 years ago, because I could still use
> that construction today and be understood and, in a sense, "correct"

Fine.

But would you be able to point to any easy-to-memorize rule able to
distinguish between "should" and "would" in such context, similar to
those given in Swan?

Because for me the only indication that "would" can't be used here is
the absence of any "will" in the process, but then the fate is
interpreted sometime as an overriding will, isn't it?

Thanks.

Marius Hancu

Reply to this Message

Mike Lyle - 05 Nov 2006 18:15 GMT

> > >> > Mrs. Wilcox had desired her, when the funeral SHOULD be over, to
> > >> > forward the enclosed.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> the absence of any "will" in the process, but then the fate is
> interpreted sometime as an overriding will, isn't it?

I've had a look in a Victorian grammar book, and either I'm looking in
the wrong place, or it doesn't deal with this structure at all. I think
your instinct is right, though: this doesn't report a declarative
statement, where "will" could have been involved. I don't think you
need a rule to learn, as any sentences you need to generate should be
in the forms I suggested: as Katy says, this construction is so
old-fashioned as to sound strange.

But wait! Actually, I've just realised it does survive in current
English in some sentences with "whenever", "wherever", etc. "Whenever
you should go to China" is far more indefinite than "When you go to
China", and is very close to "If you ever go to China", but,
confusingly, also seems close to "Every time you go to China". It seems
to emphasise uncertainty, but to depend on context or tone to indicate
whether the uncertainty is about the time the event will take place, or
the number of times it will take place, or about the likelihood of its
taking place at all. I am now confused about it, and hope somebody else
will follow up.

Signature

Mike.

Reply to this Message

Marius Hancu - 06 Nov 2006 00:29 GMT

> I've had a look in a Victorian grammar book, and either I'm looking in
> the wrong place, or it doesn't deal with this structure at all. I think
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> in the forms I suggested: as Katy says, this construction is so
> old-fashioned as to sound strange.

Well, thank you very much for the effort.

It's easy to keep
"...Herod...demanded of them where Christ should be born"
as a model for the time being.

> But wait! Actually, I've just realised it does survive in current
> English in some sentences with "whenever", "wherever", etc. "Whenever
> you should go to China" is far more indefinite than "When you go to
> China", and is very close to "If you ever go to China", but,
> confusingly, also seems close to "Every time you go to China".

Well, yes, something like "Whenever it is going to happen that you go
to China," or "Whenever you went to China" or thereabouts. I can't
translate it better without a "should":-)

Marius Hancu

Reply to this Message

Paul Wolff - 05 Nov 2006 17:14 GMT

I can imagine Mrs Wilcox dictating her funeral arrangements, and saying
"...and when the funeral shall be over, forward this..." I'm not sure
if this is the 'importance' sense mentioned by Swan, or something else.

I shouldn't be at all surprised to see wording like "when the funeral
shall be concluded" ("over" is rather non-legal) in a legal document
such as a Will, even today.

Signature

Paul
In bocca al Lupo!

Reply to this Message

Marius Hancu - 05 Nov 2006 17:27 GMT

> >> > Mrs. Wilcox had desired her, when the funeral SHOULD be over, to
> >> > forward the enclosed.
>
> I shouldn't be at all surprised to see wording like "when the funeral
> shall be concluded" ("over" is rather non-legal) in a legal document
> such as a Will, even today.

Nor would I.

That letter was anyway a very informal will, which in the end seems to
be been dismissed by the family.

Marius Hancu

Reply to this Message

Ian Noble - 07 Nov 2006 00:11 GMT

>> Mrs. Wilcox had desired her, when the funeral SHOULD be over, to
>> forward the enclosed.
>
>That's now, I think, obsolete: we'd always say "when the the funeral
>was over".

I'd say "once" rather than "when". However, either word introduces a
degree of ambiguity that isn't present in the original, by allowing
the result to be read as if request was *made* after the funeral.
Personally I'd almost certainly reorder the sentence to remove that -
some variation on "Mrs Wilcox had desired that she forward the
enclosed once the funeral was over."

Although "desired", used in that way, also seems to me to be pretty
much obsolete, and it's not a phrasing I'd ever choose without malice
aforethought.

Cheers - Ian

Reply to this Message

Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006

BrE: "should" in subordinate clauses