 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007Survival of "shall" in the wild
An item from the BBC, about a protest at how little dairy farmers are paid for milk: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/6313777.stm (quote from Gloucestershire farmer) "If the price of milk goes down any more, we shall be getting out because we can't afford to stay in business", he added. (/quote) That use of "shall" rings absolutely right for the farmer, but I suspect that it's been supplanted in most metropolitan UK usages by "will".  SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van harvey.news@ntlworld.com had it: > An item from the BBC, about a protest at how little dairy farmers are > paid for milk: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > suspect that it's been supplanted in most metropolitan UK usages by > "will". Sounds OK to me. Straightforward future tense, or whatever it's called in English. SignatureDavid ===== On 30 Jan 2007, the Omrud wrote > harvey.news@ntlworld.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Sounds OK to me. Straightforward future tense, or whatever it's > called in English. Perhaps, but I don't think I hear it as often as often as I used to -- it's starting to sound more like dialect than yer-standard-common- speak. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 30 Jan 2007, the Omrud wrote > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed > For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van I think many speakers/writers would use "shall" as an immediate follower of "we," rather than "will," so as to avoid the alliteration and the effect of two /w/ sounds in close proximity. There can be an unpleasant "wuh-wuh, " no? Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego > I think many speakers/writers would use "shall" as an immediate > follower of "we," rather than "will," so as to avoid the > alliteration and the effect of two /w/ sounds in close proximity. > There can be an unpleasant "wuh-wuh, " no? If you find "wuh-wuh" unpleasant, you have a nasty shock waiting for you on the wuh-wuh-wuh. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. [snip] > If you find "wuh-wuh" unpleasant, you have a nasty shock waiting for you > on the wuh-wuh-wuh. [snip] Bring 'em on -- the [excerpt] National Association of "W" Lovers Oh, what is the letter we love? What sound are we extra fond of? It's not any trouble You know it's a "W" When you hear "Wuh-wuh-wuh-wuh!" [end excerpt] http://members.tripod.com/Tiny_dancer/w.html [W lovers in US are currently down to 26% according to the latest polls I've seen, and much lower in Canada, UK, and elsewhere.] Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego >> On 30 Jan 2007, the Omrud wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >follower of "we," rather than "will," so as to avoid the alliteration >and the effect of two /w/ sounds in close proximity. Often pronounced "wishel". >There can be an >unpleasant "wuh-wuh, " no? Yes, but isn't that why most people say "we'll"? SignatureArchie Valparaiso Tunbridge Wells borough residents are the second best recyclers in Kent. >(quote from Gloucestershire farmer) > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >suspect that it's been supplanted in most metropolitan UK usages by >"will". I've used it at least once in the last six months. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk hayesmstw@hotmail.com had it: > >(quote from Gloucestershire farmer) > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I've used it at least once in the last six months. So have I. I shall use it again. SignatureDavid ===== On 31 Jan 2007, the Omrud wrote > hayesmstw@hotmail.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > So have I. I shall use it again. That's admirable, but I suspect that both you and Steve are exceptions to "most metropolitan UK usages". SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >> I've used it at least once in the last six months. > >So have I. I shall use it again. So shall I. That's twice. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > the Omrud wrote: >>> I've used it at least once in the last six months. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's twice. Oh, what shall I do? SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >> the Omrud wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Oh, what shall I do? Look, shall we just stop this? SignatureArchie Valparaiso Tunbridge Wells borough residents are the second best recyclers in Kent. >So shall I. > >That's twice. I, on the other hand, will likely only use it if called upon to write something in Standardese. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > An item from the BBC, about a protest at how little dairy farmers are > paid for milk: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > suspect that it's been supplanted in most metropolitan UK usages by > "will". However they might be used/misused, there can be a clear difference between the meanings of 'shall' and 'will'. Consider these two possible utterances by a man splashing around in deep water at sea: "I shall drown! Nobody will save me!" and "I will drown! Nobody shall save me!" SignatureAlec McKenzie usenet@<surname>.me.uk > However they might be used/misused, there can be a clear > difference between the meanings of 'shall' and 'will'. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -- > Alec McKenzie Time was, kids in Enid Blyton stories cried "Shan't!" to indicate that they wouldn't do something that an adult had just instructed them to do. >>However they might be used/misused, there can be a clear >>difference between the meanings of 'shall' and 'will'. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > they wouldn't do something that an adult had just instructed them to > do. I certainly remember using that as a kid, although not to my parents. SignatureRob Bannister >Consider these two possible utterances by a man splashing around >in deep water at sea: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >"I will drown! Nobody shall save me!" And consider Fowler's comment that they would have opposite meanings north and south of the border. Does that still apply? SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > An item from the BBC, about a protest at how little dairy farmers are > paid for milk: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > suspect that it's been supplanted in most metropolitan UK usages by > "will". I would suggest that in most instances it is impossible to tell, because most people abbreviate the expression to "I'll", which could be either. SignatureRob Bannister |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.