Shall/have

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Marius Hancu - 07 Jan 2009 10:08 GMT

Hello:

Any reasons for the "shall/will" pair here?
Is it mandatory, or can we swap them?

------
[Naphta talking]

"Lao-Tse taught that inaction is more profitable than anything else
between heaven ad earth. When all mankind shall have ceased to do
anything whatever, then only will perfect repose and bliss reign upon
this earth. "

The Magic Mountain
by Thomas Mann, Tr. Helen Tracy Lowe-Porter, p. 379
------

Thanks.
Marius Hancu

Reply to this Message

Donna Richoux - 07 Jan 2009 11:29 GMT

> Any reasons for the "shall/will" pair here?
> Is it mandatory, or can we swap them?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> by Thomas Mann, Tr. Helen Tracy Lowe-Porter, p. 379
> ------

It sounds like the generally modern US distinction -- shall/lofty,
conditional, advisable, and will/flat prediction of the future.

I just looked through KJV passages at Bible Gateway that have both
"shall" and "will" -- man, do they jump all over the place. I don't see
much consistency there.

I mean, what's the pattern here? I don't see it:

- Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee,
that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they
will save thee alive.

- his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him;
and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

- And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time
of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son.

Signature

Best -- Donna Richoux

Reply to this Message

Marius Hancu - 07 Jan 2009 12:02 GMT

> > Any reasons for the "shall/will" pair here?
> > Is it mandatory, or can we swap them?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> It sounds like the generally modern US distinction -- shall/lofty,
> conditional, advisable, and will/flat prediction of the future.

Thanks, Donna.
Marius hancu

Reply to this Message

Wood Avens - 07 Jan 2009 12:15 GMT

>> Any reasons for the "shall/will" pair here?
>> Is it mandatory, or can we swap them?
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>It sounds like the generally modern US distinction -- shall/lofty,
>conditional, advisable, and will/flat prediction of the future.

I don't think it's quite that. It looks to me more like the
distinction between cause/effect ("will") and command or injunction
("shall"). One thing shall or must happen, and then (and only then)
another thing will follow. If that "will" had been "shall", it would
have meant that the second thing would be commanded to happen rather
than simply following naturally.

Signature

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

Reply to this Message

Marius Hancu - 07 Jan 2009 12:28 GMT

> >> Any reasons for the "shall/will" pair here?
> >> Is it mandatory, or can we swap them?
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> have meant that the second thing would be commanded to happen rather
> than simply following naturally.

Good points, I think.

Thanks.
Marius Hancu

Reply to this Message

Cece - 07 Jan 2009 16:36 GMT

> > >> Any reasons for the "shall/will" pair here?
> > >> Is it mandatory, or can we swap them?
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

From a grammar book published in 1852:

In the first person, simply "shall" foretells;
In "will," a threat or else a promise dwells.
"Shall," in the second and the third, doth threat;
"Will" simply then tells the future feat.

This is the British standard, of course, but I see that the translator
who produced the text you're asking about was an American. She may or
may not have worked by this maxim.

Note: the KJV used it. The commandments are "Thou shalt not" (or
else). He shall do what I say, or I will punish him. He will do what
he wants, and I shall accept it.

Reply to this Message

Marius Hancu - 07 Jan 2009 18:41 GMT

> From a grammar book published in 1852:
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> else). He shall do what I say, or I will punish him. He will do what
> he wants, and I shall accept it.

Thank you very much. Looks quite good:-)
Marius Hancu

Reply to this Message

Cece - 08 Jan 2009 20:16 GMT

> > From a grammar book published in 1852:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Thank you very much. Looks quite good:-)
> Marius Hancu

I never encountered this ditty until I read the entire Bartlett's
Quotations, when I was almost through high school, after ten years of
thorough (I thought!) grammar instruction. But a friend who grew up
in Texas about the same time told me that her grade school English
teachers used it. Still, very few Americans make this distinction.

Reply to this Message

Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2009

Shall/have