Discussion Groups / British English / February 2004

I'm reading "Sense and Sensibility" by Jane Austen and, though I have read
only some fifty pages so far, I have already found a possible peculiarity in
Jane Austen's language, concerning her usage of should and would.

She happens to use "should" for such set phrases as "I should
think/hope/expect so" and "would" for the other cases, e.g.:

"I would not wish to do any thing mean," he replied.

"I would lay fifty guineas the letter was of his own writing."

Nontheless, in some cases which don't seem to differ from those in which she
prefers "would", Austen uses "should", e.g.:

"My love," said her mother, "you must not be offended with Elinor - she was
only in jest. *I should scold her myself*, if she were capable of wishing to
check the delight of your conversation with our new friend."

I would have expected a more consistent usage of "should" and "would", that
is to say, either:

1) She could have used "should" only in set phrases (e.g. "I
should/hope/expect so") and "would" for ordinary conditionals (as she seems
to do for most of the time), "should" being used only for conditional duty;
==> that is what happens today, more or less

2) She could have used "should" in set phrases and ordinary conditional (as
she seems to do in such phrases as "I should scold her myself"), "would"
being used only to express a conditional will. ==> that is what traditional
rules said (Fowler, for example)

Where is the sense, in your opinion, in using "would" for ordinary
conditionals (e.g. "I would not wish", "I would not lay") and "should" for
*some* conditionals (e.g. "I should scold her myself if...") as ordinary?

Bye, FB