Discussion:
Shall and Will in 1942
(too old to reply)
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-08 20:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hello, all

Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
English:

The position of the question, then, is like this.
We want to know whether the universe simply hap-
pens to be what it is for no reason or whether
there is a power behind it that makes it what it
is. Since that power, if it exists, would be not
one of the facts but a reality which makes the
facts, no mere observation of the facts can find
it. There's only one case in which we can know
whether there's anything more, namely our own
case. And in that one case we find there is. Or
put it the other way round. If there was a con-
trolling power outside the universe, it could not
show itself to us as one of the facts inside the
universe -- no more than the architect of a house
could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace
in that house. The only way in which we could
expect it to show itself would be inside us as an
influence or a command trying to get us to behave
in a certain way. And that's just what we do find
inside us. Doesn't it begin to look, if I may say
so, very suspicious? In the only case where you
can expect to get an answer, the answer turns out
to be yes; and in the other cases, where you don't
get an answer, you see why you don't. Suppose
someone asked me, when I see a man in blue uniform
going down the street leaving little paper packets
at each house, why I suppose that they contain
letters? I should reply, "Because whenever he
leaves a similar little packet for me I find it
does contain a letter." And if he then
objected -- "But you've never seen all these let-
ters which you think the other people are get-
ting," I should say, "Of course not, and I
shouldn't expect to, because they're not addressed
to me. I'm explaining the packets I'm not allowed
to open by the ones I am allowed to open." It's
the same about this question. The only packet I'm
allowed to open is Man. When I do, especially when
I open that particular man called Myself, I find
that I don't exist on my own, that I'm under a
law; that somebody or something wants me to behave
in a certain way. I don't, of course, think that
if I could get inside a stone or a tree I should
find exactly the same thing, just as I don't think
all the other people in the street get the same
letters as I do. I should expect, for instance, to
find that the stone had to obey the law of grav-
ity -- that whereas the sender of the letters
merely tells me to do right, He compels the stone
to obey the laws of its nature. But I should
expect to find that there was, so to speak, a
sender of letters in both cases, a Power behind
the facts, a Director, a Guide.

( http://fadedpage.com/books/20140875/html.php )

I post this not because I want to rekindle the old
discussion but because I found this example interes-
ring because it is relatively recent and does not
pretend to be archaic.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-08 20:53:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 4:23:36 PM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Hello, all
>
> Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
> 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
> 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
> via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
> curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
> tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
> English:

Perhaps our Russian friend is unaware that "talks" on the BBC were very far
from "talks" but were
carefully prepared scripts. Jack was reading the utmost formal edited English prose.

Even interviews were never aired live. The conversation was taped and transcribed, the transcript
was edited, and the participants read the transcript for the recording that would be broadcast.

> The position of the question, then, is like this.
> We want to know whether the universe simply hap-
> pens to be what it is for no reason or whether
> there is a power behind it that makes it what it
> is. Since that power, if it exists, would be not
> one of the facts but a reality which makes the
> facts, no mere observation of the facts can find
> it. There's only one case in which we can know
> whether there's anything more, namely our own
> case. And in that one case we find there is. Or
> put it the other way round. If there was a con-
> trolling power outside the universe, it could not
> show itself to us as one of the facts inside the
> universe -- no more than the architect of a house
> could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace
> in that house. The only way in which we could
> expect it to show itself would be inside us as an
> influence or a command trying to get us to behave
> in a certain way. And that's just what we do find
> inside us. Doesn't it begin to look, if I may say
> so, very suspicious? In the only case where you
> can expect to get an answer, the answer turns out
> to be yes; and in the other cases, where you don't
> get an answer, you see why you don't. Suppose
> someone asked me, when I see a man in blue uniform
> going down the street leaving little paper packets
> at each house, why I suppose that they contain
> letters? I should reply, "Because whenever he
> leaves a similar little packet for me I find it
> does contain a letter." And if he then
> objected -- "But you've never seen all these let-
> ters which you think the other people are get-
> ting," I should say, "Of course not, and I
> shouldn't expect to, because they're not addressed
> to me. I'm explaining the packets I'm not allowed
> to open by the ones I am allowed to open." It's
> the same about this question. The only packet I'm
> allowed to open is Man. When I do, especially when
> I open that particular man called Myself, I find
> that I don't exist on my own, that I'm under a
> law; that somebody or something wants me to behave
> in a certain way. I don't, of course, think that
> if I could get inside a stone or a tree I should
> find exactly the same thing, just as I don't think
> all the other people in the street get the same
> letters as I do. I should expect, for instance, to
> find that the stone had to obey the law of grav-
> ity -- that whereas the sender of the letters
> merely tells me to do right, He compels the stone
> to obey the laws of its nature. But I should
> expect to find that there was, so to speak, a
> sender of letters in both cases, a Power behind
> the facts, a Director, a Guide.
>
> ( http://fadedpage.com/books/20140875/html.php )
>
> I post this not because I want to rekindle the old
> discussion but because I found this example interes-
> ring because it is relatively recent and does not
> pretend to be archaic.

Do you _really_ imagine that that one paragraph could be understood if it was heard once in a broadcast?
Do you _really_ imagine that the versions he edited for publication in his own essay collections were
identical to the broadcast scripts?

This passage provides no evidence at all of how the gentleman spoke in unguarded moments.
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-08 21:22:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter T. Daniels to Anton Shepelev:

> > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the
> > classic 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain
> > as late as 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his
> > first "talks" via BBC.
>
> Perhaps our Russian friend is unaware that "talks"
> on the BBC were very far from "talks" but were
> carefully prepared scripts.

My impression was that they were something in the
middle: short essays that Lewis wrote, once a week,
for every broadcast.

> Jack was reading the utmost formal edited English
> prose.

Aint't is sorta disparaging to call him so? You are
not his childhood friend, after all.

Not that it is important for my point, but I doubt
these are "utmost formal edited English prose":

1. If there was [not were] a controlling power
outside the universe,

2. You may have felt you were ready to listen to
me as long as you thought I'd [for "I had"]
anything new to say.

> Do you _really_ imagine that that one paragraph
> could be understood if it was heard once in a
> broadcast?

Why not?

> Do you _really_ imagine that the versions he edit-
> ed for publication in his own essay collections
> were identical to the broadcast scripts?

Yes, perhaps with minor changes.

> This passage provides no evidence at all of how
> the gentleman spoke in unguarded moments.

Right.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-09 04:17:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 5:21:20 PM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels to Anton Shepelev:
>
> > > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the
> > > classic 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain
> > > as late as 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his
> > > first "talks" via BBC.
> > Perhaps our Russian friend is unaware that "talks"
> > on the BBC were very far from "talks" but were
> > carefully prepared scripts.
>
> My impression was that they were something in the
> middle: short essays that Lewis wrote, once a week,
> for every broadcast.

He wrote them, and they were for broadcast. There's a whole book about his
(wartime) relations with the BBC.

> > Jack was reading the utmost formal edited English
> > prose.
>
> Aint't is sorta disparaging to call him so? You are
> not his childhood friend, after all.
>
> Not that it is important for my point, but I doubt
> these are "utmost formal edited English prose":
>
> 1. If there was [not were] a controlling power
> outside the universe,

Maybe your English studies were conducted by a British-speaker, whose dialect
has lost the indicative/subjunctive distinction and who may have passed on to
you some sort of hypercorrection.

> 2. You may have felt you were ready to listen to
> me as long as you thought I'd [for "I had"]
> anything new to say.

Not possible in American English. "Had" there is a main verb, not an auxiliary.

> > Do you _really_ imagine that that one paragraph
> > could be understood if it was heard once in a
> > broadcast?
>
> Why not?

Because it contains several quite convoluted sentences.

> > Do you _really_ imagine that the versions he edit-
> > ed for publication in his own essay collections
> > were identical to the broadcast scripts?
>
> Yes, perhaps with minor changes.

On what basis?

> > This passage provides no evidence at all of how
> > the gentleman spoke in unguarded moments.
>
> Right.
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-09 20:48:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter T. Daniels:

> > Not that it is important for my point, but I
> > doubt these are "utmost formal edited English
> > prose":
> >
> > 1 If there was [not were] a controlling power
> > outside the universe
>
> Maybe your English studies were conducted by a
> British-speaker, whose dialect has lost the in-
> dicative/subjunctive distinction and who may have
> passed on to you some sort of hypercorrection.

In case you misunderstood, I quoted Lewis verbatim
and inserted remarks in brackets. The original is
in the indicative, whereas I am certain it must in
the subjunctive, because it describes a hypothetical
situation. I therefore insist that I made a correc-
tion rather than a hypercorrection.

> > You may have felt you were ready to listen to
> > me as long as you thought I'd [for "I had"] any-
> > thing new to say.
>
> Not possible in American English. "Had" there is a
> main verb, not an auxiliary.

I thought it was impossible in any English.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-09 21:50:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 4:47:51 PM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > > Not that it is important for my point, but I
> > > doubt these are "utmost formal edited English
> > > prose":
> > >
> > > 1 If there was [not were] a controlling power
> > > outside the universe
> >
> > Maybe your English studies were conducted by a
> > British-speaker, whose dialect has lost the in-
> > dicative/subjunctive distinction and who may have
> > passed on to you some sort of hypercorrection.
>
> In case you misunderstood, I quoted Lewis verbatim
> and inserted remarks in brackets. The original is
> in the indicative, whereas I am certain it must in
> the subjunctive, because it describes a hypothetical
> situation. I therefore insist that I made a correc-
> tion rather than a hypercorrection.
>
> > > You may have felt you were ready to listen to
> > > me as long as you thought I'd [for "I had"] any-
> > > thing new to say.
> >
> > Not possible in American English. "Had" there is a
> > main verb, not an auxiliary.
>
> I thought it was impossible in any English.

Yet somehow it made it into the super-edited prose of an undoubted master of
English style.
Janet
2017-10-08 22:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@gmail.com>,
***@gmail.com says...
> Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
> From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>
> Hello, all
>
> Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
> 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
> 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
> via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
> curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
> tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
> English:
>

Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
should there be any change I shall let you know.

Janet
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-09 04:18:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> In article <***@gmail.com>,
> ***@gmail.com says...
> > Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
> > From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
> > Newsgroups: alt.usage.english

> > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
> > 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
> > 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
> > via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
> > curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
> > tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
> > English:
>
> Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
> should there be any change I shall let you know.

I should like to see that evidenced in a corpus study.
Janet
2017-10-09 13:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <e80baeba-df10-4783-b306-***@googlegroups.com>,
***@verizon.net says...
>
> On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> > In article <***@gmail.com>,
> > ***@gmail.com says...
> > > Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
> > > From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
> > > Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>
> > > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
> > > 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
> > > 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
> > > via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
> > > curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
> > > tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
> > > English:
> >
> > Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
> > should there be any change I shall let you know.
>
> I should like to see that evidenced in a corpus study.

I suggest you search in Hansard 2017.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons

Janet.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-09 14:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 9:19:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> In article <e80baeba-df10-4783-b306-***@googlegroups.com>,
> ***@verizon.net says...
> > On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> > > In article <***@gmail.com>,
> > > ***@gmail.com says...
> > > > Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
> > > > From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
> > > > Newsgroups: alt.usage.english

> > > > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
> > > > 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
> > > > 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
> > > > via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
> > > > curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
> > > > tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
> > > > English:
> > > Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
> > > should there be any change I shall let you know.
> > I should like to see that evidenced in a corpus study.
>
> I suggest you search in Hansard 2017.
>
> https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons

I suggest that's not a "corpus" in the sense that "corpus" is used in corpus linguistics.

I further suggest that Parliamentary speeches as edited for publication also
do not represent the ordinary speech of the people who wrote them.
David Kleinecke
2017-10-09 17:12:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 7:08:03 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 9:19:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> > In article <e80baeba-df10-4783-b306-***@googlegroups.com>,
> > ***@verizon.net says...
> > > On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> > > > In article <***@gmail.com>,
> > > > ***@gmail.com says...
> > > > > Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
> > > > > From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
> > > > > Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>
> > > > > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
> > > > > 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
> > > > > 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
> > > > > via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
> > > > > curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
> > > > > tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
> > > > > English:
> > > > Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
> > > > should there be any change I shall let you know.
> > > I should like to see that evidenced in a corpus study.
> >
> > I suggest you search in Hansard 2017.
> >
> > https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons
>
> I suggest that's not a "corpus" in the sense that "corpus" is used in corpus linguistics.
>
> I further suggest that Parliamentary speeches as edited for publication also
> do not represent the ordinary speech of the people who wrote them.

I fear "shall" is going to remain in use in legal and
quasi-legal English for a long time. For example - in the
C90 Standard "'shall' is to be interpreted as a requirement
on an implementation, conversely, 'shall not' is to be
interpreted as a prohibition."

Note the skillful use of "is to be" instead of "shall" and
"conversely" as a conjunction.

Not colloquial English but English anyway.
Richard Tobin
2017-10-09 19:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <486ea1f9-30c1-4574-9f79-***@googlegroups.com>,
David Kleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>I fear "shall" is going to remain in use in legal and
>quasi-legal English for a long time. For example - in the
>C90 Standard "'shall' is to be interpreted as a requirement
>on an implementation, conversely, 'shall not' is to be
>interpreted as a prohibition."

Many more recent standards refer to RFC2119 "Key words for use in RFCs
to Indicate Requirement Levels".

>Note the skillful use of "is to be" instead of "shall" and
>"conversely" as a conjunction.

RFC2119 says bluntly

1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.

What do you think about "A, or B or C, mean" rather than "... means"?

-- Richard
David Kleinecke
2017-10-09 21:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 12:30:02 PM UTC-7, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <486ea1f9-30c1-4574-9f79-***@googlegroups.com>,
> David Kleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I fear "shall" is going to remain in use in legal and
> >quasi-legal English for a long time. For example - in the
> >C90 Standard "'shall' is to be interpreted as a requirement
> >on an implementation, conversely, 'shall not' is to be
> >interpreted as a prohibition."
>
> Many more recent standards refer to RFC2119 "Key words for use in RFCs
> to Indicate Requirement Levels".
>
> >Note the skillful use of "is to be" instead of "shall" and
> >"conversely" as a conjunction.
>
> RFC2119 says bluntly
>
> 1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
> definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
>
> What do you think about "A, or B or C, mean" rather than "... means"?

I always go plural - A or B or C mean ...

No commas.
Mark Brader
2017-10-11 11:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Richard Tobin:
> > RFC2119 says bluntly
> >
> > 1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
> > definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
> >
> > What do you think about "A, or B or C, mean" rather than "... means"?

It's an error.

David Kleinecke:
> I always go plural - A or B or C mean ...

It's still an error -- that is, provided that A, B, and C are either
singulars or are expressions being mentioned rather than used.
--
Mark Brader "...there are other means of persuasion
***@vex.net besides killing and threatening to kill."
Toronto --Dashiell Hammett, The Maltese Falcon

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-09 21:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 1:12:51 PM UTC-4, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 7:08:03 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 9:19:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> > > In article <e80baeba-df10-4783-b306-***@googlegroups.com>,
> > > ***@verizon.net says...
> > > > On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> > > > > In article <***@gmail.com>,
> > > > > ***@gmail.com says...
> > > > > > Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
> > > > > > From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
> > > > > > Newsgroups: alt.usage.english

> > > > > > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
> > > > > > 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
> > > > > > 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
> > > > > > via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
> > > > > > curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
> > > > > > tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
> > > > > > English:
> > > > > Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
> > > > > should there be any change I shall let you know.
> > > > I should like to see that evidenced in a corpus study.
> > > I suggest you search in Hansard 2017.
> > > https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons
> > I suggest that's not a "corpus" in the sense that "corpus" is used in corpus linguistics.
> > I further suggest that Parliamentary speeches as edited for publication also
> > do not represent the ordinary speech of the people who wrote them.
>
> I fear "shall" is going to remain in use in legal and
> quasi-legal English for a long time. For example - in the
> C90 Standard "'shall' is to be interpreted as a requirement
> on an implementation, conversely, 'shall not' is to be
> interpreted as a prohibition."

That's different -- not the Fowlerian shall/will -- and perfectly fine in AmE.

> Note the skillful use of "is to be" instead of "shall" and
> "conversely" as a conjunction.
>
> Not colloquial English but English anyway.

The "ordinary language" movement in law is idiotic. There's nearly a thousand
years of jurisprudence behind the legal meaning of every one of those baffling
words, and when they start replacing them with "ordinary" ones, they have to
start all over again tying the words down to very specific meanings (and a
whole new crop of hendiadyses will have to arise).
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-10 09:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter T. Daniels to David Kleinecke:

>>I fear "shall" is going to remain in use in legal
>>and quasi-legal English for a long time. For exam-
>>ple -- in the C90 Standard "'shall' is to be in-
>>terpreted as a requirement on an implementation,
>>conversely, 'shall not' is to be interpreted as a
>>prohibition."
>
>That's different -- not the Fowlerian shall/
>will -- and perfectly fine in AmE.

In what sense is it not Fowlerian? This usage con-
forms to the correct usage as Fowler describes it.
It is very unfortunate that the term 'Fowlerian' may
convey the wrong implication that Fowler invented
the distiction rather than descirbed it in a system-
atic manner.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-10 12:30:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 5:42:58 AM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels to David Kleinecke:
>
> >>I fear "shall" is going to remain in use in legal
> >>and quasi-legal English for a long time. For exam-
> >>ple -- in the C90 Standard "'shall' is to be in-
> >>terpreted as a requirement on an implementation,
> >>conversely, 'shall not' is to be interpreted as a
> >>prohibition."
> >
> >That's different -- not the Fowlerian shall/
> >will -- and perfectly fine in AmE.
>
> In what sense is it not Fowlerian? This usage con-
> forms to the correct usage as Fowler describes it.
> It is very unfortunate that the term 'Fowlerian' may
> convey the wrong implication that Fowler invented
> the distiction rather than descirbed it in a system-
> atic manner.

Sounds like you haven't actually read what Fowler said (not what Gowers may have done to improve
the discussion). He recognized that it is arbitrary and reflects a very minority usage but
thought it would be nice if everyone adopted it.

Which they didn't.
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-14 20:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
David Kleinecke:
I fear "shall" is going to remain in use in legal
and quasi-legal English for a long time. For ex-
ample -- in the C90 Standard "'shall' is to be
interpreted as a requirement on an implementa-
tion, conversely, 'shall not' is to be interpret-
ed as a prohibition."

Peter T. Daniels:
That's different -- not the Fowlerian shall/
will -- and perfectly fine in AmE.

Anton Shepelev:
In what sense is it not Fowlerian? This usage
conforms to the correct usage as Fowler describes
it. It is very unfortunate that the term 'Fowle-
rian' may convey the wrong implication that
Fowler invented the distiction rather than de-
scirbed it in a systematic manner.

Peter T. Daniels:
Sounds like you haven't actually read what Fowler
said ->

I have read what Fowler wrote but I doubt that you
have done so too. Shall I conclude from your fail-
ure to answer my question that you admit your mis-
take? I asked in what sense you thought the usage
of 'shall' in legal English was not "Fowlerian".

> -> (not what Gowers may have done to improve the
> discussion).

No idea who he is or was. We are talking about
Fowler here.

> He recognized that it is arbitrary and reflects a
> very minority usage but thought it would be nice
> if everyone adopted it.

Is it because of ignorance, lazyness, or simply bad
manners that you didn't belabour yourself with the
provision of relevant quotations? Since you men-
tioned Gowers in parentheses, the "he" above should
refer to Fowler.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Richard Tobin
2017-10-14 21:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@gmail.com>,
Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>> -> (not what Gowers may have done to improve the
>> discussion).

>No idea who he is or was. We are talking about
>Fowler here.

If you're going to talk about Fowler, you should know that the second
edition of Modern English Usage was revised by Ernest Gowers.

-- Richard
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-14 22:09:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Richard Tobin to Anton Shepelev:

> > No idea who he is or was. We are talking about
> > Fowler here.
>
> If you're going to talk about Fowler, you should
> know that the second edition of Modern English Us-
> age was revised by Ernest Gowers.

If I am interested in Fowler, I will read the origi-
nal instead of what his (mis)interpreters introduced
after his death. Faximile reprints of The Dictio-
nary of Modern English Usage are still in print.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-14 23:31:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 4:54:34 PM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> David Kleinecke:
> I fear "shall" is going to remain in use in legal
> and quasi-legal English for a long time. For ex-
> ample -- in the C90 Standard "'shall' is to be
> interpreted as a requirement on an implementa-
> tion, conversely, 'shall not' is to be interpret-
> ed as a prohibition."
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> That's different -- not the Fowlerian shall/
> will -- and perfectly fine in AmE.
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> In what sense is it not Fowlerian? This usage
> conforms to the correct usage as Fowler describes
> it. It is very unfortunate that the term 'Fowle-
> rian' may convey the wrong implication that
> Fowler invented the distiction rather than de-
> scirbed it in a systematic manner.
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> Sounds like you haven't actually read what Fowler
> said ->
>
> I have read what Fowler wrote but I doubt that you
> have done so too. Shall I conclude from your fail-
> ure to answer my question that you admit your mis-
> take? I asked in what sense you thought the usage
> of 'shall' in legal English was not "Fowlerian".

The legal usage has nothing to do with the artificial 1st vs. 2nd/3rd person
usage that he tried to foist on English newspapermen.

> > -> (not what Gowers may have done to improve the
> > discussion).
>
> No idea who he is or was. We are talking about
> Fowler here.

Right, you won't look at anything less than 100 years old.

> > He recognized that it is arbitrary and reflects a
> > very minority usage but thought it would be nice
> > if everyone adopted it.
>
> Is it because of ignorance, lazyness, or simply bad
> manners that you didn't belabour yourself with the
> provision of relevant quotations? Since you men-
> tioned Gowers in parentheses, the "he" above should
> refer to Fowler.

As a non-native speaker, you may be excused your confusion.
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-19 22:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
David Kleinecke:
I fear "shall" is going to remain in use in legal
and quasi-legal English for a long time. For ex-
ample -- in the C90 Standard "'shall' is to be
interpreted as a requirement on an implementa-
tion, conversely, 'shall not' is to be interpret-
ed as a prohibition."

Peter T. Daniels:
That's different -- not the Fowlerian shall/
will -- and perfectly fine in AmE.

Anton Shepelev:
In what sense is it not Fowlerian? This usage
conforms to the correct usage as Fowler describes
it. It is very unfortunate that the term 'Fowle-
rian' may convey the wrong implication that
Fowler invented the distiction rather than de-
scirbed it in a systematic manner.

Peter T. Daniels:
Sounds like you haven't actually read what Fowler
said ->

Anton Shepelev:
I have read what Fowler wrote but I doubt that
you have done so too. Shall I conclude from your
failure to answer my question that you admit your
mistake? I asked in what sense you thought the
usage of 'shall' in legal English was not "Fowle-
rian".

Peter T. Daniels:
The legal usage has nothing to do with the arti-
ficial 1st vs. 2nd/3rd person usage that he tried
to foist on English newspapermen.

You may repeat this however many times you like, but
it shall not affect the truth value of your state-
ment. Unless you provide some arguments and support
them with quotations, it shall remain mere handwav-
ing, so I am forced to repeat my question the third
time: In what sense the usage of 'shall' in legal
English was not "Fowlerian"? If you neither answer
nor admit your error, I shall assume the latter.

This "legal usage" is in perfect agreement with the
rules set down in "King's English", and since this
legal "shall" is always in the third person, it can-
not demonstate the difference in person that you
somewhy expect there.

You are also wrong in counterposing the first person
with the second and third, because usage differs be-
tween second and third as well, e.g. in questions
and reported speech.

Peter T. Daniels: (not what Gowers may have done to
improve the discussion).

Anton Shepelev: No idea who he is or was. We are
talking about Fowler here.

Peter T. Daniels: Right, you won't look at anything
less than 100 years old.

Factually wrong. I do read more recent writers in
English, such as John Collier, for example. Gross
exagerration misapplied.

I will not look at anything that is irrelevant to
the discussion.

Peter T. Daniels:
He recognized that it is arbitrary and reflects a
very minority usage but thought it would be nice
if everyone adopted it.

Anton Shepelev:
Is it because of ignorance, lazyness, or simply
bad manners that you didn't belabour yourself
with the provision of relevant quotations? Since
you mentioned Gowers in parentheses, the "he"
above should refer to Fowler.

Peter T. Daniels:
As a non-native speaker, you may be excused your
confusion.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

But you really embed bias in your sentences, for
recognition implies the realisation of a truth, but
I don't think it a truth to begin with, so it would
be more polite to report facts in a more neutral
manner and to write that he "opined" or, at most,
"came to the conclusion".

Fowler is very convincng in showing that the classic
usage of "shall" and "will" is not arbitrary but
forms a consistent and logical system. It can hard-
ly be "very minority", for it is found it many great
writers, including Ambrose Bierce, Anthony Hope,
Agatha Christie, and Charlotte Bronte, and is de-
scribed in many grammar manuals. In fact, I have
not seen a single work on grammar from the 1800s
that differs with Fowler in a major point (although
many treat the subject too briefly or incompletely),
and if so, this usage is neither "very minority" nor
in the least arbitary. At the very least, they all
acknowledge the distinction in person.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
g***@gmail.com
2017-10-20 06:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 3:10:10 PM UTC-7, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> David Kleinecke:
> I fear "shall" is going to remain in use in legal
> and quasi-legal English for a long time. For ex-
> ample -- in the C90 Standard "'shall' is to be
> interpreted as a requirement on an implementa-
> tion, conversely, 'shall not' is to be interpret-
> ed as a prohibition."
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> That's different -- not the Fowlerian shall/
> will -- and perfectly fine in AmE.
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> In what sense is it not Fowlerian? This usage
> conforms to the correct usage as Fowler describes
> it. It is very unfortunate that the term 'Fowle-
> rian' may convey the wrong implication that
> Fowler invented the distiction rather than de-
> scirbed it in a systematic manner.
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> Sounds like you haven't actually read what Fowler
> said ->
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> I have read what Fowler wrote but I doubt that
> you have done so too. Shall I conclude from your
> failure to answer my question that you admit your
> mistake? I asked in what sense you thought the
> usage of 'shall' in legal English was not "Fowle-
> rian".
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> The legal usage has nothing to do with the arti-
> ficial 1st vs. 2nd/3rd person usage that he tried
> to foist on English newspapermen.
>
> You may repeat this however many times you like, but
> it shall not affect the truth value of your state-
> ment. Unless you provide some arguments and support
> them with quotations, it shall remain mere handwav-
> ing, so I am forced to repeat my question the third
> time: In what sense the usage of 'shall' in legal
> English was not "Fowlerian"? If you neither answer
> nor admit your error, I shall assume the latter.
>
> This "legal usage" is in perfect agreement with the
> rules set down in "King's English", and since this
> legal "shall" is always in the third person, it can-
> not demonstate the difference in person that you
> somewhy expect there.
>
> You are also wrong in counterposing the first person
> with the second and third, because usage differs be-
> tween second and third as well, e.g. in questions
> and reported speech.
>
> Peter T. Daniels: (not what Gowers may have done to
> improve the discussion).
>
> Anton Shepelev: No idea who he is or was. We are
> talking about Fowler here.
>
> Peter T. Daniels: Right, you won't look at anything
> less than 100 years old.
>
> Factually wrong. I do read more recent writers in
> English, such as John Collier, for example. Gross
> exagerration misapplied.
>
> I will not look at anything that is irrelevant to
> the discussion.
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> He recognized that it is arbitrary and reflects a
> very minority usage but thought it would be nice
> if everyone adopted it.
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> Is it because of ignorance, lazyness, or simply
> bad manners that you didn't belabour yourself
> with the provision of relevant quotations? Since
> you mentioned Gowers in parentheses, the "he"
> above should refer to Fowler.
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> As a non-native speaker, you may be excused your
> confusion.
>
> Thanks, I appreciate it.
>
> But you really embed bias in your sentences, for
> recognition implies the realisation of a truth, but
> I don't think it a truth to begin with, so it would
> be more polite to report facts in a more neutral
> manner and to write that he "opined" or, at most,
> "came to the conclusion".
>
> Fowler is very convincng in showing that the classic
> usage of "shall" and "will" is not arbitrary but
> forms a consistent and logical system. It can hard-
> ly be "very minority", for it is found it many great
> writers, including Ambrose Bierce, Anthony Hope,
> Agatha Christie, and Charlotte Bronte, and is de-
> scribed in many grammar manuals. In fact, I have
> not seen a single work on grammar from the 1800s
> that differs with Fowler in a major point (although
> many treat the subject too briefly or incompletely),
> and if so, this usage is neither "very minority" nor
> in the least arbitary. At the very least, they all
> acknowledge the distinction in person.
>
> --
> () ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
> /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

This thread is awesome. I just skimmed through it, and
now I plan to read through it more carefully. I consider
myself a "shall" preservationist, Anton, even though I
could probably count on one hand the number of times I've
dared to use "I shall . . ." in live discourse. But that's
just thing thing! It takes true linguistic courage -- in the
U.S., anyway. Have you by chance read Wilson Follett on
"shall" and "will"? I think you should love it if you did. :)
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-24 19:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
grammarian1976:

> This thread is awesome. I just skimmed through it,
> and now I plan to read through it more carefully.

If so, you shall also like my set of examples of the
classic "shall" and "will", which alone shows Peter
wrong:

http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=150887440800

and the whole thread titled "Fowler" and begun on
the 21st of February, 2015 by Richard Tobin, al-
though it is longer and often more painful than this
one.

> I consider myself a "shall" preservationist, An-
> ton, even though I could probably count on one
> hand the number of times I've dared to use "I
> shall . . ." in live discourse.

I guess it is easier for me as for a non-native
speaker of English.

> Have you by chance read Wilson Follett on "shall"
> and "will"? I think you should love it if you
> did. :)

No, but as I have (mis)understood from his mentions
in this newsgroup, his is a compromised and watered-
down version of bold Fowler's rules. I will read
it, on your recommendation, but do not expect it
very soon.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-10-20 07:11:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-10-19 22:10:15 +0000, Anton Shepelev said:

> [ ... ]

> Peter T. Daniels:
> Sounds like you haven't actually read what Fowler
> said ->
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> I have read what Fowler wrote but I doubt that
> you have done so too.

The problem is not so much that he doesn't read things but that he
doesn't understand what he has read. You are perfectly right, of course.


--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-20 13:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 3:11:38 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2017-10-19 22:10:15 +0000, Anton Shepelev said:

> > Peter T. Daniels:
> > Sounds like you haven't actually read what Fowler
> > said ->
> >
> > Anton Shepelev:
> > I have read what Fowler wrote but I doubt that
> > you have done so too.
>
> The problem is not so much that he doesn't read things but that he
> doesn't understand what he has read. You are perfectly right, of course.

Once again the senile moron intrudes where he has no information whatsoever.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-20 13:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 6:10:10 PM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> David Kleinecke:
> I fear "shall" is going to remain in use in legal
> and quasi-legal English for a long time. For ex-
> ample -- in the C90 Standard "'shall' is to be
> interpreted as a requirement on an implementa-
> tion, conversely, 'shall not' is to be interpret-
> ed as a prohibition."
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> That's different -- not the Fowlerian shall/
> will -- and perfectly fine in AmE.
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> In what sense is it not Fowlerian? This usage
> conforms to the correct usage as Fowler describes
> it. It is very unfortunate that the term 'Fowle-
> rian' may convey the wrong implication that
> Fowler invented the distiction rather than de-
> scirbed it in a systematic manner.
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> Sounds like you haven't actually read what Fowler
> said ->
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> I have read what Fowler wrote but I doubt that
> you have done so too. Shall I conclude from your
> failure to answer my question that you admit your
> mistake? I asked in what sense you thought the
> usage of 'shall' in legal English was not "Fowle-
> rian".
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> The legal usage has nothing to do with the arti-
> ficial 1st vs. 2nd/3rd person usage that he tried
> to foist on English newspapermen.
>
> You may repeat this however many times you like, but
> it shall not affect the truth value of your state-
> ment. Unless you provide some arguments and support
> them with quotations, it shall remain mere handwav-
> ing, so I am forced to repeat my question the third
> time: In what sense the usage of 'shall' in legal
> English was not "Fowlerian"? If you neither answer
> nor admit your error, I shall assume the latter.

Do you also not read anyone else's messages in this thread? In legal usage,
"shall" denotes requirement and is equivalent to "must," whichever person is
made the subject. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH the artificial "politeness" of
not imputing mental states to interlocutors, or something like that.

> This "legal usage" is in perfect agreement with the
> rules set down in "King's English", and since this
> legal "shall" is always in the third person, it can-
> not demonstate the difference in person that you
> somewhy expect there.

No idea what you're talking about.

> You are also wrong in counterposing the first person
> with the second and third, because usage differs be-
> tween second and third as well, e.g. in questions
> and reported speech.
>
> Peter T. Daniels: (not what Gowers may have done to
> improve the discussion).
>
> Anton Shepelev: No idea who he is or was. We are
> talking about Fowler here.
>
> Peter T. Daniels: Right, you won't look at anything
> less than 100 years old.
>
> Factually wrong. I do read more recent writers in
> English, such as John Collier, for example. Gross
> exagerration misapplied.
>
> I will not look at anything that is irrelevant to
> the discussion.
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> He recognized that it is arbitrary and reflects a
> very minority usage but thought it would be nice
> if everyone adopted it.
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> Is it because of ignorance, lazyness, or simply
> bad manners that you didn't belabour yourself
> with the provision of relevant quotations? Since
> you mentioned Gowers in parentheses, the "he"
> above should refer to Fowler.
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> As a non-native speaker, you may be excused your
> confusion.
>
> Thanks, I appreciate it.
>
> But you really embed bias in your sentences, for
> recognition implies the realisation of a truth, but
> I don't think it a truth to begin with, so it would
> be more polite to report facts in a more neutral
> manner and to write that he "opined" or, at most,
> "came to the conclusion".
>
> Fowler is very convincng in showing that the classic
> usage of "shall" and "will" is not arbitrary but
> forms a consistent and logical system.

With the slight drawback that IT WAS NOT BEING USED EVEN IN HIS DAY A CENTURY AGO.

> It can hard-
> ly be "very minority", for it is found it many great
> writers, including Ambrose Bierce, Anthony Hope,
> Agatha Christie, and Charlotte Bronte, and is de-
> scribed in many grammar manuals. In fact, I have
> not seen a single work on grammar from the 1800s
> that differs with Fowler in a major point (although
> many treat the subject too briefly or incompletely),
> and if so, this usage is neither "very minority" nor
> in the least arbitary. At the very least, they all
> acknowledge the distinction in person.

Believe it or not, we do not live in the 19th century and do not speak the
English of the 19th century.

If Fowler repeats the arbitrary dogmata of 19th-century prescriptivists, he is
in error. However, there is no reason to suppose that that is what he does. His
main concern, just like E. B. White's, was that journalists and parliamentarians
write clear English rather than attempt Johnsonian periods.
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-24 20:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
David Kleinecke:
I fear "shall" is going to remain in use in legal
and quasi-legal English for a long time. For ex-
ample -- in the C90 Standard "'shall' is to be
interpreted as a requirement on an implementa-
tion, conversely, 'shall not' is to be interpret-
ed as a prohibition."

Peter T. Daniels:
That's different -- not the Fowlerian shall/
will -- and perfectly fine in AmE.

Anton Shepelev:
In what sense is it not Fowlerian? This usage
conforms to the correct usage as Fowler describes
it. It is very unfortunate that the term 'Fowle-
rian' may convey the wrong implication that
Fowler invented the distiction rather than de-
scirbed it in a systematic manner.

Peter T. Daniels:
Sounds like you haven't actually read what Fowler
said ->

Anton Shepelev:
I have read what Fowler wrote but I doubt that
you have done so too. Shall I conclude from your
failure to answer my question that you admit your
mistake? I asked in what sense you thought the
usage of 'shall' in legal English was not "Fowle-
rian".

Peter T. Daniels:
The legal usage has nothing to do with the arti-
ficial 1st vs. 2nd/3rd person usage that he tried
to foist on English newspapermen.

Anton Shepelev:
You may repeat this however many times you like,
but it shall not affect the truth value of your
statement. Unless you provide some arguments and
support them with quotations, it shall remain
mere handwaving, so I am forced to repeat my
question the third time: In what sense the usage
of 'shall' in legal English was not "Fowlerian"?
If you neither answer nor admit your error, I
shall assume the latter.

Peter T. Daniels:
Do you also not read anyone else's messages in
this thread?

No, I do not not read others' messages in this
thread, as you put it. I even intend to reply to
Peter Moylan about his derivation of the classic us-
age from politeness.

If you want me to seek the answer in your other
posts around the thread, and have not belaboured
yourself with as little as the provision of a
MessageID, then I have to consider it either impo-
liteness or weaseling. This, therefore, is the
third time you have refused directly to answer my
question. I am conviced you will not do it lest you
reveal your error. Let me try it the fouth time: In
what sense the usage of 'shall' in legal English is
not "Fowlerian"?

> In legal usage, "shall" denotes requirement and is
> equivalent to "must," whichever person is made the
> subject.

Please, specify the difference between "must" and
legal "shall" as you see it that I may know how it
supports your opinion.

> It has NOTHING TO DO WITH the artificial "polite-
> ness" of not imputing mental states to interlocu-
> tors, or something like that.

Well, Fowler does not derive his rules from such po-
liteness either, so why did you write that?

> > This "legal usage" is in perfect agreement with
> > the rules set down in "King's English", and
> > since this legal "shall" is always in the third
> > person, it cannot demonstate the difference in
> > person that you somewhy expect there.
>
> No idea what you're talking about.

About the difference in person that you (absurdly)
said you expected to see in the legal "shall":

> The legal usage has nothing to do with the artifi-
> cial 1st vs. 2nd/3rd person usage that he tried to
> foist on English newspapermen.

But if you are not interested to understand me, I
cannot help.

> > Fowler is very convincng in showing that the
> > classic usage of "shall" and "will" is not arbi-
> > trary but forms a consistent and logical system.
>
> With the slight drawback that IT WAS NOT BEING
> USED EVEN IN HIS DAY A CENTURY AGO.

You need not shout, that can't help you. I repeat:
Antony Hope had followed Fowler's rules to the let-
ter several years before they were published. How
shall you explain this loop in space-time? Agatha
Christie used them afterwards, at least in "Roger
Ackroyd."

> If Fowler repeats the arbitrary dogmata of 19th-
> century prescriptivists, he is in error.

But since he does not, he is not. His rules are
neither arbitrary nor dogmata.

> However, there is no reason to suppose that that
> is what he does. His main concern, just like E. B.
> White's, was that journalists and parliamentarians
> write clear English rather than attempt Johnsonian
> periods.

As wrong as can be. He would not bother himself
with so paltry a purpose. When was the last you
have clapped your eye on the tracts of The Society
For Pure English:

https://ia601406.us.archive.org/10/items/societyforpureen12358gut/12358.txt

There you can learn his true aspiration.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-24 21:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 4:44:06 PM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> David Kleinecke:
> I fear "shall" is going to remain in use in legal
> and quasi-legal English for a long time. For ex-
> ample -- in the C90 Standard "'shall' is to be
> interpreted as a requirement on an implementa-
> tion, conversely, 'shall not' is to be interpret-
> ed as a prohibition."
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> That's different -- not the Fowlerian shall/
> will -- and perfectly fine in AmE.
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> In what sense is it not Fowlerian? This usage
> conforms to the correct usage as Fowler describes
> it. It is very unfortunate that the term 'Fowle-
> rian' may convey the wrong implication that
> Fowler invented the distiction rather than de-
> scirbed it in a systematic manner.
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> Sounds like you haven't actually read what Fowler
> said ->
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> I have read what Fowler wrote but I doubt that
> you have done so too. Shall I conclude from your
> failure to answer my question that you admit your
> mistake? I asked in what sense you thought the
> usage of 'shall' in legal English was not "Fowle-
> rian".
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> The legal usage has nothing to do with the arti-
> ficial 1st vs. 2nd/3rd person usage that he tried
> to foist on English newspapermen.
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> You may repeat this however many times you like,
> but it shall not affect the truth value of your
> statement. Unless you provide some arguments and
> support them with quotations, it shall remain
> mere handwaving, so I am forced to repeat my
> question the third time: In what sense the usage
> of 'shall' in legal English was not "Fowlerian"?
> If you neither answer nor admit your error, I
> shall assume the latter.
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> Do you also not read anyone else's messages in
> this thread?
>
> No, I do not not read others' messages in this
> thread, as you put it. I even intend to reply to
> Peter Moylan about his derivation of the classic us-
> age from politeness.

Did you read it, or did you not read it?

> If you want me to seek the answer in your other
> posts around the thread, and have not belaboured
> yourself with as little as the provision of a
> MessageID, then I have to consider it either impo-
> liteness or weaseling. This, therefore, is the
> third time you have refused directly to answer my
> question. I am conviced you will not do it lest you
> reveal your error. Let me try it the fouth time: In
> what sense the usage of 'shall' in legal English is
> not "Fowlerian"?

I'm not going to answer that question again.

> > In legal usage, "shall" denotes requirement and is
> > equivalent to "must," whichever person is made the
> > subject.
>
> Please, specify the difference between "must" and
> legal "shall" as you see it that I may know how it
> supports your opinion.

I do not know what you are asking.

> > It has NOTHING TO DO WITH the artificial "polite-
> > ness" of not imputing mental states to interlocu-
> > tors, or something like that.
>
> Well, Fowler does not derive his rules from such po-
> liteness either, so why did you write that?

So the answer to the above question is, No, you didn't read PMoylan's message.

> > > This "legal usage" is in perfect agreement with
> > > the rules set down in "King's English", and
> > > since this legal "shall" is always in the third
> > > person, it cannot demonstate the difference in
> > > person that you somewhy expect there.
> >
> > No idea what you're talking about.
>
> About the difference in person that you (absurdly)
> said you expected to see in the legal "shall":

You make less and less sense as you go on.

> > The legal usage has nothing to do with the artifi-
> > cial 1st vs. 2nd/3rd person usage that he tried to
> > foist on English newspapermen.
>
> But if you are not interested to understand me, I
> cannot help.
>
> > > Fowler is very convincng in showing that the
> > > classic usage of "shall" and "will" is not arbi-
> > > trary but forms a consistent and logical system.
> >
> > With the slight drawback that IT WAS NOT BEING
> > USED EVEN IN HIS DAY A CENTURY AGO.
>
> You need not shout, that can't help you. I repeat:
> Antony Hope had followed Fowler's rules to the let-
> ter several years before they were published. How
> shall you explain this loop in space-time? Agatha
> Christie used them afterwards, at least in "Roger
> Ackroyd."

Hope is from a different century.

If Christie used them, it was because she read them in a grammar-book, not
because people actually talked that way.

> > If Fowler repeats the arbitrary dogmata of 19th-
> > century prescriptivists, he is in error.
>
> But since he does not, he is not. His rules are
> neither arbitrary nor dogmata.

They are both.

> > However, there is no reason to suppose that that
> > is what he does. His main concern, just like E. B.
> > White's, was that journalists and parliamentarians
> > write clear English rather than attempt Johnsonian
> > periods.
>
> As wrong as can be. He would not bother himself
> with so paltry a purpose. When was the last you
> have clapped your eye on the tracts of The Society
> For Pure English:

You must really never have read Fowler. His examples are taken almost exclusively
from newspapers and from parliamentary debates -- not from literature.

> https://ia601406.us.archive.org/10/items/societyforpureen12358gut/12358.txt
>
> There you can learn his true aspiration.

In a usedbook store I came across a bound reprint of one volume of such tracts. Some of them were entertaining.
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-25 21:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
David Kleinecke:
I fear "shall" is going to remain in use in legal
and quasi-legal English for a long time. For ex-
ample -- in the C90 Standard "'shall' is to be
interpreted as a requirement on an implementa-
tion, conversely, 'shall not' is to be interpret-
ed as a prohibition."

Peter T. Daniels:
That's different -- not the Fowlerian shall/
will -- and perfectly fine in AmE.

Anton Shepelev:
In what sense is it not Fowlerian? This usage
conforms to the correct usage as Fowler describes
it. It is very unfortunate that the term 'Fowle-
rian' may convey the wrong implication that
Fowler invented the distiction rather than de-
scirbed it in a systematic manner.

Peter T. Daniels:
Sounds like you haven't actually read what Fowler
said ->

Anton Shepelev:
I have read what Fowler wrote but I doubt that
you have done so too. Shall I conclude from your
failure to answer my question that you admit your
mistake? I asked in what sense you thought the
usage of 'shall' in legal English was not "Fowle-
rian".

Peter T. Daniels:
The legal usage has nothing to do with the arti-
ficial 1st vs. 2nd/3rd person usage that he tried
to foist on English newspapermen.

Anton Shepelev:
You may repeat this however many times you like,
but it shall not affect the truth value of your
statement. Unless you provide some arguments and
support them with quotations, it shall remain
mere handwaving, so I am forced to repeat my
question the third time: In what sense the usage
of 'shall' in legal English was not "Fowlerian"?
If you neither answer nor admit your error, I
shall assume the latter.

Peter T. Daniels:
Do you also not read anyone else's messages in
this thread?

Anton Shepelev:
No, I do not not read others' messages in this
thread, as you put it. I even intend to reply to
Peter Moylan about his derivation of the classic
usage from politeness.

Peter T. Daniels:
Did you read it, or did you not read it?

I did.

> > If you want me to seek the answer in your other
> > posts around the thread, and have not belaboured
> > yourself with as little as the provision of a
> > MessageID, then I have to consider it either im-
> > politeness or weaseling. This, therefore, is
> > the third time you have refused directly to an-
> > swer my question. I am conviced you will not do
> > it lest you reveal your error. Let me try it
> > the fouth time: In what sense the usage of
> > 'shall' in legal English is not "Fowlerian"?
>
> I'm not going to answer that question again.

Then kindly and generously point me to your answer,
for I am frankly unaware of it. Beware that if it
falls short of direct rebuttal by way of showing an
occurance of the legal "shall" that should be "will"
according to Fowler's rules, I will not accept it.
There is hardly another way to prove your point.

> > > In legal usage, "shall" denotes requirement
> > > and is equivalent to "must," whichever person
> > > is made the subject.
> >
> > Please, specify the difference between "must"
> > and legal "shall" as you see it that I may know
> > how it supports your opinion.
>
> I do not know what you are asking.

Excuse me as a non-native and simply prove your
statement above with regard to the first person.
Then observe that in normal English "shall" often
means the same even with the first person, e.g. in
Chaucer:

For by faith I shall to God, I ween
Was never strange none in her degree
Than was the queen in casting of her eye

which Fowler does acknowledge:

All the forms in the above list [Ant: above as
adjective!], and others like them, have three
peculiarities -- that they are not practically
futures as distinguished from presents; that they
use Sh. for all persons, or W. for all persons, if
the idea is appropriate to all persons; and that
the ideas are simply, or with very little exten-
sion, those of command or obligation and wish.

> > > It has NOTHING TO DO WITH the artificial "po-
> > > liteness" of not imputing mental states to in-
> > > terlocutors, or something like that.
> >
> > Well, Fowler does not derive his rules from such
> > politeness either, so why did you write that?
>
> So the answer to the above question is, No, you
> didn't read PMoylan's message.

I did, but Peter's derivation is not equivalent to
Fowler's. Why do you keep referring to Peter's post
with his alternative hypothesis?

Anton Shepelev:
This "legal usage" is in perfect agreement with
the rules set down in "King's English", and since
this legal "shall" is always in the third person,
it cannot demonstate the difference in person
that you somewhy expect there.

Peter T. Daniels:
No idea what you're talking about.

Anton Sheplev:
About the difference in person that you (absurd-
ly) said you expected to see in the legal
"shall":

> The legal usage has nothing to do with the ar-
> tificial 1st vs. 2nd/3rd person usage that he
> tried to foist on English newspapermen.

Peter T. Daniels:
You make less and less sense as you go on.

Or it is your perception that is growing dull as we
progress. I can't help you unless you specify what
you found senseless and why. As I said,

> But if you are not interested to understand me, I
> cannot help.

Anton Shepelev:
Fowler is very convincng in showing that the
classic usage of "shall" and "will" is not arbi-
trary but forms a consistent and logical system.

Peter T. Daniels:
With the slight drawback that IT WAS NOT BEING
USED EVEN IN HIS DAY A CENTURY AGO.

Anton Shepelev:
You need not shout, that can't help you. I re-
peat: Antony Hope had followed Fowler's rules to
the letter several years before they were pub-
lished. How shall you explain this loop in
space-time? Agatha Christie used them after-
wards, at least in "Roger Ackroyd."

Peter T. Daniels:
Hope is from a different century.

Say what? Hope was born in 1866 and died in 1933,
Fowler born in 1858 and died in 1933.

> If Christie used them, it was because she read
> them in a grammar -- book, not because people ac-
> tually talked that way.

Very unlikely. I won't believe your bare word about
it. Will you care to defend this statement of your?

> > > If Fowler repeats the arbitrary dogmata of
> > > 19th-century prescriptivists, he is in error.
> >
> > But since he does not, he is not. His rules are
> > neither arbitrary nor dogmata.
>
> They are both.

I have said why I think they are not, but you have
abstained from disclosing your reasons and arguments
(tell me if I am wrong). If that be so, you are at
a disadvantage.

> > > However, there is no reason to suppose that
> > > that is what he does. His main concern, just
> > > like E. B. White's, was that journalists and
> > > parliamentarians write clear English rather
> > > than attempt Johnsonian periods.
> >
> > As wrong as can be. He would not bother himself
> > with so paltry a purpose. When was the last you
> > have clapped your eye on the tracts of The Soci-
> > ety For Pure English:
> >
> > https://ia601406.us.archive.org/10/items/societyforpureen12358gut/12358.txt
> >
> > There you can learn his true aspiration.
>
> You must really never have read Fowler. His exam-
> ples are taken almost exclusively from newspapers
> and from parliamentary debates -- not from litera-
> ture.

Firstly, "almost exclusively" a gross exagerraion,
but I fear you will shirk your own homework and put
the burden of proving your opinion upon your oppo-
nent. Nope, this is your responsibility. I will
accept numeric statictics about the examples along
with a description of the couning procedure. To put
it short, in addition to journalese Fowler quotes
from the King James Bible and many writers such as
Macaulay, Burke, Carlyle, R. G. White, Jowett,
Richardson, F. M. Crawford, Mahan, W. B. Yeats, S.
Ferrier, Wilde, Johnson, Cowper, Stevenson, J. R.
Green, Conan Doyle, Eliot, Dickens, H. Sweet, and
Gladstone. It is high time you refreshed your memo-
ry.

Secondly, examples from newspapers are expected be-
cause, as it turns out, English journalists have al-
ways been the movers of language degeneration.

> In a usedbook store I came across a bound reprint
> of one volume of such tracts. Some of them were
> entertaining.

Very well, but I mentioned them in connextion with
the true purpose of Fowler's work on language. Do
you accept it as sufficient proof, and if not then
why?

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-26 15:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 11:34:45 AM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> David Kleinecke:
> I fear "shall" is going to remain in use in legal
> and quasi-legal English for a long time. For ex-
> ample -- in the C90 Standard "'shall' is to be
> interpreted as a requirement on an implementa-
> tion, conversely, 'shall not' is to be interpret-
> ed as a prohibition."
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> That's different -- not the Fowlerian shall/
> will -- and perfectly fine in AmE.
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> In what sense is it not Fowlerian? This usage
> conforms to the correct usage as Fowler describes
> it. It is very unfortunate that the term 'Fowle-
> rian' may convey the wrong implication that
> Fowler invented the distiction rather than de-
> scirbed it in a systematic manner.
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> Sounds like you haven't actually read what Fowler
> said ->
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> I have read what Fowler wrote but I doubt that
> you have done so too. Shall I conclude from your
> failure to answer my question that you admit your
> mistake? I asked in what sense you thought the
> usage of 'shall' in legal English was not "Fowle-
> rian".
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> The legal usage has nothing to do with the arti-
> ficial 1st vs. 2nd/3rd person usage that he tried
> to foist on English newspapermen.
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> You may repeat this however many times you like,
> but it shall not affect the truth value of your
> statement. Unless you provide some arguments and
> support them with quotations, it shall remain
> mere handwaving, so I am forced to repeat my
> question the third time: In what sense the usage
> of 'shall' in legal English was not "Fowlerian"?
> If you neither answer nor admit your error, I
> shall assume the latter.
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> Do you also not read anyone else's messages in
> this thread?
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> No, I do not not read others' messages in this
> thread, as you put it. I even intend to reply to
> Peter Moylan about his derivation of the classic
> usage from politeness.
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> Did you read it, or did you not read it?
>
> I did.
>
> > > If you want me to seek the answer in your other
> > > posts around the thread, and have not belaboured
> > > yourself with as little as the provision of a
> > > MessageID, then I have to consider it either im-
> > > politeness or weaseling. This, therefore, is
> > > the third time you have refused directly to an-
> > > swer my question. I am conviced you will not do
> > > it lest you reveal your error. Let me try it
> > > the fouth time: In what sense the usage of
> > > 'shall' in legal English is not "Fowlerian"?
> >
> > I'm not going to answer that question again.
>
> Then kindly and generously point me to your answer,
> for I am frankly unaware of it. Beware that if it
> falls short of direct rebuttal by way of showing an
> occurance of the legal "shall" that should be "will"
> according to Fowler's rules, I will not accept it.
> There is hardly another way to prove your point.

What the hell?????

The Fowler rule has NOTHING TO DO WITH the legal usage.

If it applies vacuously because it is irrelevant, that is hardly evidence in
favor of its usage in conversation or newspaper-writing.

> > > > In legal usage, "shall" denotes requirement
> > > > and is equivalent to "must," whichever person
> > > > is made the subject.
> > >
> > > Please, specify the difference between "must"
> > > and legal "shall" as you see it that I may know
> > > how it supports your opinion.
> >
> > I do not know what you are asking.
>
> Excuse me as a non-native and simply prove your
> statement above with regard to the first person.
> Then observe that in normal English "shall" often
> means the same even with the first person, e.g. in
> Chaucer:

Laws are not written in the first person, so I do not know what the hell you
are obsessing about.

> For by faith I shall to God, I ween
> Was never strange none in her degree
> Than was the queen in casting of her eye
>
> which Fowler does acknowledge:
>
> All the forms in the above list [Ant: above as
> adjective!], and others like them, have three
> peculiarities -- that they are not practically
> futures as distinguished from presents; that they
> use Sh. for all persons, or W. for all persons, if
> the idea is appropriate to all persons; and that
> the ideas are simply, or with very little exten-
> sion, those of command or obligation and wish.
>
> > > > It has NOTHING TO DO WITH the artificial "po-
> > > > liteness" of not imputing mental states to in-
> > > > terlocutors, or something like that.
> > >
> > > Well, Fowler does not derive his rules from such
> > > politeness either, so why did you write that?
> >
> > So the answer to the above question is, No, you
> > didn't read PMoylan's message.
>
> I did, but Peter's derivation is not equivalent to
> Fowler's. Why do you keep referring to Peter's post
> with his alternative hypothesis?

Because it makes more sense than what Fowler tried.

> Anton Shepelev:
> This "legal usage" is in perfect agreement with
> the rules set down in "King's English", and since
> this legal "shall" is always in the third person,
> it cannot demonstate the difference in person
> that you somewhy expect there.
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> No idea what you're talking about.
>
> Anton Sheplev:
> About the difference in person that you (absurd-
> ly) said you expected to see in the legal
> "shall":

What the bloody hell are you talking about?

> > The legal usage has nothing to do with the ar-
> > tificial 1st vs. 2nd/3rd person usage that he
> > tried to foist on English newspapermen.
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> You make less and less sense as you go on.
>
> Or it is your perception that is growing dull as we
> progress. I can't help you unless you specify what
> you found senseless and why. As I said,

Was Soviet law written in the first person? Is Putinesca law written in the
first person?

> > But if you are not interested to understand me, I
> > cannot help.
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> Fowler is very convincng in showing that the
> classic usage of "shall" and "will" is not arbi-
> trary but forms a consistent and logical system.
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> With the slight drawback that IT WAS NOT BEING
> USED EVEN IN HIS DAY A CENTURY AGO.
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> You need not shout, that can't help you. I re-
> peat: Antony Hope had followed Fowler's rules to
> the letter several years before they were pub-
> lished. How shall you explain this loop in
> space-time? Agatha Christie used them after-
> wards, at least in "Roger Ackroyd."
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> Hope is from a different century.
>
> Say what? Hope was born in 1866 and died in 1933,
> Fowler born in 1858 and died in 1933.
>
> > If Christie used them, it was because she read
> > them in a grammar -- book, not because people ac-
> > tually talked that way.
>
> Very unlikely. I won't believe your bare word about
> it. Will you care to defend this statement of your?

No.

If you want to know how people speak in the 21st century, listen to them.

If you want to know how people spoke in the 20th century, then read novels by
authors who were acclaimed for their "ear for everyday speech," such as Elmore
Leonard and perhaps David Lodge.

> > > > If Fowler repeats the arbitrary dogmata of
> > > > 19th-century prescriptivists, he is in error.
> > >
> > > But since he does not, he is not. His rules are
> > > neither arbitrary nor dogmata.
> >
> > They are both.
>
> I have said why I think they are not, but you have
> abstained from disclosing your reasons and arguments
> (tell me if I am wrong). If that be so, you are at
> a disadvantage.
>
> > > > However, there is no reason to suppose that
> > > > that is what he does. His main concern, just
> > > > like E. B. White's, was that journalists and
> > > > parliamentarians write clear English rather
> > > > than attempt Johnsonian periods.
> > >
> > > As wrong as can be. He would not bother himself
> > > with so paltry a purpose. When was the last you
> > > have clapped your eye on the tracts of The Soci-
> > > ety For Pure English:
> > >
> > > https://ia601406.us.archive.org/10/items/societyforpureen12358gut/12358.txt
> > >
> > > There you can learn his true aspiration.
> >
> > You must really never have read Fowler. His exam-
> > ples are taken almost exclusively from newspapers
> > and from parliamentary debates -- not from litera-
> > ture.
>
> Firstly, "almost exclusively" a gross exagerraion,
> but I fear you will shirk your own homework and put
> the burden of proving your opinion upon your oppo-
> nent. Nope, this is your responsibility. I will
> accept numeric statictics about the examples along
> with a description of the couning procedure. To put
> it short, in addition to journalese Fowler quotes
> from the King James Bible and many writers such as
> Macaulay, Burke, Carlyle, R. G. White, Jowett,
> Richardson, F. M. Crawford, Mahan, W. B. Yeats, S.
> Ferrier, Wilde, Johnson, Cowper, Stevenson, J. R.
> Green, Conan Doyle, Eliot, Dickens, H. Sweet, and
> Gladstone. It is high time you refreshed your memo-
> ry.
>
> Secondly, examples from newspapers are expected be-
> cause, as it turns out, English journalists have al-
> ways been the movers of language degeneration.
>
> > In a usedbook store I came across a bound reprint
> > of one volume of such tracts. Some of them were
> > entertaining.
>
> Very well, but I mentioned them in connextion with
> the true purpose of Fowler's work on language. Do
> you accept it as sufficient proof, and if not then
> why?

You are so laden with presuppositions and false assumptions that you are
impossible to understand.
Peter Moylan
2017-10-15 00:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 15/10/17 07:54, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> David Kleinecke:
> I fear "shall" is going to remain in use in legal
> and quasi-legal English for a long time. For ex-
> ample -- in the C90 Standard "'shall' is to be
> interpreted as a requirement on an implementa-
> tion, conversely, 'shall not' is to be interpret-
> ed as a prohibition."
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> That's different -- not the Fowlerian shall/
> will -- and perfectly fine in AmE.
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> In what sense is it not Fowlerian? This usage
> conforms to the correct usage as Fowler describes
> it. It is very unfortunate that the term 'Fowle-
> rian' may convey the wrong implication that
> Fowler invented the distiction rather than de-
> scirbed it in a systematic manner.

The term "Fowlerian" here only clouds the issue, in my opinion. Still,
the fact that someone can claim that a particular use of shall/will is
or is not "the Fowlerian shall/will" reflects the fact that two separate
things are involved here.

1. "Shall" and "should" imply obligation, and "will" and "would" imply
volition. That is a distinction that long predates Fowler, and is still
used in contexts -- like a published standard -- where the author feels
the need to make that distinction.

2. At some stage, I'm not sure quite when, contemporary notions of
politeness and self-effacement led to the custom that one should imply
obligation when referring to oneself, and volition when referring to
others. That is why the use of shall/will to express simple futurity
seemed to be back to front in the first person, as compared to the
second and first persons.

"I shall do this" = I am going to do this, as is my duty; noblesse
oblige.
"You will do this" = you wish to do this, therefore you do-future it.

That's purely a matter of politeness, no more. Of course, it became
automatic in practice, and became a matter of habit from then on, with
no great thought given to the underlying meaning.

Also, in practice, it became a habit of upper-class or well-educated
speakers, but the great mass of speakers didn't care about it. That's
why it has fallen out of use except for a subset of English speakers,
the subset whose usage Fowler describes. For everyone else, it's "will"
in all persons for simple futurity, and "shall" in all persons for
obligation.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Ross
2017-10-15 07:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 1:59:45 PM UTC+13, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 15/10/17 07:54, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> > David Kleinecke:
> > I fear "shall" is going to remain in use in legal
> > and quasi-legal English for a long time. For ex-
> > ample -- in the C90 Standard "'shall' is to be
> > interpreted as a requirement on an implementa-
> > tion, conversely, 'shall not' is to be interpret-
> > ed as a prohibition."
> >
> > Peter T. Daniels:
> > That's different -- not the Fowlerian shall/
> > will -- and perfectly fine in AmE.
> >
> > Anton Shepelev:
> > In what sense is it not Fowlerian? This usage
> > conforms to the correct usage as Fowler describes
> > it. It is very unfortunate that the term 'Fowle-
> > rian' may convey the wrong implication that
> > Fowler invented the distiction rather than de-
> > scirbed it in a systematic manner.
>
> The term "Fowlerian" here only clouds the issue, in my opinion. Still,
> the fact that someone can claim that a particular use of shall/will is
> or is not "the Fowlerian shall/will" reflects the fact that two separate
> things are involved here.
>
> 1. "Shall" and "should" imply obligation, and "will" and "would" imply
> volition. That is a distinction that long predates Fowler, and is still
> used in contexts -- like a published standard -- where the author feels
> the need to make that distinction.
>
> 2. At some stage, I'm not sure quite when, contemporary notions of
> politeness and self-effacement led to the custom that one should imply
> obligation when referring to oneself, and volition when referring to
> others. That is why the use of shall/will to express simple futurity
> seemed to be back to front in the first person, as compared to the
> second and first persons.
>
> "I shall do this" = I am going to do this, as is my duty; noblesse
> oblige.
> "You will do this" = you wish to do this, therefore you do-future it.
>
> That's purely a matter of politeness, no more. Of course, it became
> automatic in practice, and became a matter of habit from then on, with
> no great thought given to the underlying meaning.
>
> Also, in practice, it became a habit of upper-class or well-educated
> speakers, but the great mass of speakers didn't care about it. That's
> why it has fallen out of use except for a subset of English speakers,
> the subset whose usage Fowler describes. For everyone else, it's "will"
> in all persons for simple futurity, and "shall" in all persons for
> obligation.
>
> --
> Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
> Newcastle, NSW, Australia

I don't see that "Fowlerian" beclouds anything. It doesn't imply that
Fowler just made it up, merely that he's the best-known authority who
wrote about it. What's lacking in these discussions, it seems to me,
is a historical study to see exactly when, and by whom, this distinction
was observed in practice. (Your comment about "upper-class or well-educated
speakers" was, I take it, merely speculative.) In this day of vast electronic
corpora, it's hard to believe nobody has done such a study, but so far I
haven't seen a reference to one.

You would be right if (for 1) you said that will/shall originally
{historically) had the volition/obligation senses. (This is a necessary
starting point for your politeness theory (2), which I still don't find
entirely convincing.) And that traces of these original senses can be
seen in modern usage. But "For everyone else [sc. non-Fowlerians], it's
"will" in all persons for simple futurity, and "shall" in all persons for
obligation." is a mile too wide. I've just pointed out that for some
NAm speakers "shall" no longer exists in ordinary speech. (Though you might
want to say that it lives on in "should".) And even for me, statements
with "I/you/they etc. shall" simply do not occur.
Janet
2017-10-10 10:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <cfa71dba-0385-4c2c-aca2-***@googlegroups.com>,
***@verizon.net says...

> The "ordinary language" movement in law is idiotic. There's nearly a thousand
> years of jurisprudence behind the legal meaning of every one of those baffling
> words, and when they start replacing them with "ordinary" ones, they have to
> start all over again tying the words down to very specific meanings

That's being done in UK legal proceedings, and very welcome too.

Legal-terms clarity is one of the lasting benefits of membership of
the EU Parliament (where everything has to be translatable and
intelligible in all the languages).

There's been a massive updating of UK domestic law terminology (wills,
property conveyance, contracts, Acts of Parliament etc).

Janet.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-09 19:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:08:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<***@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 9:19:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
>> In article <e80baeba-df10-4783-b306-***@googlegroups.com>,
>> ***@verizon.net says...
>> > On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
>> > > In article <***@gmail.com>,
>> > > ***@gmail.com says...
>> > > > Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
>> > > > From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
>> > > > Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>
>> > > > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
>> > > > 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
>> > > > 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
>> > > > via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
>> > > > curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
>> > > > tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
>> > > > English:
>> > > Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
>> > > should there be any change I shall let you know.
>> > I should like to see that evidenced in a corpus study.
>>
>> I suggest you search in Hansard 2017.
>>
>> https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons
>
>I suggest that's not a "corpus" in the sense that "corpus" is used in corpus linguistics.
>
>I further suggest that Parliamentary speeches as edited for publication also
>do not represent the ordinary speech of the people who wrote them.

Some things said in Parliament are prepared speeches, a lot are not.
Debates go in unpredicatble directions.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/about

What is Hansard?

Hansard is a substantially verbatim report of what is said in#
Parliament. Members’ words are recorded and then edited to remove
repetitions and obvious mistakes, albeit without taking away from
the meaning. Hansard also sets out details of Divisions and reports
decisions taken during a sitting.

A “rolling” version of Hansard is published online in instalments
during sitting days, with the printed record (daily part) of a day’s
sitting becoming available the next morning, alongside an online
version.

Today's "rolling" version includes (in the Houe of Commons):
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-10-09/debates/B119A163-5708-4B76-847A-0F8AFE4CD5F9/UKPlansForLeavingTheEU

UK Plans for Leaving the EU
09 October 2017
4.31 pm

The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on our
plans for leaving the European Union. <snip> we want to find a
creative solution to a new economic relationship—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker

Order. Members must calm themselves; a little hush, please. The hon.
Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) has had
something for breakfast which I counsel colleagues to avoid.

I'll see what the edited version says tomorrow.



--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-09 21:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 3:47:49 PM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:08:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 9:19:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> >> In article <e80baeba-df10-4783-b306-***@googlegroups.com>,
> >> ***@verizon.net says...
> >> > On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> >> > > In article <***@gmail.com>,
> >> > > ***@gmail.com says...
> >> > > > Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
> >> > > > From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
> >> > > > Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
> >
> >> > > > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
> >> > > > 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
> >> > > > 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
> >> > > > via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
> >> > > > curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
> >> > > > tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
> >> > > > English:
> >> > > Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
> >> > > should there be any change I shall let you know.
> >> > I should like to see that evidenced in a corpus study.
> >>
> >> I suggest you search in Hansard 2017.
> >>
> >> https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons
> >
> >I suggest that's not a "corpus" in the sense that "corpus" is used in corpus linguistics.
> >
> >I further suggest that Parliamentary speeches as edited for publication also
> >do not represent the ordinary speech of the people who wrote them.
>
> Some things said in Parliament are prepared speeches, a lot are not.
> Debates go in unpredicatble directions.

And Hansard is obviously NOT a literal phonetic transcription of whatever was said.

> https://hansard.parliament.uk/about
>
> What is Hansard?
>
> Hansard is a substantially verbatim report of what is said in#
> Parliament. Members’ words are recorded and then edited to remove
> repetitions and obvious mistakes, albeit without taking away from
> the meaning. Hansard also sets out details of Divisions and reports
> decisions taken during a sitting.

I suspect any editor charged with doing that would consider the ordinary
colloquial use of shall/will fodder for prescriptivization.

> A “rolling” version of Hansard is published online in instalments
> during sitting days, with the printed record (daily part) of a day’s
> sitting becoming available the next morning, alongside an online
> version.
>
> Today's "rolling" version includes (in the Houe of Commons):
> https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-10-09/debates/B119A163-5708-4B76-847A-0F8AFE4CD5F9/UKPlansForLeavingTheEU
>
> UK Plans for Leaving the EU
> 09 October 2017
> 4.31 pm
>
> The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
>
> With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on our
> plans for leaving the European Union. <snip> we want to find a
> creative solution to a new economic relationship—[Interruption.]

Oh, excellent! Is the unrolled version actually going to carry "would" instead
of "should"?

If so, pfft! to Janet. If not, pfft! to Janet.

> Mr Speaker
>
> Order. Members must calm themselves; a little hush, please. The hon.
> Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) has had
> something for breakfast which I counsel colleagues to avoid.
>
> I'll see what the edited version says tomorrow.

Is there something in Mr Speaker's turn that seems exceptionable?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-10 11:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 14:49:24 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<***@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 3:47:49 PM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:08:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 9:19:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
>> >> In article <e80baeba-df10-4783-b306-***@googlegroups.com>,
>> >> ***@verizon.net says...
>> >> > On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
>> >> > > In article <***@gmail.com>,
>> >> > > ***@gmail.com says...
>> >> > > > Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
>> >> > > > From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>> >
>> >> > > > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
>> >> > > > 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
>> >> > > > 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
>> >> > > > via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
>> >> > > > curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
>> >> > > > tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
>> >> > > > English:
>> >> > > Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
>> >> > > should there be any change I shall let you know.
>> >> > I should like to see that evidenced in a corpus study.
>> >>
>> >> I suggest you search in Hansard 2017.
>> >>
>> >> https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons
>> >
>> >I suggest that's not a "corpus" in the sense that "corpus" is used in corpus linguistics.
>> >
>> >I further suggest that Parliamentary speeches as edited for publication also
>> >do not represent the ordinary speech of the people who wrote them.
>>
>> Some things said in Parliament are prepared speeches, a lot are not.
>> Debates go in unpredicatble directions.
>
>And Hansard is obviously NOT a literal phonetic transcription of whatever was said.
>
>> https://hansard.parliament.uk/about
>>
>> What is Hansard?
>>
>> Hansard is a substantially verbatim report of what is said in#
>> Parliament. Members’ words are recorded and then edited to remove
>> repetitions and obvious mistakes, albeit without taking away from
>> the meaning. Hansard also sets out details of Divisions and reports
>> decisions taken during a sitting.
>
>I suspect any editor charged with doing that would consider the ordinary
>colloquial use of shall/will fodder for prescriptivization.
>
>> A “rolling” version of Hansard is published online in instalments
>> during sitting days, with the printed record (daily part) of a day’s
>> sitting becoming available the next morning, alongside an online
>> version.
>>
>> Today's "rolling" version includes (in the Houe of Commons):
>> https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-10-09/debates/B119A163-5708-4B76-847A-0F8AFE4CD5F9/UKPlansForLeavingTheEU
>>
>> UK Plans for Leaving the EU
>> 09 October 2017
>> 4.31 pm
>>
>> The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
>>
>> With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on our
>> plans for leaving the European Union. <snip> we want to find a
>> creative solution to a new economic relationship—[Interruption.]
>
>Oh, excellent! Is the unrolled version actually going to carry "would" instead
>of "should"?

It has "would" as in the "rolling" version.
That is not the sort of "mistake" the editors will/would/should be
looking for.

>
>If so, pfft! to Janet. If not, pfft! to Janet.
>
>> Mr Speaker
>>
>> Order. Members must calm themselves; a little hush, please. The hon.
>> Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) has had
>> something for breakfast which I counsel colleagues to avoid.
>>
>> I'll see what the edited version says tomorrow.
>
>Is there something in Mr Speaker's turn that seems exceptionable?

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-10 12:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 7:58:18 AM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 14:49:24 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 3:47:49 PM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
> >> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:08:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 9:19:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> >> >> In article <e80baeba-df10-4783-b306-***@googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> ***@verizon.net says...
> >> >> > On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> >> >> > > In article <***@gmail.com>,
> >> >> > > ***@gmail.com says...
> >> >> > > > Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
> >> >> > > > From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > > Newsgroups: alt.usage.english

> >> >> > > > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
> >> >> > > > 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
> >> >> > > > 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
> >> >> > > > via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
> >> >> > > > curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
> >> >> > > > tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
> >> >> > > > English:
> >> >> > > Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
> >> >> > > should there be any change I shall let you know.
> >> >> > I should like to see that evidenced in a corpus study.
> >> >> I suggest you search in Hansard 2017.
> >> >> https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons
> >> >I suggest that's not a "corpus" in the sense that "corpus" is used in corpus linguistics.
> >> >I further suggest that Parliamentary speeches as edited for publication also
> >> >do not represent the ordinary speech of the people who wrote them.
> >> Some things said in Parliament are prepared speeches, a lot are not.
> >> Debates go in unpredicatble directions.
> >And Hansard is obviously NOT a literal phonetic transcription of whatever was said.
> >> https://hansard.parliament.uk/about
> >> What is Hansard?
> >> Hansard is a substantially verbatim report of what is said in#
> >> Parliament. Members’ words are recorded and then edited to remove
> >> repetitions and obvious mistakes, albeit without taking away from
> >> the meaning. Hansard also sets out details of Divisions and reports
> >> decisions taken during a sitting.
> >I suspect any editor charged with doing that would consider the ordinary
> >colloquial use of shall/will fodder for prescriptivization.
> >> A “rolling” version of Hansard is published online in instalments
> >> during sitting days, with the printed record (daily part) of a day’s
> >> sitting becoming available the next morning, alongside an online
> >> version.
> >> Today's "rolling" version includes (in the Houe of Commons):
> >> https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-10-09/debates/B119A163-5708-4B76-847A-0F8AFE4CD5F9/UKPlansForLeavingTheEU
> >> UK Plans for Leaving the EU
> >> 09 October 2017
> >> 4.31 pm
> >> The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
> >> With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on our
> >> plans for leaving the European Union. <snip> we want to find a
> >> creative solution to a new economic relationship—[Interruption.]
> >Oh, excellent! Is the unrolled version actually going to carry "would" instead
> >of "should"?
>
> It has "would" as in the "rolling" version.
> That is not the sort of "mistake" the editors will/would/should be
> looking for.
>
> >If so, pfft! to Janet. If not, pfft! to Janet.

Thank you.

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom does not observe the Fowlerian "rule," and
the official "transcript" of her remarks does not "correct" the "error."
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-10 10:47:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 20:47:44 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:08:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
><***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 9:19:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
>>> In article <e80baeba-df10-4783-b306-***@googlegroups.com>,
>>> ***@verizon.net says...
>>> > On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
>>> > > In article <***@gmail.com>,
>>> > > ***@gmail.com says...
>>> > > > Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
>>> > > > From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
>>> > > > Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>>
>>> > > > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
>>> > > > 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
>>> > > > 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
>>> > > > via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
>>> > > > curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
>>> > > > tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
>>> > > > English:
>>> > > Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
>>> > > should there be any change I shall let you know.
>>> > I should like to see that evidenced in a corpus study.
>>>
>>> I suggest you search in Hansard 2017.
>>>
>>> https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons
>>
>>I suggest that's not a "corpus" in the sense that "corpus" is used in corpus linguistics.
>>
>>I further suggest that Parliamentary speeches as edited for publication also
>>do not represent the ordinary speech of the people who wrote them.
>
>Some things said in Parliament are prepared speeches, a lot are not.
>Debates go in unpredicatble directions.
>
>https://hansard.parliament.uk/about
>
> What is Hansard?
>
> Hansard is a substantially verbatim report of what is said in#
> Parliament. Members’ words are recorded and then edited to remove
> repetitions and obvious mistakes, albeit without taking away from
> the meaning. Hansard also sets out details of Divisions and reports
> decisions taken during a sitting.
>
> A “rolling” version of Hansard is published online in instalments
> during sitting days, with the printed record (daily part) of a day’s
> sitting becoming available the next morning, alongside an online
> version.
>
>Today's "rolling" version includes (in the Houe of Commons):
>https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-10-09/debates/B119A163-5708-4B76-847A-0F8AFE4CD5F9/UKPlansForLeavingTheEU
>
> UK Plans for Leaving the EU
> 09 October 2017
> 4.31 pm
>
> The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
>
> With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on our
> plans for leaving the European Union. <snip> we want to find a
> creative solution to a new economic relationship—[Interruption.]
>
> Mr Speaker
>
> Order. Members must calm themselves; a little hush, please. The hon.
> Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) has had
> something for breakfast which I counsel colleagues to avoid.
>
>I'll see what the edited version says tomorrow.

It seems to be the same.
(url as above. The "edited" version replaced the "rolling" version.)

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-10 12:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:47:08 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 20:47:44 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
><***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:08:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>><***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 9:19:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
>>>> In article <e80baeba-df10-4783-b306-***@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> ***@verizon.net says...
>>>> > On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
>>>> > > In article <***@gmail.com>,
>>>> > > ***@gmail.com says...
>>>> > > > Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
>>>> > > > From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
>>>> > > > Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>>>
>>>> > > > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
>>>> > > > 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
>>>> > > > 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
>>>> > > > via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
>>>> > > > curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
>>>> > > > tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
>>>> > > > English:
>>>> > > Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
>>>> > > should there be any change I shall let you know.
>>>> > I should like to see that evidenced in a corpus study.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest you search in Hansard 2017.
>>>>
>>>> https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons
>>>
>>>I suggest that's not a "corpus" in the sense that "corpus" is used in corpus linguistics.
>>>
>>>I further suggest that Parliamentary speeches as edited for publication also
>>>do not represent the ordinary speech of the people who wrote them.
>>
>>Some things said in Parliament are prepared speeches, a lot are not.
>>Debates go in unpredicatble directions.
>>
>>https://hansard.parliament.uk/about
>>
>> What is Hansard?
>>
>> Hansard is a substantially verbatim report of what is said in#
>> Parliament. Members’ words are recorded and then edited to remove
>> repetitions and obvious mistakes, albeit without taking away from
>> the meaning. Hansard also sets out details of Divisions and reports
>> decisions taken during a sitting.
>>
>> A “rolling” version of Hansard is published online in instalments
>> during sitting days, with the printed record (daily part) of a day’s
>> sitting becoming available the next morning, alongside an online
>> version.
>>
>>Today's "rolling" version includes (in the Houe of Commons):
>>https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-10-09/debates/B119A163-5708-4B76-847A-0F8AFE4CD5F9/UKPlansForLeavingTheEU
>>
>> UK Plans for Leaving the EU
>> 09 October 2017
>> 4.31 pm
>>
>> The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
>>
>> With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on our
>> plans for leaving the European Union. <snip> we want to find a
>> creative solution to a new economic relationship—[Interruption.]
>>
>> Mr Speaker
>>
>> Order. Members must calm themselves; a little hush, please. The hon.
>> Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) has had
>> something for breakfast which I counsel colleagues to avoid.
>>
>>I'll see what the edited version says tomorrow.
>
>It seems to be the same.
>(url as above. The "edited" version replaced the "rolling" version.)

I'll save a copy of one of the "rolling" (unedited) discussions today
and compare it with the edited version tomorrow.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-11 10:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:40:05 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:47:08 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
><***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 20:47:44 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>><***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:08:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>><***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 9:19:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
>>>>> In article <e80baeba-df10-4783-b306-***@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> ***@verizon.net says...
>>>>> > On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
>>>>> > > In article <***@gmail.com>,
>>>>> > > ***@gmail.com says...
>>>>> > > > Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
>>>>> > > > From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
>>>>> > > > Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>>>>
>>>>> > > > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
>>>>> > > > 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
>>>>> > > > 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
>>>>> > > > via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
>>>>> > > > curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
>>>>> > > > tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
>>>>> > > > English:
>>>>> > > Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
>>>>> > > should there be any change I shall let you know.
>>>>> > I should like to see that evidenced in a corpus study.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest you search in Hansard 2017.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons
>>>>
>>>>I suggest that's not a "corpus" in the sense that "corpus" is used in corpus linguistics.
>>>>
>>>>I further suggest that Parliamentary speeches as edited for publication also
>>>>do not represent the ordinary speech of the people who wrote them.
>>>
>>>Some things said in Parliament are prepared speeches, a lot are not.
>>>Debates go in unpredicatble directions.
>>>
>>>https://hansard.parliament.uk/about
>>>
>>> What is Hansard?
>>>
>>> Hansard is a substantially verbatim report of what is said in#
>>> Parliament. Members’ words are recorded and then edited to remove
>>> repetitions and obvious mistakes, albeit without taking away from
>>> the meaning. Hansard also sets out details of Divisions and reports
>>> decisions taken during a sitting.
>>>
>>> A “rolling” version of Hansard is published online in instalments
>>> during sitting days, with the printed record (daily part) of a day’s
>>> sitting becoming available the next morning, alongside an online
>>> version.
>>>
>>>Today's "rolling" version includes (in the Houe of Commons):
>>>https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-10-09/debates/B119A163-5708-4B76-847A-0F8AFE4CD5F9/UKPlansForLeavingTheEU
>>>
>>> UK Plans for Leaving the EU
>>> 09 October 2017
>>> 4.31 pm
>>>
>>> The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
>>>
>>> With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on our
>>> plans for leaving the European Union. <snip> we want to find a
>>> creative solution to a new economic relationship—[Interruption.]
>>>
>>> Mr Speaker
>>>
>>> Order. Members must calm themselves; a little hush, please. The hon.
>>> Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) has had
>>> something for breakfast which I counsel colleagues to avoid.
>>>
>>>I'll see what the edited version says tomorrow.
>>
>>It seems to be the same.
>>(url as above. The "edited" version replaced the "rolling" version.)
>
>I'll save a copy of one of the "rolling" (unedited) discussions today
>and compare it with the edited version tomorrow.

I have compared text versions of the unedited ("rolling") version of the
statement and discussion in the House of Commons about Bombardier from
yesterday with the edited version published today.

I used Textpad to do the comparison ignoring differences due to:
Upper and lower case letters
and
Number of spaces or tabs

It reports "The files are identical".

It starts:

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
(Greg Clark)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on
Bombardier, updating the House on the trade dispute brought by
Boeing against that company.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-10-10/debates/92BCBE8B-21EF-401D-890D-4FF97994E93A/Bombardier


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-11 12:05:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 6:42:43 AM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:40:05 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:47:08 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> ><***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >>On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 20:47:44 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> >><***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >>>On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:08:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >>><***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 9:19:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> >>>>> In article <e80baeba-df10-4783-b306-***@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>> ***@verizon.net says...
> >>>>> > On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> >>>>> > > In article <***@gmail.com>,
> >>>>> > > ***@gmail.com says...
> >>>>> > > > Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
> >>>>> > > > From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
> >>>>> > > > Newsgroups: alt.usage.english

> >>>>> > > > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
> >>>>> > > > 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
> >>>>> > > > 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
> >>>>> > > > via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
> >>>>> > > > curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
> >>>>> > > > tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
> >>>>> > > > English:
> >>>>> > > Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
> >>>>> > > should there be any change I shall let you know.
> >>>>> > I should like to see that evidenced in a corpus study.
> >>>>> I suggest you search in Hansard 2017.
> >>>>> https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons
> >>>>I suggest that's not a "corpus" in the sense that "corpus" is used in corpus linguistics.
> >>>>I further suggest that Parliamentary speeches as edited for publication also
> >>>>do not represent the ordinary speech of the people who wrote them.
> >>>Some things said in Parliament are prepared speeches, a lot are not.
> >>>Debates go in unpredicatble directions.
> >>>https://hansard.parliament.uk/about
> >>> What is Hansard?
> >>> Hansard is a substantially verbatim report of what is said in#
> >>> Parliament. Members’ words are recorded and then edited to remove
> >>> repetitions and obvious mistakes, albeit without taking away from
> >>> the meaning. Hansard also sets out details of Divisions and reports
> >>> decisions taken during a sitting.
> >>> A “rolling” version of Hansard is published online in instalments
> >>> during sitting days, with the printed record (daily part) of a day’s
> >>> sitting becoming available the next morning, alongside an online
> >>> version.
> >>>Today's "rolling" version includes (in the Houe of Commons):
> >>>https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-10-09/debates/B119A163-5708-4B76-847A-0F8AFE4CD5F9/UKPlansForLeavingTheEU
> >>> UK Plans for Leaving the EU
> >>> 09 October 2017
> >>> 4.31 pm
> >>> The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
> >>> With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on our
> >>> plans for leaving the European Union. <snip> we want to find a
> >>> creative solution to a new economic relationship—[Interruption.]
> >>> Mr Speaker
> >>> Order. Members must calm themselves; a little hush, please. The hon.
> >>> Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) has had
> >>> something for breakfast which I counsel colleagues to avoid.
> >>>I'll see what the edited version says tomorrow.
> >>It seems to be the same.
> >>(url as above. The "edited" version replaced the "rolling" version.)
> >I'll save a copy of one of the "rolling" (unedited) discussions today
> >and compare it with the edited version tomorrow.
>
> I have compared text versions of the unedited ("rolling") version of the
> statement and discussion in the House of Commons about Bombardier from
> yesterday with the edited version published today.
>
> I used Textpad to do the comparison ignoring differences due to:
> Upper and lower case letters
> and
> Number of spaces or tabs
>
> It reports "The files are identical".
>
> It starts:
>
> The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
> (Greg Clark)
> With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on
> Bombardier, updating the House on the trade dispute brought by
> Boeing against that company.
>
> https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-10-10/debates/92BCBE8B-21EF-401D-890D-4FF97994E93A/Bombardier

Well, there goes the prime source for Fowlerian shall/will in contemporary Britain. What's Janet's next try?

Recall that the fight was started by a foreigner whose idol is the American Ambrose Bierce, dead more
than a century -- dead before even Fowler & Fowler was published.
Janet
2017-10-09 21:07:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <31769a9b-0608-4ee3-835a-***@googlegroups.com>,
***@verizon.net says...
>
> On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 9:19:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> > In article <e80baeba-df10-4783-b306-***@googlegroups.com>,
> > ***@verizon.net says...
> > > On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> > > > In article <***@gmail.com>,
> > > > ***@gmail.com says...
> > > > > Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
> > > > > From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
> > > > > Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>
> > > > > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
> > > > > 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
> > > > > 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
> > > > > via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
> > > > > curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
> > > > > tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
> > > > > English:
> > > > Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
> > > > should there be any change I shall let you know.
> > > I should like to see that evidenced in a corpus study.
> >
> > I suggest you search in Hansard 2017.
> >
> > https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons
>
> I suggest that's not a "corpus" in the sense that "corpus" is used in corpus linguistics.

As I'm not a linguistician and you're too lazy to do your own
research you'll have to thole it.

> I further suggest that Parliamentary speeches as edited for publication also
> do not represent the ordinary speech of the people who wrote them.

You mistakenly think that Hansard only records "speeches". In Commons
debates, the MPs are speaking off the cuff, not reading from a prompt
screen and this is their ordinary speech; representing all areas of the
UK. Which is why I chose it as an example. Parliament is also televised
every day, and that recording is available free online. Anyone can check
that Hansard is a fair record of what was said.


Searching Hansard for examples of shall/should in ordinary speech
current use, here's a whole page of quoted results

https://tinyurl.com/y93y8qn9

Janet.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-09 21:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 5:07:23 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> In article <31769a9b-0608-4ee3-835a-***@googlegroups.com>,
> ***@verizon.net says...
> >
> > On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 9:19:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> > > In article <e80baeba-df10-4783-b306-***@googlegroups.com>,
> > > ***@verizon.net says...
> > > > On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> > > > > In article <***@gmail.com>,
> > > > > ***@gmail.com says...
> > > > > > Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
> > > > > > From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
> > > > > > Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
> >
> > > > > > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
> > > > > > 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
> > > > > > 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
> > > > > > via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
> > > > > > curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
> > > > > > tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
> > > > > > English:
> > > > > Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
> > > > > should there be any change I shall let you know.
> > > > I should like to see that evidenced in a corpus study.
> > >
> > > I suggest you search in Hansard 2017.
> > >
> > > https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons
> >
> > I suggest that's not a "corpus" in the sense that "corpus" is used in corpus linguistics.
>
> As I'm not a linguistician and you're too lazy to do your own
> research you'll have to thole it.
>
> > I further suggest that Parliamentary speeches as edited for publication also
> > do not represent the ordinary speech of the people who wrote them.
>
> You mistakenly think that Hansard only records "speeches". In Commons
> debates, the MPs are speaking off the cuff, not reading from a prompt
> screen and this is their ordinary speech; representing all areas of the
> UK. Which is why I chose it as an example. Parliament is also televised
> every day, and that recording is available free online. Anyone can check
> that Hansard is a fair record of what was said.

As PWD showed (with a beautifully chosen example), you're simply either wrong
or wrong -- that is, either it preserves actual speech and that actual speech
does _not_ observe Fowlerian shall/will; or else, if the Fowlerian usage appears
in the final published version, it will have been "corrected" by an editor.

> Searching Hansard for examples of shall/should in ordinary speech
> current use, here's a whole page of quoted results
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y93y8qn9

Even if they were verbatim phonetic transcripts, which obviously they aren't,
they wouldn't represent "ordinary speech current use." They would represent
people in just about the most formal of speech situations who even when speaking
off the cuff are carefully monitoring their diction to come out as they were
taught in Public Speaking class decades ago.

It's routinely reported that people speaking impromptu on Arabic-language radio
try to start out in Standard Arabic but after a while the strain is great and
they return to their local vernacular variety. I don't believe Parliamentary
utterances go on nearly long enough for that to be a likely outcome in the House?
Janet
2017-10-10 10:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <a7c9d9c9-57e6-4ab5-b0a1-***@googlegroups.com>,
***@verizon.net says...
> Subject: Re: Shall and Will in 1942
> From: Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>
> On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 5:07:23 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> > [quoted text muted]
> > debates, the MPs are speaking off the cuff, not reading from a prompt
> > screen and this is their ordinary speech; representing all areas of the
> > UK. Which is why I chose it as an example. Parliament is also televised
> > every day, and that recording is available free online. Anyone can check
> > that Hansard is a fair record of what was said.
>
> As PWD showed (with a beautifully chosen example), you're simply either wrong
> or wrong -- that is, either it preserves actual speech and that actual speech
> does _not_ observe Fowlerian shall/will; or else, if the Fowlerian usage appears
> in the final published version, it will have been "corrected" by an editor.
>
> > Searching Hansard for examples of shall/should in ordinary speech
> > current use, here's a whole page of quoted results
> >
> > https://tinyurl.com/y93y8qn9
>
> Even if they were verbatim phonetic transcripts, which obviously they aren't,
> they wouldn't represent "ordinary speech current use." They would represent
> people in just about the most formal of speech situations who even when speaking
> off the cuff are carefully monitoring their diction to come out as they were
> taught in Public Speaking class decades ago.

If you'd watched and heard proceedings in televised Parliament you'd
realise how wide of the mark that is. 70% of the current Westminster
Parliament were educated in state schools; certainly not born with a
silver spoon in their mouths.

Janet.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-10 12:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 6:24:38 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> In article <a7c9d9c9-57e6-4ab5-b0a1-***@googlegroups.com>,
> ***@verizon.net says...
> > Subject: Re: Shall and Will in 1942
> > From: Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net>
> > Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
> > On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 5:07:23 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:

> > > debates, the MPs are speaking off the cuff, not reading from a prompt
> > > screen and this is their ordinary speech; representing all areas of the
> > > UK. Which is why I chose it as an example. Parliament is also televised
> > > every day, and that recording is available free online. Anyone can check
> > > that Hansard is a fair record of what was said.
> > As PWD showed (with a beautifully chosen example), you're simply either wrong
> > or wrong -- that is, either it preserves actual speech and that actual speech
> > does _not_ observe Fowlerian shall/will; or else, if the Fowlerian usage appears
> > in the final published version, it will have been "corrected" by an editor.
> > > Searching Hansard for examples of shall/should in ordinary speech
> > > current use, here's a whole page of quoted results
> > >
> > > https://tinyurl.com/y93y8qn9
> > Even if they were verbatim phonetic transcripts, which obviously they aren't,
> > they wouldn't represent "ordinary speech current use." They would represent
> > people in just about the most formal of speech situations who even when speaking
> > off the cuff are carefully monitoring their diction to come out as they were
> > taught in Public Speaking class decades ago.
>
> If you'd watched and heard proceedings in televised Parliament you'd
> realise how wide of the mark that is. 70% of the current Westminster
> Parliament were educated in state schools; certainly not born with a
> silver spoon in their mouths.

So now the elitist snob thinks that "state schools" don't provide adequate training in formal English?

Also she doesn't mention which universities (or would she prefer "universities") they attended.
Janet
2017-10-10 13:43:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <a7a1a0f8-366b-42cf-8ba4-***@googlegroups.com>,
***@verizon.net says...
> > > > https://tinyurl.com/y93y8qn9
> > > Even if they were verbatim phonetic transcripts, which obviously they aren't,
> > > they wouldn't represent "ordinary speech current use." They would represent
> > > people in just about the most formal of speech situations who even when speaking
> > > off the cuff are carefully monitoring their diction to come out as they were
> > > taught in Public Speaking class decades ago.
> >
> > If you'd watched and heard proceedings in televised Parliament you'd
> > realise how wide of the mark that is. 70% of the current Westminster
> > Parliament were educated in state schools; certainly not born with a
> > silver spoon in their mouths.
>
> So now the elitist snob thinks that "state schools" don't provide adequate training in formal English?

"Public speaking class" is not part of the national curriculum taught
in state schools.

> Also she doesn't mention which universities (or would she prefer "universities") they attended.

86 per cent of MPs are university graduates, with 23 per cent
attending Oxford or Cambridge. Tuition fees are almost identical across
all UK universities. Over half the students at Oxford and Cambridge
enter from state schools.

Janet.


>
Richard Tobin
2017-10-10 19:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <a7a1a0f8-366b-42cf-8ba4-***@googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:

>> > Even if they were verbatim phonetic transcripts, which obviously
>> > they aren't, they wouldn't represent "ordinary speech current
>> > use." They would represent people in just about the most formal
>> > of speech situations who even when speaking off the cuff are
>> > carefully monitoring their diction to come out as they were
>> > taught in Public Speaking class decades ago.

>> If you'd watched and heard proceedings in televised Parliament you'd
>> realise how wide of the mark that is. 70% of the current Westminster
>> Parliament were educated in state schools; certainly not born with a
>> silver spoon in their mouths.

>So now the elitist snob thinks that "state schools" don't provide
>adequate training in formal English?

You said "Public Speaking class". No state school I've heard of
provides such a thing.

-- Richard
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-10 20:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:12:15 +0000 (UTC), ***@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:

>In article <a7a1a0f8-366b-42cf-8ba4-***@googlegroups.com>,
>Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> > Even if they were verbatim phonetic transcripts, which obviously
>>> > they aren't, they wouldn't represent "ordinary speech current
>>> > use." They would represent people in just about the most formal
>>> > of speech situations who even when speaking off the cuff are
>>> > carefully monitoring their diction to come out as they were
>>> > taught in Public Speaking class decades ago.
>
>>> If you'd watched and heard proceedings in televised Parliament you'd
>>> realise how wide of the mark that is. 70% of the current Westminster
>>> Parliament were educated in state schools; certainly not born with a
>>> silver spoon in their mouths.
>
>>So now the elitist snob thinks that "state schools" don't provide
>>adequate training in formal English?
>
>You said "Public Speaking class". No state school I've heard of
>provides such a thing.
>
>-- Richard

The phrase "public speaking" is used with a different sense. Here it
means "reasoned debate". Matters of grammar would be relevant only if
someone was not making her/his meaning clear.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/nov/08/why-dont-schools-focus-on-public-speaking-campaign

Why don’t more schools focus on public speaking? Discuss
....
...consultant Martin Robinson, author of two books that attempt to
bring classical principles to modern comprehensive education,
surprise hits in recent years.

Robinson, who advises Highbury Grove [school], says: “It is
important that young people develop educated opinions, that is,
opinions that emerge after exploring and weighing up different sides
of an argument.” Robinson believes an educated 18-year-old “should
be able to respond to gentle interrogation and not worry when they
get to the point of not knowing, relish it even because they can
explore and find out more”.

This week sees the launch of a campaign, the Oracy Network, to raise
the profile of public speaking in the national curriculum, backed by
the English Speaking Union (ESU) and involving, among others, Peter
Hyman, founder of School 21 in east London and an enthusiast for the
cause. Too many schools still don’t seem to know about the benefits
of encouraging pupils to be confident speakers, or haven’t
integrated oracy into other parts of the curriculum. A new study
published today by LKMCO thinktank, reports that provision is
patchy. “Few schools evaluate the quality of pupils’ verbal
contributions in lessons, or communicate with parents about the
quality of these contributions.”

The report says 57% of teachers say they have not received training
in oracy in the past three years, and 53% would not know where to
look for more information if they needed it.
....

"Oracy": Competence in oral language
"Literacy": Competence in written language

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
John Dunlop
2017-10-11 08:06:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter Duncanson [BrE]:

> "Oracy": Competence in oral language
> "Literacy": Competence in written language

Is there an oral equivalent of illiteracy? The more I say it, the more I
want "illoracy" to be a word.
--
John
Tony Cooper
2017-10-10 20:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:12:15 +0000 (UTC), ***@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:

>In article <a7a1a0f8-366b-42cf-8ba4-***@googlegroups.com>,
>Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> > Even if they were verbatim phonetic transcripts, which obviously
>>> > they aren't, they wouldn't represent "ordinary speech current
>>> > use." They would represent people in just about the most formal
>>> > of speech situations who even when speaking off the cuff are
>>> > carefully monitoring their diction to come out as they were
>>> > taught in Public Speaking class decades ago.
>
>>> If you'd watched and heard proceedings in televised Parliament you'd
>>> realise how wide of the mark that is. 70% of the current Westminster
>>> Parliament were educated in state schools; certainly not born with a
>>> silver spoon in their mouths.
>
>>So now the elitist snob thinks that "state schools" don't provide
>>adequate training in formal English?
>
>You said "Public Speaking class". No state school I've heard of
>provides such a thing.
>

It's not a class, but many US high schools and universities have a
debate club or a debate team. I would assume there's some instruction
by the teacher/sponsor in the art of formal presentations of ideas.

The instruction would be in the area of being comfortable as a public
speaker and preparing questions and answers in effective and cogent
form.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-10 21:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 2:31:04 PM UTC-6, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:12:15 +0000 (UTC), ***@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
> (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>
> >In article <a7a1a0f8-366b-42cf-8ba4-***@googlegroups.com>,
> >Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> > Even if they were verbatim phonetic transcripts, which obviously
> >>> > they aren't, they wouldn't represent "ordinary speech current
> >>> > use." They would represent people in just about the most formal
> >>> > of speech situations who even when speaking off the cuff are
> >>> > carefully monitoring their diction to come out as they were
> >>> > taught in Public Speaking class decades ago.
> >
> >>> If you'd watched and heard proceedings in televised Parliament you'd
> >>> realise how wide of the mark that is. 70% of the current Westminster
> >>> Parliament were educated in state schools; certainly not born with a
> >>> silver spoon in their mouths.
> >
> >>So now the elitist snob thinks that "state schools" don't provide
> >>adequate training in formal English?
> >
> >You said "Public Speaking class". No state school I've heard of
> >provides such a thing.
> >
>
> It's not a class, but many US high schools and universities have a
> debate club or a debate team. I would assume there's some instruction
> by the teacher/sponsor in the art of formal presentations of ideas.
...

You would, but I was on the debate team, and I don't remember any.
(And I was inept.)

--
Jerry Friedman
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-10-11 06:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-10-10 21:28:43 +0000, Jerry Friedman said:

> On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 2:31:04 PM UTC-6, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:12:15 +0000 (UTC), ***@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
>> (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <a7a1a0f8-366b-42cf-8ba4-***@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Even if they were verbatim phonetic transcripts, which obviously
>>>>>> they aren't, they wouldn't represent "ordinary speech current
>>>>>> use." They would represent people in just about the most formal
>>>>>> of speech situations who even when speaking off the cuff are
>>>>>> carefully monitoring their diction to come out as they were
>>>>>> taught in Public Speaking class decades ago.
>>>
>>>>> If you'd watched and heard proceedings in televised Parliament you'd
>>>>> realise how wide of the mark that is. 70% of the current Westminster
>>>>> Parliament were educated in state schools; certainly not born with a
>>>>> silver spoon in their mouths.
>>>
>>>> So now the elitist snob thinks that "state schools" don't provide
>>>> adequate training in formal English?
>>>
>>> You said "Public Speaking class". No state school I've heard of
>>> provides such a thing.
>>>
>>
>> It's not a class, but many US high schools and universities have a
>> debate club or a debate team. I would assume there's some instruction
>> by the teacher/sponsor in the art of formal presentations of ideas.
> ...
>
> You would, but I was on the debate team, and I don't remember any.
> (And I was inept.)

We had a debating society at my school. No teachers/sponsors attended debates.

--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-10 21:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 3:15:04 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <a7a1a0f8-366b-42cf-8ba4-***@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Even if they were verbatim phonetic transcripts, which obviously
> >> > they aren't, they wouldn't represent "ordinary speech current
> >> > use." They would represent people in just about the most formal
> >> > of speech situations who even when speaking off the cuff are
> >> > carefully monitoring their diction to come out as they were
> >> > taught in Public Speaking class decades ago.
>
> >> If you'd watched and heard proceedings in televised Parliament you'd
> >> realise how wide of the mark that is. 70% of the current Westminster
> >> Parliament were educated in state schools; certainly not born with a
> >> silver spoon in their mouths.
>
> >So now the elitist snob thinks that "state schools" don't provide
> >adequate training in formal English?
>
> You said "Public Speaking class". No state school I've heard of
> provides such a thing.

That's why they went to university, to prepare for a career in public service.
If they weren't already competent at public speaking, that was where they
could have learned.

Our high schools, of course, almost always have "debating societies," and
engage in competitions. I believe Oxford is famous for such a thing, too.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-10-11 06:24:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-10-10 19:12:15 +0000, Richard Tobin said:

> In article <a7a1a0f8-366b-42cf-8ba4-***@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Even if they were verbatim phonetic transcripts, which obviously
>>>> they aren't, they wouldn't represent "ordinary speech current
>>>> use." They would represent people in just about the most formal
>>>> of speech situations who even when speaking off the cuff are
>>>> carefully monitoring their diction to come out as they were
>>>> taught in Public Speaking class decades ago.
>
>>> If you'd watched and heard proceedings in televised Parliament you'd
>>> realise how wide of the mark that is. 70% of the current Westminster
>>> Parliament were educated in state schools; certainly not born with a
>>> silver spoon in their mouths.
>
>> So now the elitist snob thinks that "state schools" don't provide
>> adequate training in formal English?
>
> You said "Public Speaking class". No state school I've heard of
> provides such a thing.

Or any private school that I know of.




--
athel
charles
2017-10-11 07:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> On 2017-10-10 19:12:15 +0000, Richard Tobin said:

> > In article <a7a1a0f8-366b-42cf-8ba4-***@googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Even if they were verbatim phonetic transcripts, which obviously
> >>>> they aren't, they wouldn't represent "ordinary speech current
> >>>> use." They would represent people in just about the most formal
> >>>> of speech situations who even when speaking off the cuff are
> >>>> carefully monitoring their diction to come out as they were
> >>>> taught in Public Speaking class decades ago.
> >
> >>> If you'd watched and heard proceedings in televised Parliament you'd
> >>> realise how wide of the mark that is. 70% of the current Westminster
> >>> Parliament were educated in state schools; certainly not born with a
> >>> silver spoon in their mouths.
> >
> >> So now the elitist snob thinks that "state schools" don't provide
> >> adequate training in formal English?
> >
> > You said "Public Speaking class". No state school I've heard of
> > provides such a thing.

> Or any private school that I know of.

Not in formal classes, perhaps. But, quite a few have "Debating Societies"

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Quinn C
2017-10-11 02:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 9:19:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
>> In article <e80baeba-df10-4783-b306-***@googlegroups.com>,
>> ***@verizon.net says...
>>> On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
>>> > In article <***@gmail.com>,
>>> > ***@gmail.com says...
>>> > > Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
>>> > > From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
>>> > > Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>
>>> > > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
>>> > > 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
>>> > > 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
>>> > > via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
>>> > > curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
>>> > > tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
>>> > > English:
>>> > Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
>>> > should there be any change I shall let you know.
>>> I should like to see that evidenced in a corpus study.
>>
>> I suggest you search in Hansard 2017.
>>
>> https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons
>
> I suggest that's not a "corpus" in the sense that "corpus" is used in corpus linguistics.

Of course it is. The Canadian "Hansard" is one of the standard
bilingual corpora much used in Corpus Linguistics.

> I further suggest that Parliamentary speeches as edited for publication also
> do not represent the ordinary speech of the people who wrote them.

So the Hansard corpus is not a corpus of everyday speech. Granted.

What was the exact hypothesis discussed? I didn't see "everyday
speech" mentioned in the OP.

--
Novels and romances ... when habitually indulged in, exert a
disastrous influence on the nervous system, sufficient to explain
that frequency of hysteria and nervous disease which we find
among the highest classes. -- E.J. Tilt
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-11 03:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 10:12:20 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 9:19:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> >> In article <e80baeba-df10-4783-b306-***@googlegroups.com>,
> >> ***@verizon.net says...
> >>> On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> >>> > In article <***@gmail.com>,
> >>> > ***@gmail.com says...
> >>> > > Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
> >>> > > From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
> >>> > > Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
> >
> >>> > > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
> >>> > > 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
> >>> > > 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
> >>> > > via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
> >>> > > curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
> >>> > > tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
> >>> > > English:
> >>> > Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
> >>> > should there be any change I shall let you know.
> >>> I should like to see that evidenced in a corpus study.
> >>
> >> I suggest you search in Hansard 2017.
> >>
> >> https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons
> >
> > I suggest that's not a "corpus" in the sense that "corpus" is used in corpus linguistics.
>
> Of course it is. The Canadian "Hansard" is one of the standard
> bilingual corpora much used in Corpus Linguistics.

Maybe "The Canadian 'Hansard'" works very differently from the British one.
Or maybe people who use it as such are misinformed.

One time I happened to have read one of Studs Terkel's books just before an
interview that was quoted in it was rebroadcast, and I noticed that he'd edited
the subject's remarks a bit. Thereafter I was disturbed when linguists used
citations from his books as evidence in their papers. (This was well before
computerized corpora were readily available, and sources for spoken language
were hard to find.) I asked him about this after an appearance (at Bughouse
Square, as it happens; Tony has explained that in the past), and (a) he was
tickled at the notion that linguists would use his work for something useful,
and (b) he said yes, of course he had to edit the conversations so as to make
them understandable in print.

> > I further suggest that Parliamentary speeches as edited for publication also
> > do not represent the ordinary speech of the people who wrote them.
>
> So the Hansard corpus is not a corpus of everyday speech. Granted.
>
> What was the exact hypothesis discussed? I didn't see "everyday
> speech" mentioned in the OP.

Janet insisted that the Fowlerian shall/will "rule" is productive in contemporary
(21st-century) speech and pointed to Hansard as evidence for contemporary speech.

Edited prose is not "contemporary speech." SOME dialogue in novels may, with
care, be exploited as evidence of contemporary speech -- Elmore Leonard is
usually mentioned in that connection.
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-09 20:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Janet to Anton Shepelev:

> > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the
> > classic 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain
> > as late as 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his
> > first "talks" via BBC.
>
> Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well
> in current Br E; should there be any change I
> shall let you know.

They are alive, but merely as shadows of ther past
grandeur. "shall" is used in first-person state-
ments, but hardly ever in second-person questions.
"should" no longer denotes the past tense of simple
prediction: where Bram Stoker wrote "I thought I
should faint" the modern writer writes "I thought I
would faint," not to mentioned second-person quesi-
tons. Where Charlotte Bronte wrote: "And should you
like to fall into that pit, and to be burning there
for ever?" he would also use "would".

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
David Kleinecke
2017-10-09 21:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 1:23:41 PM UTC-7, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Janet to Anton Shepelev:
>
> > > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the
> > > classic 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain
> > > as late as 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his
> > > first "talks" via BBC.
> >
> > Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well
> > in current Br E; should there be any change I
> > shall let you know.
>
> They are alive, but merely as shadows of ther past
> grandeur. "shall" is used in first-person state-
> ments, but hardly ever in second-person questions.
> "should" no longer denotes the past tense of simple
> prediction: where Bram Stoker wrote "I thought I
> should faint" the modern writer writes "I thought I
> would faint," not to mentioned second-person quesi-
> tons. Where Charlotte Bronte wrote: "And should you
> like to fall into that pit, and to be burning there
> for ever?" he would also use "would".

But "should" is alive and functioning freely in the sense
of moral obligation:
You should tell the truth.
"Shall" though seems doomed.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-10-10 05:42:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-10-09 21:44:45 +0000, David Kleinecke said:

> On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 1:23:41 PM UTC-7, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>> Janet to Anton Shepelev:
>>
>>>> Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the
>>>> classic 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain
>>>> as late as 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his
>>>> first "talks" via BBC.
>>>
>>> Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well
>>> in current Br E; should there be any change I
>>> shall let you know.
>>
>> They are alive, but merely as shadows of ther past
>> grandeur. "shall" is used in first-person state-
>> ments, but hardly ever in second-person questions.
>> "should" no longer denotes the past tense of simple
>> prediction: where Bram Stoker wrote "I thought I
>> should faint" the modern writer writes "I thought I
>> would faint," not to mentioned second-person quesi-
>> tons. Where Charlotte Bronte wrote: "And should you
>> like to fall into that pit, and to be burning there
>> for ever?" he would also use "would".
>
> But "should" is alive and functioning freely in the sense
> of moral obligation:
> You should tell the truth.
> "Shall" though seems doomed.

Not in British English it isn't, whatever PTD may have overheard at a
meeting a couple of decades ago. In questions (“shall I ... ?“, “shall
we ... ?“) “shall“ is still used in American English, it seems to me.


--
athel
Peter Moylan
2017-10-10 08:21:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/10/17 16:42, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2017-10-09 21:44:45 +0000, David Kleinecke said:

>> But "should" is alive and functioning freely in the sense
>> of moral obligation:
>> You should tell the truth.
>> "Shall" though seems doomed.
>
> Not in British English it isn't, whatever PTD may have overheard at a
> meeting a couple of decades ago. In questions (“shall I ... ?“, “shall
> we ... ?“) “shall“ is still used in American English, it seems to me.

We shall overcome.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Ross
2017-10-10 09:23:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 9:21:08 PM UTC+13, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 10/10/17 16:42, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2017-10-09 21:44:45 +0000, David Kleinecke said:
>
> >> But "should" is alive and functioning freely in the sense
> >> of moral obligation:
> >> You should tell the truth.
> >> "Shall" though seems doomed.
> >
> > Not in British English it isn't, whatever PTD may have overheard at a
> > meeting a couple of decades ago. In questions (“shall I ... ?“, “shall
> > we ... ?“) “shall“ is still used in American English, it seems to me.
>
> We shall overcome.

The great song of the civil rights movement, quoted by Lyndon Johnson in
his 1965 speech in support of the Voting Rights Act:

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6336/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKDVNSpsBZE

Unmistakable emphasis on "shall". I mentioned this and MacArthur's
"I shall return" a couple of years ago when shall/will was having another
trot around the a.u.e. track. Both examples convey solemn resolve and determination. Completely contrary to Fowler. Nevertheless, on that occasion
Eric Walker gave some convoluted argument to show that really everybody
was still obeying Fowler's rule.

"Shall" in NAmEng survives only in:
(1) the high rhetorical register just exemplified;
(2) legal language where it indicates obligation ("Congress shall make no
law...")
(3) questions conveying an offer or suggestion, with first-person subject
("Shall I read it to you?" "Shall we meet next Thursday?"). Some people
replace this with "should".
David Kleinecke
2017-10-10 17:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 2:23:16 AM UTC-7, Ross wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 9:21:08 PM UTC+13, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 10/10/17 16:42, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > > On 2017-10-09 21:44:45 +0000, David Kleinecke said:
> >
> > >> But "should" is alive and functioning freely in the sense
> > >> of moral obligation:
> > >> You should tell the truth.
> > >> "Shall" though seems doomed.
> > >
> > > Not in British English it isn't, whatever PTD may have overheard at a
> > > meeting a couple of decades ago. In questions (“shall I ... ?“, “shall
> > > we ... ?“) “shall“ is still used in American English, it seems to me.
> >
> > We shall overcome.
>
> The great song of the civil rights movement, quoted by Lyndon Johnson in
> his 1965 speech in support of the Voting Rights Act:
>
> http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6336/
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKDVNSpsBZE
>
> Unmistakable emphasis on "shall". I mentioned this and MacArthur's
> "I shall return" a couple of years ago when shall/will was having another
> trot around the a.u.e. track. Both examples convey solemn resolve and determination. Completely contrary to Fowler. Nevertheless, on that occasion
> Eric Walker gave some convoluted argument to show that really everybody
> was still obeying Fowler's rule.
>
> "Shall" in NAmEng survives only in:
> (1) the high rhetorical register just exemplified;
> (2) legal language where it indicates obligation ("Congress shall make no
> law...")
> (3) questions conveying an offer or suggestion, with first-person subject
> ("Shall I read it to you?" "Shall we meet next Thursday?"). Some people
> replace this with "should".

I'm one of those "should" people. I probably only utter
"shall" when quoting something - like "We shall overcome."

But I hear "We will overcome" more often. And, of course,
the casual "We'll overcome".
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-10 12:17:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 1:42:39 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2017-10-09 21:44:45 +0000, David Kleinecke said:
> > On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 1:23:41 PM UTC-7, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> >> Janet to Anton Shepelev:

> >>>> Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the
> >>>> classic 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain
> >>>> as late as 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his
> >>>> first "talks" via BBC.
> >>> Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well
> >>> in current Br E; should there be any change I
> >>> shall let you know.
> >> They are alive, but merely as shadows of ther past
> >> grandeur. "shall" is used in first-person state-
> >> ments, but hardly ever in second-person questions.
> >> "should" no longer denotes the past tense of simple
> >> prediction: where Bram Stoker wrote "I thought I
> >> should faint" the modern writer writes "I thought I
> >> would faint," not to mentioned second-person quesi-
> >> tons. Where Charlotte Bronte wrote: "And should you
> >> like to fall into that pit, and to be burning there
> >> for ever?" he would also use "would".
> > But "should" is alive and functioning freely in the sense
> > of moral obligation:
> > You should tell the truth.
> > "Shall" though seems doomed.
>
> Not in British English it isn't, whatever PTD may have overheard at a
> meeting a couple of decades ago. In questions (“shall I ... ?“, “shall
> we ... ?“) “shall“ is still used in American English, it seems to me.

Asshole makes a typically asshole comment because asshole is afraid to read what PTD actually writes.

Apparently Asshole thinks everyone operates by "overhearing" the way Asshole does.

Not to mention, Asshole is unable to correlate attributions with statements.

Or to evaluate false statements by occasional foreign contributors.
Janet
2017-10-10 10:27:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <d5936290-3700-4fdb-9350-***@googlegroups.com>,
***@gmail.com says...
>
> On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 1:23:41 PM UTC-7, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> > Janet to Anton Shepelev:
> >
> > > > Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the
> > > > classic 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain
> > > > as late as 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his
> > > > first "talks" via BBC.
> > >
> > > Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well
> > > in current Br E; should there be any change I
> > > shall let you know.
> >
> > They are alive, but merely as shadows of ther past
> > grandeur. "shall" is used in first-person state-
> > ments, but hardly ever in second-person questions.
> > "should" no longer denotes the past tense of simple
> > prediction: where Bram Stoker wrote "I thought I
> > should faint" the modern writer writes "I thought I
> > would faint," not to mentioned second-person quesi-
> > tons. Where Charlotte Bronte wrote: "And should you
> > like to fall into that pit, and to be burning there
> > for ever?" he would also use "would".
>
> But "should" is alive and functioning freely in the sense
> of moral obligation:
> You should tell the truth.
> "Shall" though seems doomed.

Maybe in Am E. In Br E shall is still in common use.

Janet.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-09 22:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 23:16:11 +0100, Janet <***@home.com> wrote:

>In article <***@gmail.com>,
>***@gmail.com says...
>> Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
>> From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
>> Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>>
>> Hello, all
>>
>> Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
>> 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
>> 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
>> via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
>> curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
>> tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
>> English:
>>
>
> Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
>should there be any change I shall let you know.
>
> Janet

Yes, but they are paricularly alive and well in the forms "'ll" and
"'ll".


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-10 12:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 6:04:44 PM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 23:16:11 +0100, Janet <***@home.com> wrote:
> >In article <***@gmail.com>,
> >***@gmail.com says...
> >> Subject: Shall and Will in 1942
> >> From: Anton Shepelev <***@gmail.com>
> >> Newsgroups: alt.usage.english

> >> Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
> >> 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
> >> 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
> >> via BBC. In the paragraph below, all the six oc-
> >> curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
> >> tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern
> >> English:
> > Shall and will, and should, are all alive and well in current Br E;
> >should there be any change I shall let you know.
>
> Yes, but they are paricularly alive and well in the forms "'ll" and
> "'ll".

Sly!
Peter Moylan
2017-10-09 05:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/10/17 07:24, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Hello, all
>
> Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic 'shall' and
> 'will' were alive in Britain as late as 1942, when C.S. Lewis
> delivered his first "talks" via BBC. In the paragraph below, all
> the six oc- curences of "I should" denote conditional predic-
> tion, and must be corrected to "I would" in modern English:

It also suggests that the subjunctive mood was starting to disappear
from BrEng in 1942. To me, this section

> If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could
> not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe

stuck out like a dog's balls.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-10 13:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/8/17 2:24 PM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Hello, all
>
> Contrary to what Peter T. Daniels said, the classic
> 'shall' and 'will' were alive in Britain as late as
> 1942, when C.S. Lewis delivered his first "talks"
> via BBC.
...

> I post this not because I want to rekindle the old
> discussion but because I found this example interes-
> ring because it is relatively recent and does not
> pretend to be archaic.

If you want more recent data (up to 1993), some of which is unedited and
highly informal, try

https://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/

(After some searches, it will ask you to log in and at some point ask
you for a donation, which you don't have to provide.)

E.g., "She worked at home, she used to make er bags, you know, er
shopping bags, and she was a very good machinist and a remarkable cook
and everything. She could do anything, she was a wonderful woman. And er
a very devout Christian who never went to to er chapel like in her later
years but she was, she was a good Christian lady. Aye. (pause) And she
died of a cancer and er so did me father, and probably so shall I, but
if a cancer don't kill me summat else will."

"Yeah. Well I shall do some stuff down this garden. This one here."

Or you could look for YouTube videos of conversations that seem natural.

--
Jerry Friedman
Loading...