• Dorothy Sayers on `shall' and `will'

    From Anton Shepelev@2:221/6 to All on Tue Sep 27 12:54:44 2022
    Hello, all

    I have been reading Dorothy Sayers essays on the train, and
    enjoying them very much. Here are her remarks on `shall'
    and `will', which I can't help quoting:

    Let us take as our example that famous distinction which we
    English alone in all the world know how to make: the
    distinction between "shall" and "will." "The mere
    Englishman," says Mr. H. W. Fowler, "if he reflects upon the
    matter at all, is convinced that his shall and will endows
    his speech with a delicate precision that could not be
    attained without it, and serves more important purposes than
    that of a race-label." (Mark, in passing, how slyly the
    scholar is here laughing in his sleeve at those to whom one
    word is as good as another. "Mere Englishman," says he,
    knowing that this will be taken for mock humility. But he
    knows, too, that merus means "pure," and that when Queen
    Elizabeth called herself "mere English" she meant it for a
    boast.) Indeed, the distinction is no empty one: "I will do
    it" (with reluctance, but you force me); "I shall do it"
    (and God and His angels have no power to stay me).

    Consider this sentence, taken from a short novel which
    contains no fewer than forty-three incorrect uses of "will"
    and "would":

    I am also thinking about getting some work. It should be
    easy, because I won't be pushed by necessity.

    It looks like a failure of logic. If the speaker is
    determined not to be pushed by his necessity into whatever
    work shall offer itself, then, one would say, a man so
    necessitous and so obstinate will not easily find work
    before he perishes of his necessities. But the context shows
    that the author does not mean this. He means: "I shall not
    be pushed by necessity (because I have plenty of money), and
    can therefore afford to take a job with small pay; and that
    should be easy to find."

    Is this a trifling matter, not worth making clear? Then see
    how you can destroy the most beautiful parable in Scripture
    by using the one word for the other:

    I shall arise and go to my father and shall say unto him
    ...

    How jaunty the words are now; how cocksure; how
    hypocritical; how they compel the sneering comment, "and the
    poor old blighter will fall for the sob-stuff again."[2]

    Remember, too, how the late Lord Oxford, who was a stylist,
    refused on a famous occasion to surrender the hammer-stroke
    of "shall," even when faced by a conglomeration of sibilants
    that might have daunted the most courageous orator:

    We shall not sheathe the sword that we have not lightly
    drawn...

    Not promise; but prophecy.

    Does anybody, possessing a tool that will do such delicate
    work so easily, really desire to abandon it? It is being
    abandoned. We are letting "shall" and "should" drift out of
    our hands while we labour to do their work, crudely and
    coarsely, with "will" and "would." Even so correct and
    elegant a writer as Mr. Robert Graves is losing his English
    ear and writing: "I would like to," and "I would prefer to."
    Here the use is redundant and not ambiguous; but if we do
    not trouble to distinguish we shall soon lose the power of
    distinguishing. Moreover, if we use "will" or "would"
    wrongly nine times, and the tenth time intend it rightly,
    who, the tenth time, will give us credit for good
    intentions? The gentleman with the forty-three wrong uses
    has perhaps a dozen right uses as well; but amid so great a
    herd of goats his few innocent lambs look like strays.

    This was from "The English Language":

    https://www.fadedpage.com/showbook.php?pid=20170113

    I like her essays much more than her detective stores, do
    you?

    Those interested in the correct usage of `will' and `shall'
    may consult "King's English": https://www.bartleby.com/116/ .

    ---
    * Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)
  • From alexander koryagin@2:5075/128.130 to Anton Shepelev on Wed Sep 28 09:21:37 2022
    Hi Anton Shepelev!
    I read your message on 28-Sep-2022


    AA> I like her essays much more than her detective stores, do
    AA> you?
    AA> Those interested in the correct usage of `will' and `shall'
    AA> may consult "King's English":https://www.bartleby.com/116/ .

    Can we put "I will" instead of "I shall" -- all people do it by putting
    the shortening "'ll" after "I". Everybody understand. So we can. ;)

    Bye Anton!
    Alexander
    english_tutor 2022
    -=<{Linux Astra - Thunderbird 78.6.1 - akReformator_lx}>=-

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1
    * Origin: Usenet Network (2:5075/128.130)
  • From Anton Shepelev@2:221/6 to alexander koryagin on Thu Sep 29 13:10:48 2022
    Alexander Koryagin:

    Can we put "I will" instead of "I shall" -- all people
    do it by putting the shortening "'ll" after "I".

    No, many careful writes abstain from this practice, and so
    do I.

    Everybody understand. So we can. ;)

    This utilitarian approach encourages negligient, slipshod
    language, furthering its degeneration, which in turn
    degrades our thinking and expression faculties by way of a
    vicious loop of positive feedback. No, thanks.

    ---
    * Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)
  • From Anton Shepelev@2:221/6 to Anton Shepelev on Thu Sep 29 13:48:02 2022
    I wrote:

    expression faculties

    expressive faculties, rather.

    ---
    * Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)
  • From alexander koryagin@2:5075/128.130 to Anton Shepelev on Thu Sep 29 14:32:58 2022
    Hi Anton Shepelev!
    I read your message on 29-Sep-2022

    AK>> Can we put "I will" instead of "I shall" -- all people do it by
    AK>> putting the shortening "'ll" after "I".
    AS> No, many careful writes abstain from this practice, and so do I.

    Simplification of English is a long life tendency. The simpler you speak
    the bigger auditory listens to you. ;)

    AK>> Everybody understand. So we can. ;)

    AS> This utilitarian approach encourages negligient, slipshod language,
    AS> furthering its degeneration, which in turn degrades our thinking
    AS> and expression faculties by way of a vicious loop of positive
    AS> feedback. No, thanks.

    In English a great lot of words sound similarly, but the context of the
    phrase usually gets the clue. Probably, not only the context, but even
    the "melody" of phrase.

    Bye Anton!
    Alexander
    fidonews 2022
    -=<{Linux Astra - Thunderbird 78.6.1 - akReformator_lx}>=-

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1
    * Origin: Usenet Network (2:5075/128.130)
  • From Anton Shepelev@2:221/6 to alexander koryagin on Thu Sep 29 15:32:22 2022
    Alexander Koryagin:

    Simplification of English is a long life tendency.The
    simpler you speak the bigger auditory listens to you. ;)

    But gaining a big audience is an evil purpose fit for
    social-network parasites and like-collectors, software
    giants, general money suckers, and vain people. It breeds
    generation upon generation of lazy, clueless, benighted,
    tasteless, uncultured people unwilling to learn and nurtured
    upon surrogates of art and knowledge. A creator or artist
    that fawns upon his audience has betrayed himself. His work
    is always false.

    In English a great lot of words sound similarly, but the
    context of the phrase usually gets the clue. Probably,
    not only the context, but even the "melody" of phrase.

    I believe context, intonation, rhythm, and melody crucial to
    all languages, yet it is a poor justifiction for vulgar
    simplification of language itself to the detriment of its
    beauty and expressiveness.

    ---
    * Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)
  • From alexander koryagin@2:5075/128.130 to Anton Shepelev on Fri Sep 30 09:51:45 2022
    Hi Anton Shepelev!
    I read your message on 30-Sep-2022

    AK>> Simplification of English is a long life tendency. The simpler you
    AK>> speak the bigger auditory listens to you. ;)

    AS> But gaining a big audience is an evil purpose fit for social-
    AS> network parasites and like-collectors, software giants, general
    AS> money suckers, and vain people. It breeds generation upon
    AS> generation of lazy, clueless, benighted, tasteless, uncultured
    AS> people unwilling to learn and nurtured upon surrogates of art and
    AS> knowledge. A creator or artist that fawns upon his audience has
    AS> betrayed himself. His work is always false.

    Most ugly and violent ideas can be expressed in a perfect language. Yes,
    the idea is the main thing. And if you want to teach somebody, IMHO it
    will be good to do it with maximum clarity and as simpler as possible.
    You can take any lesson on any subject -- if a teacher chooses a
    complicated way of explanation instead of a simple one he will get his
    aim unlikely. And, besides, the beauty of languages correlated little
    with the number words you use in your story. Another main idea IMHO is
    that you should use words in a proper time. As if they are musical cords.

    AK>> In English a great lot of words sound similarly, but the context
    AK>> of the phrase usually gets the clue. Probably, not only the
    AK>> context, but even the "melody" of phrase.

    AS> I believe context, intonation, rhythm, and melody crucial to all
    AS> languages, yet it is a poor justifiction for vulgar simplification
    AS> of language itself to the detriment of its beauty and
    AS> expressiveness.

    First, of it should be understood which is the target of your art. The
    artists are divided in two groups -- first one knows their auditory,
    fawns it, as you put it; second one doesn't pay any attention on people opinions and does art for the sake of process (art).

    Bye Anton!
    Alexander
    english_tutor 2022
    -=<{Linux Astra - Thunderbird 78.6.1 - akReformator_lx}>=-
    --- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1
    * Origin: Usenet Network (2:5075/128.130)