Talk:Shall and will

message: I removed a  notice that had been placed here by Radiant.  This page goes well beyond a dictionary definition and contains extended discussion in complete sentences that put it well beyond the scope of a dictionary entry.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 13:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, I back you on that.  Radiant has also made vfd on what I regard as the very valuable article go (verb).  If you agree with me, do state your views there. --Doric Loon 18:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree as well. This article is encylopedic. Perhaps Radiant could place a link to this article in shall and will's wiktionary entries instead? --Canoeguy81 22:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Wiktionary candidate 

message: I have deleted the thing about engineers using the words 'will', 'shall' and 'must' differently from everyone else. It didn't make sense Oliverkroll 19:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly refers to conventional usage such as defined by RFC 2119. However that only defines conventions for "shall" (and "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL") and not for "will". EdC 12:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engineering? 

message: I created a little table to illustrate how shall and will are to be used. I think this is easier to read that the previous list (which didn't include 2nd person plural). Hope it helps. Naufana : talk 18:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naufana's table was up for over a year, then deleted without comment/explanation by a relatively new editor using an IP address. Did people not notice? I think this table works quite well, except that shall and will are reversed to "express determination, promise, obligation, or permission" (e.g., the command "Thou shalt not steal," where thou is the archaic second person singular). Emptymountains (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: I was a bit surprised not to see (although perhaps I overlooked it) any mention of the common (American English) use of should to replace shall in the part of the article that discusses "first-person offers". Specifically, instead of "Shall I open a window?" I usually hear "Should I open a window?" Doug Pardee 21:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To my (English) ears, those two questions have different meanings. The first is more telling someone what you're about to do, but offering the option of them suggesting that they open the window instead, or that the window shouldn't be opened. The second is actually asking for an opinion. Skittle 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The context is shall vs will.  "Shall I open a window?" is an offer to help the other person. "Will I open a window?" is the simple future, as if the other person weren't there. It's thus an inappropriate response to "It's hot in here."  I'm thus uncomfortable with the following paragraph, which advises never using shall if you don't understand the difference. Clearly this is an exceptional case where shall is better. --Sluggoster 09:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should vs. shall in first-person offers 

message: :the useful contraction 'll stands for both these modal verbs
I asserted this once elsewhere and was challenged to prove it; I found that the OED lists only 'll == will. If anyone can come up with a reputable source for 'll == shall, please list it. Marnanel 12:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally use it all the time in sentences for both verbs, in situations where the ambiguity is inconsequential. — Nicholas (reply) @ 12:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the useful contraction 'll" 

message: This article... wow. It's almost impossible to read. Half the examples are absolute crap and nothing even remotely resembling understandable English. This article needs an almost total rewrite. I think I'll try it sometime if nobody else wants to. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.--71.248.78.140 (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I third that!  And showing pronunciations only using IPA (without alternatives such as hyphenation or sound-alikes) makes articles inaccessible to most of us.  Yorkshire Phoenix   20:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegible 

message: Is it correct to say that because the future tense in English isn't a simple conjugation that it is "defective". If not someone should change the first sentence. 68.98.54.71 21:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'simple future form does not exist' - english *has* no simple future form for verbs; or, if you will, the 'simple future form' is accomplished through the addition of the words 'shall' or 'will'! Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  defective? 

message: I'm not clear on how the following sentence is true, so I've removed it.
"Shall is a sensitive word and should be used with caution."
142.157.208.111 (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Sensitive word'? 

message: A couple of places in the article (e.g)
 It is doubtful if there ever a distinction in the language between "shall" and "will."
 There was once thought to be a meaningful distinction between "shall" and "will,"
it is suggested that there is or has been no difference between will and shall. This is of course false. Speakers who rarely use shall would find the relacement "will" in a sentence such as "it will rain today" with "shall" strange ("it shall rain today"). These are not interchangeable words. 
Also I think comment should be made on the use of "shall" in protasis. It's explained in Fowler's article on Shall versus Will. It's a slightly archaic usage, essentially where modern usage gives "If he should do it, it would be good.", or "If he does it, it will be good", or "If he did it, it would be good", or "If he were to do it, it would be good", or a number of different options involving "were" and "should" at the start of the sentence (incidentally I'd like to know what if any the difference in meaning between all these options are), the slightly archaic usage gives "If he shall do it, it will be good". This extends to other "if" like clauses, like "so long as the kingdom shall endure", where this is understood as meaning, "if the kingdom endures, then ...". Count Truthstein (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not too sure about Fowler's 'slightly archaic usage' (that is, whether or not that usage ever did meaningfully exist, whether or not if it did it was archaic, or whether if it was used it was merely someone using poor grammar). just for fun, heres an example from Malory (Middle English, 15th century): 'I will well [obtain a horse for the knight], he shall not be horseless!' Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments 

message: The entire discussion of shall/will seems to be based on bare assertion. The sources should go beyond reference to Fowler or Crystal. There must be a study which looks at actual (historical and present day) usage. I want to see it. Of course the fact that Americans, Scots, and Irish feel insulted at the suggestion that they don't get the subtleties hits a raw nerve (Americans, Scots and Irish secretly do have the feeling that they miss the subtleties and are speaking a foreign language). 
What is American/Scots/Irish usage of shall/will if they do not follow Fowler? As far as I can see apart from some 'polite forms' which are out of date, and a failure to recognize that "will" in the  first person looks to the future as "a present state" while shall looks to the future as future, he is correct for English, Scots, Americans, and Irish usage (don't they realise?). Example: if if run the marathon, I will be exhausted. If I run the marathon, I shall be exhausted. The first imagines the "future present" state of exhaustion. The second imagines it as purely in the future. The first is more vivid and more used (Americans/Scots/Irish?). Neither is wrong. Or at least, don't other people have the feeling there is a distinction here that is never mentioned? But please - EVIDENCE Jagdfeld (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't quite see that distinction but now I see that there is a difference in that with "will" a present state can be indicated and not necessarily a future tense - e.g., in "I will sell you potatoes at £1 a bag" or "Mr. Blogs will help you fix your bicycle" "will" means more "is willing to" than "is going to". The title "The Man Who Would Be King" of the Rudyard Kipling story has a meaning close to "The man who wanted to be king". I too would like to see some proper study about this. It's a pity that Google gives this article as the number 1 for the seach "will shall", and much of the other search results aren't that informative either except for stating that the traditional distinction is baseless. Count Truthstein (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I always think it odd that the people who claim the distinction is baseless tend to think of themselves as descriptivists, yet they blithely claim that certain dialects are 'wrong' in hearing and using a distinction in word usage. In my dialect, there is a difference between the two words, and no number of academics telling me it's baseless or contrived will make me stop using the language I learnt in childhood. Next they'll be telling the good folk of Yorkshire that 'It were raining' is an artificial and incorrect phrase... So briefly, I agree. We need some more sources in the article; perhaps some good descriptive/observational language studies that looked at English usage? I assume such things exist... Skittle (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The weird thing of the prescriptive rule is the fact, that it views "I shall be there" as the first-person equivalent of "he will be there". But I think that it seems to be complicated oder even impossible, to find a form in English that exclusiovely and precisely defines simple futurity without volition or pbligation of the subject. And in this sense, both forms have been used interchangeably 2A0A:A540:EA0B:0:DC82:BBA3:4847:A99D (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

text:  Also if I say "It should not be affected by it." it means that it must not sometimes in the future be affected. While if i said "It would not be affected by it." It means that it was not affected.--Rockstone35 (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence

message: There ought to be a mention of the alternative option using the construction to be going to do something for an event in the future.  This can be useful, as it does not normally imply desire or obligation.
For example:
I will provide the wine for the party indicates that the speaker is volunteering - or at least is quite content.
I shall provide the wine is a bit formal by today's standards.  see the section on Current Usage.
I am going to provide the wine is neutral.  Maybe the speaker volunteered, maybe his arm was twisted.  It is flat statement indicating the future.
Apuldram (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  to be going to ... 

message: We should think about merging a lot of this material into English modal auxiliary verb. Count Truthstein (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: English Modal Verb article

message: According to an unsourced statement at Proto-Germanic#Verbs Proto-Indo-European had no future tense, contradicting this article. I think I have heard this from other places too. Count Truthstein (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a reference that mentions PIE future tense based. Please refer to item 9 here. 192.102.209.29 (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Fortson, the Baltic s-future goes back to PIE desideratives. Quote: "Some of [these forms'] descendants function as futures, but it is not certain whether any of these were true futures in PIE." (). The second PIE form with a future function seems to be the subjunctive mood (ibid. p. 96, also Meier-Brügger). So, in a sense, PIE probably had no future tense but expressed future meaning in other ways – but this is true for English as well, which paraphrases the future with "will+infinitive". --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So is this incorrect?: This is called the sigmatic future (cf. Greek sigma=s). It has been recorded only in ancient Old Indic (Sanskrit) and Greek... --Espoo (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it. There is of course Baltic (the sentence continues "...but it is still used by every speaker of Lithuanian today") but probably also Slavic (Old Russian byšęštĭ "future" = "what is about to be"), Celtic (Gaulish pissíiumi "I will see"), and Italic (Umbrian fust "he will be"). What about just omitting the sentence "In Proto-Indo-European, an inflected future tense existed..."? Phrasing it correctly would go a bit beyond the scope of this article. Or we could write something on the lines of "Germanic did not inherit any Proto-Indo-European forms to express the future tense, but innovated by forming it with auxiliary verbs". --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put this suggestion into the article. Count Truthstein (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I was under the impression that no language on earth had a future tense until about the mid-first millennium BCE. Even though linguists agree that language itself is extremely ancient, and nearly all current features are likely to have existed since time immemorial, the future tense is one of those rare exceptions. Zyxwv99 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Future tense in PIE

message: Few things are as infuriating as would-be pedants correcting for grammar and introducing errors.  "To whoever shall have done" is correct because "whoever" here is a relative pronoun and the subject of the verb "shall have done". 68.149.127.192 (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Anon 68.149 is correct. It is slightly uncertain whether it is best to treat shall as a verb when it is being used in this special way, but however "whomever shall" would sound ungrammatical to most English speakers who interpret "whom" as an accusative form. "Whoever shall have done the best" is the noun phrase that is governed by "to", and does not change for different cases the way that "who/whom" would. Count Truthstein (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect (You Fail Grammar Forever! ;¬) ) - it is indeed 'whomever' and the case would be dative not accusative, I.E. "To whomever shall ...".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.145.197 (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to disagree with a Count, but I think the explanation is that the word governed by "to" is to be understood, and is something like "the person", or a pronoun like "him " or "her". Seadowns (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The count is, indeed, correct (as is the original commenter), but this is a common misunderstanding.  The difficulty here is that the pronoun seems, at a casual glance, to serve two functions: the object of the preceding verb, coloured by the preposition "to", where a person would naturally expect the object pronoun "whomever" (e.g., "You may give it to whomever you please.") and also the subject of the following verb ("to do" in the future perfect).  The solution to the problem is to be found in dividing the sentence up into its constituent phrases and recognizing that the pronoun belongs to the same phrase as "shall have done", as the subject of the verb.  If this is sometimes challenging, the usual test is to replace the troublesome pronoun with a more familiar one, such as the distinction between "he" and "him".  Which sounds right?  "to him that shall have done" or "to he that shall have done"?  Although use of the object form is cropping up in informal English as a kind of disjunct form more and more these days where the subject form belongs (compare "It is I" to "It's me"), we generally do recognize that "to he that shall have done" is the formally correct form.  For evidence, compare the parallel structure in the well-known aphorism "All things come to he [not him] who waits."   If we must use "he" in such a construction, then the corresponding form in the phrase at issue above is "whoever", not "whomever" (which would correspond to "him"). 198.84.247.40 (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: shall be given to !!whomever??? shall have done

message: In Federal Aviation Regulations, whenever the word 'shall' is used, it means whatever it's referring to is absolutely mandatory. Perhaps this should be added to this page? http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/NTM/not0104.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.72.63.112 (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shall in the FAA 

message: "it is largely ignored by American, Irish, and Scottish speakers of English, who are a majority of English-speaking people"
Even if "America" is meant to include Canada, surely England, Australia, India, Nigeria, The Philippines, New Zealand, etc. are going to out number them?
A lot of bits in this article read to me like a justification for why the author doesn't make any distinction between "shall and "will", and a campaign for why others oughtn't to either.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.223.61 (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Use of terms like "non-current/former usage" instead of "traditional" or "correct" reveals the article's bias. Yorkshire Phoenix   20:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority? 

message: Re the mention of negative contractions "shan't" and "won't", from personal experience it seems to me that many English dialects  (eg. some northern English and perhaps also West Country) use "'ll not" rather than "shan't" or "won't". As in "We'll not see snow again this winter" or "I'll not put up with that.". But I'm reluctant to mention this without a reference - does anybody know a source where this is discussed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.89.239 (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative contractions 

message: "Won't" redirects to this article and isn't even mentioned once. 64.208.122.50 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Won't Redirect 

message: There is a neat distinction in the Energy Charter where the 1991 declaration uses "will" and the 1994 treaty uses "shall" as the level of obligation and enforceability changed.  One example is
*2. Access to Markets. The signatories will strongly promote access to local and international markets for energy products for the implementation of the objectives of the Charter. Such access to markets should take account of the need to facilitate the operation of market forces, and promote competition. (1991)
*ARTICLE 3 INTERNATIONAL MARKETS. The Contracting Parties shall work to promote access to international markets on commercial terms, and generally to develop an open and competitive market, for Energy Materials and Products. (1994)
Is it worth including something like this?--Rumping (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Energy Charter

message: This is given in several places as an example.  I'm looking for an original, early source for it, as well as comment on whether in contemporary speech, it is still accurate:
* A desperate cry for help: “I shall drown, no one will save me!”
* The intention to commit suicide: “I will drown, no one shall save me!” patsw (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A popular parallel example 

message: In 0% of English dialects, "shall" and "will" and their related past tenses are completely interchangeable. Each word has its own subtle shading. Sometimes not so subtle.
There are however certain contexts in which, in certain dialects, they are interchangeable. So I rewrote the article to show that. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 16:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I have a few small concerns with your edits but you will see what they are with the edits I am about to do so there is little point in discussing them, but obviously if you disagree let's discuss it. Count Truthstein (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I genuinely liked the changes you introduced. I pruned a bit, added a bit, and added a new section for things that are sometimes interchangeable--there's no need to be entirely black and white. Hope you enjoy it. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 17:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am a 64 year old who grew up in England and have lived in Australia for the last 30 years. I also hold a degree and would regard myself as a well educated and fluent user of my native language. To my knowledge the word "shall" has never passed my lips and I cannot recall anyone in my circle and family ever using the term, both in the UK and in Australia. I WILL keep an ear open as I listen to the TV and general conversations and note if it still actually occurs nowadays. --MichaelGG (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, your usage of 'will' in your post  IS correct in the traditional usages.. ;) mayhaps you and your acquaintances, for whatever reason, never happen to utter sentences which would require the word shall to be used?  'tis possible! ;P Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Often interchangeable, but always? No

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Shall and will. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071211035725/http://satc.gsfc.nasa.gov:80/support/STC_APR97/write/writert.html to http://satc.gsfc.nasa.gov/support/STC_APR97/write/writert.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: From the article: The pronunciation of will is , and that of won't is . However shall has distinct weak and strong pronunciations:  when unstressed, and  when stressed.
Will also has distinct pronunciations in stressed and unstressed pronunciations; it's just less clear because the vowel  is fairly high as well as being mid-centralized, so the sequence  is less distinct from  than  is. The purported contrast between will and shall in this regard is thus a bit silly. Most, if not all, function words in English, plus some prepositions, have stressed and unstressed variants, and will is no exception. P~M (Talk) 16:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Weak and strong" pronunciations 

message: Person 1: I will beat you at this game.
Person 2: We shall see.
This sounds like good English to me. "Shall" here is more dramatic and more sceptical than "will." Unfortunately, I cannot think of a general rule to explain thisSflaum (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.'"
And suggests this is an example of the use of shall as a simple future marker. (i.e. that "we will.") But it also works with the use of shall to imply obligation. (i.e. that "we must.") So it's not really evidence of one use, as opposed to the other. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another color of "shall" 

message: Someone might have a look at the King James version of the Bible and see if it distinguishes shall and will systematically. Acorrector (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 12:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  King James Version 

message: For all the words this article contains, an obvious and question about will and shall is unanswered. If the answer is buried somewhere in the article, who has time to search for it? The question concerns "formality." By that I mean not wanting to sound too formal, or snooty, or condescending, in spoken language or in a piece of writing that is written in conversational English. One of the topic headings in this article could have said something like "The use of will or shall in conversational English."  2600:8801:BE26:2700:B09F:3FEF:E7EB:2AC5 (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Come down off your high horses! This article is too verbose, pedantic and egotistical for most people looking for a simple answer.