Talk:Will (verb)

message: I believe the split should also include American usage (and, if appropriate, that of other countries).  In America, "shall" is by no means alive and well, and in fact has all but disappeared.  Someone using it will either be considered British-sounding or, possibly, somewhat 'snooty'.  "Should" indicates obligation and is more or less equal to "ought to" or "be supposed to".  The important point is that this is true even in formal writing -- we just don't use "shall" anymore (except as an archaic/Biblical-sounding imperative or proclamation), and "will" almost always indicates future tense (though of course it's not the only future tense verb form).
These examples all seem rather distinctly British/English:
* inferential fact of the present: "They'll no doubt be there by now." (this is equally well expressed by "They are, doubtless, there by now.")
* truths and facts: "This engine will only run on unleaded petrol."
* obligation and orders: "All students will now, please, rise." (for official orders, shall is to be used)
* habits: "He will always be willing to give you a hand whenever he can."
* annoying habits: "She will keep interrupting me when I'm trying to work."
In American English one would almost certainly use the present tense form.  'Translations' into American would be something like:
* "They're probably/surely there by now." or "They must be there by now."
* "This engine only runs on unleaded (petrol/gas)."
* "All students please rise." or "Would all students please rise."
* "He's always willing to give ..."
* "She keeps interrupting me ..." -- though the 'will' form could be used when describing a series of events ("So in the morning I'll get some coffee and settle in to read my email, and she'll be ignoring me -- but then she'll keep interrupting me when I'm actually trying to work!")
Willingness, as in "I'll get some more milk if you like.", may also be shown by "can", as in "I can get some more milk if you like".
But "You will open the door for me." is definitely a command.  Perhaps it's supposed to be "Will you ..."?  Though in American you'd probably hear "Would you ..." or even "Could you ...?"
While 'will' can be used for predictions of the future, "They'll have easily got there by now." sounds like another 'British-ism'.  "They must have gotten there by now."
Usage of "would" is more traditional, but some other small differences:
* I would have thought that he would have been thrilled! (or, better: "I should have thought ...") (but he wasn't)
* He promised he would have posted my letter before the post office closed. (but I don't know if he had)
* You wouldn't open the door, would you? (a polite request)
* He would often tell me stories when I was young. (= He used to tell me stories when I was young.)
With American equivalents:
* "I would have thought he would be thrilled!" -- and no American would use "should" for this meaning!  "I should have thought he would be thrilled" means something else entirely.
* "He promised he would (post/mail) my letter before the post office closed."
* I'm sure context would help, but this doesn't even sound like a request; it would sound more like "You wouldn't open the door.  Right?"
* "Used to" is probably more common for this nowadays
And again, formality in writing would mostly consist of writing out forms that are contracted in speech and avoiding slang and other casual language; but I doubt many Americans would even know when to use "shall".  All of which is not to say that I find the examples 'wrong' or 'ungrammatical' -- they're mostly 'British-sounding'.
I think the real underlying problem is the supposition that there is one, single "English language".  There is not.  But this page is 'not about usage in standard British English -- it's about the verb "will" in 'English'; therefore, I think, it should cover any major dialect differences.
-- Damezi 01:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: As for "the fact that" -- you say it's dead wood; yet it must be doing something if it's sticking around.  Just remember: you may not know of any purpose for something, but that doesn't mean there isn't any purpose.
Despite (sometimes) using this phrase myself, I'm not sure of its usage, but to take a guess: "be offended" and "take offense to" are subtly different.  The former is more passive; it denotes something beyond your control -- while the latter is active.  I think it's roughly the same as "be/get attacked" vs. "fight with".  And "take offense to", of course, needs a noun complement; but a phrase beginning with "that" isn't a noun, so a dummy noun is inserted.  The same works for other expressions: "Despite the fact that he eats meat, he still claims to be a vegetarian."
Rephrasing it to "Despite his eating meat ..." or "Despite his being a vegetarian ..." is somehow awkward; sometimes the easiest way to turn "(VP), but despite that, Y" into "Despite (VP), Y" without rewording the Verb Phrase is to insert "the fact that".
"Even though he's a vegetarian ..." or "Even though he eats meat ..." is also allowable, if not exactly the same in meaning; but then people do like to overuse new expressions.  And stating an opinion as fact is nothing new.  :-)
-- Damezi 01:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the fact that"