On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 04:01:24 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 02:20, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> I think you need a better grammar book. > I think you need a grammar book published after 1908[1] The English > spoken in 1908 is not the English spoken today. And getting weird of > weird rules is certainly a nice improvement --- English has FAR too > many. > I suggest trying [2]. Hey, that page even says that the traditional > rules say to use "will" in the second person, unless you intend it > to be a command --- and I have no idea why it would be. [3] also > notes that the distinction is obsolete, especially in en_US. [4] and > [5] give similar comments about non-usage in en_US, and alternate > meanings in en_US. > 2. The American HeritageŽ Book of English Usage > http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/056.html Lets go with this one. the traditional rules. The traditional rules state that you use shall to show what happens in the future only when I or we is the subject: I shall (not will) call you tomorrow. We shall (not will) be sure to keep in touch. Will, on the other hand, is used with subjects in the second and third persons: The comet will (not shall) return in 87 years. You will (not shall) probably encounter some heavy seas when you round the point. However, you can use will with a subject in the first person and shall with a subject in the second or third person to express determination, promise, obligation, or permission, depending on the context. Devotee shall not parse encrypted mail -- that is indeed a promise, given the time frames involved, (and also the technical reasons it is so). I used the term advisedly. > 3. Guide to Grammar and Style > http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/s.html If you send encrypted mail, Devote _shall not_ save you, used similarily as in the drownling example. > 4. http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/auxiliary.htm "Using shall in second and third persons would indicate some kind of promise about the subject." Quite so. > 5. http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/page/page/226236.htm#8280 On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:38:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hi, > Manoj Srivastava: >> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:29:33 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> I think you need a better grammar book. I shall ... They will. I >> will ... They shall. >> > Don't use a confusing rule when a simpler one will suffice. But the simpler rule did not suffice. > The simple rule is that you (used to) use "will" when the subject of > the sentence is identical to the person who has the intent, and > "shall" otherwise. Not quite. See the rule above. manoj waxing didactic. -- You will live a long, healthy, happy life and make bags of money. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
