| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | Off topic: Are we abusing the word "shall"? Thread poster: Viktoria Gimbe
|
|---|
katsy
Local time: 05:42
English to French
+ ...
| a quick thought | Feb 7, 2007 |
[quote]Charlie Bavington wrote:
[ However, that does not, in my view, mean that those who say "should I open the window" exclusively intend the desirable/advisable meaning; I think the majority of people these days will say "should I open the window" as a universal catchall question intended purely to sollicit opinion as to whether the window is to be opened or not.
(I'm not a technophobe, but don't know how to stick your quote in a little box! Sorry, will try to be clear)
OK.... I don't think they're the same but will accept that many people use them with the same meaning
Charlie wrote:
It would be interesting to see if anyone could compose a question which could genuinely give rise to different answers under identical circumstances by replacing "should " with "shall", or vice versa. Or, put another way, is this actually a useful distinction to make? I would suggest that ultimately, it is not.
I think in a way you've answered your own question by saying 'shall I take a gap year....' etc. can be seen as strange. I would agree with Viktoria that this use is not appropriate.
Just an attempt to compose a question as you asked:
Do you see a difference here?
Shall I take Granny to a night-club?
Should I take Granny to a night-club?
Will await your reaction with great interest!! This discussion is really fun!
Am not sure that where you come from is really vital in this, but just for the record, I'm from the Midlands
All the best
Katsy
| | | | katsy
Local time: 05:42
English to French
+ ...
| just another thought for Charlie | Feb 7, 2007 |
After posting, I thought of this. When I was first in touch with French specialists of English linguistics I was very bolshy. "Who are they to tell me how I speak my language, that when I say this I mean that?" I remember one very heated discussion on the difference (subtle) between 'I used to/would go to the cinema whan I was little". One of them said to me 'but if you use a different word, then you must mean something different'. I wasn't convinced, on some things I'm still not convinced, but ... See more After posting, I thought of this. When I was first in touch with French specialists of English linguistics I was very bolshy. "Who are they to tell me how I speak my language, that when I say this I mean that?" I remember one very heated discussion on the difference (subtle) between 'I used to/would go to the cinema whan I was little". One of them said to me 'but if you use a different word, then you must mean something different'. I wasn't convinced, on some things I'm still not convinced, but it has helped me, to start from that hypothesis. In many cases, it may not be vital to establish a difference between two modals, but sometimes it is (take with the above example the fact that you would say 'I used to believe in Father Christmas', but not 'I would believe in Father Christmas' if you want to imply that you don't any more).
When you're translating, it's the same thing - sometimes it's not vital, sometimes it is.... imagine this situation: hospital, patient has cancer; the doctor , talking to the family has the choice: 'Shall OR should I tell your dad he's got cancer?'
According to the context, you probably need to make clear whether the doctor is saying -we agree it has to be done, I can spare you the upset and tell him for you, if you like..
or whether he is saying - do you think he can take it? is it a good idea to tell him? Shall and should allow you to make that distinction, shall in the first case, should in the second.
You mention the fact that the result of shall / should I open the window is perhaps, in both cases, that the window gets opened. The difference ( in terms of linguistics) is not in the result of your question, but in how you envisage your question. Take 'Get the *** out!' and 'Go away!'. The result is perhaps that the person goes away, but in each sentence you give a different message to the person as to how far you appreciate their presence and , let's say, the urgency of them removing themselves from your sight !
Does this help? Am I just being horribly pedantic?!
all the best again
Katsy
[Edited at 2007-02-07 11:41]
[Edited at 2007-02-07 11:44] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Granny hits the dance floor | Feb 7, 2007 |
katsy wrote:
Do you see a difference here?
Shall I take Granny to a night-club?
Should I take Granny to a night-club?
Yup, I can see that there could be a situation in which the answer to first is yes and the second is no. Actually, I think it's even more likely if you replace "a" with "the", and the granny in question has previously expressed a desire to go a certain nightclub (but one unsuitable for people of a certain age!) at a certain time, for example.
So that answers that question!
Nice work
I only mentioned geography in order to avoid any possibility of a pointless discussion where both sides are "right", as in for example "different than", which is fine if you're in the US but most UK speakers would probably say is "wrong", versus "different from/to".
| | | | | Another good example | Feb 7, 2007 |
(pity these are out of sequence!)
Yup, once again, I see your point perfectly, and don't disagree. I'm just not convinced that everyday speakers of English necessarily bother to reflect on the difference you describe, important tho' it undoubtedly could be in the "shall/should I tell your dad..." example. I strongly suspect that there are huge numbers of speakers who would interpret either formulation as a simple offer to break the news in question, and would respond as appropriate.... See more (pity these are out of sequence!)
Yup, once again, I see your point perfectly, and don't disagree. I'm just not convinced that everyday speakers of English necessarily bother to reflect on the difference you describe, important tho' it undoubtedly could be in the "shall/should I tell your dad..." example. I strongly suspect that there are huge numbers of speakers who would interpret either formulation as a simple offer to break the news in question, and would respond as appropriate.
If the answer's yes, it makes no difference (as with the window!), if the answers' no, in both cases I can well imagine that more info would be added (e.g. it's OK, I'll do it, or I don't think he can take that news now).
(Actually, I would also hope that the doctor might phrase the question more precisely than just using either should or shall, but that's a side issue, I guess.)
I entirely see your point about the way the message is phrased, and that there is a world of difference between "please leave" and "get the **** out", for example, I just feel that perhaps, these days, in the particular case of should versus shall, that difference is being eroded, or even lost. And yes, I can also see that this could mystify speakers of other languages, where such subtleties are maintained, and where there may be a desire to impose such logic on English, 'cos it makes sense to them.
(See also less versus fewer, where there are are a few situations where it makes a difference, but most of the time, you can use one or the other with no adverse side-effects, other than showing that you don't know the rule ) ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
katsy
Local time: 05:42
English to French
+ ...
| final - honestly! -remark | Feb 7, 2007 |
[quote]Charlie Bavington wrote:
( Actually, I would also hope that the doctor might phrase the question more precisely than just using either should or shall, but that's a side issue, I guess.)
Well, yes, of course! (yes to your hope, I mean!) but just for the purposes of the exercise I imagined that he would say nothing else.
Charlie Bavington wrote:
(See also less versus fewer, where there are are a few situations where it makes a difference, but most of the time, you can use one or the other with no adverse side-effects, other than showing that you don't know the rule
I agree again. Just that knowing the rule can sometimes help you see the subtleties - when it IS necessary...
And now, a final question:
Shall I now (would you like me to) or Should I now (would it be more generally desirable for me to) just leave it at that?
I really enjoyed this discussion. I just hope I haven't bored you and other readers to bits.
All good wishes
Katsy)
(and if anyone has time to tell me how to make those really cool 'quote boxes', I'd be grateful to learn!)
| | | | gianfranco 
Brazil
Local time: 00:42
Member (2001)
English to Italian
+ ...
| Quoting syntax | Feb 7, 2007 |
katsy wrote:
(and if anyone has time to tell me how to make those really cool 'quote boxes', I'd be grateful to learn!)
You need to put what you intend to quote between (quote) and (/quote), as I do in the example below, but you must use square brackets ("[" and "]".
Don't leave any space between parenthesis and the word quote, or around the "/" in the closing quote.
Here is the example:
(quote)
text to quote text to quote text to quote text to quote
text to quote text to quote text to quote
(/quote)
That's all, bye
Gianfranco
[Edited at 2007-02-07 16:32]
| | | | katsy
Local time: 05:42
English to French
+ ...
That's all, bye
Gianfranco
Thank you Gianfranco!!
I feel so clever now.
Katsy
[Edited at 2007-02-07 16:32] [/quote]
[Edited at 2007-02-07 17:50]
[Edited at 2007-02-07 17:50]
| | | |
katsy wrote:
And now, a final question:
Shall I now (would you like me to) or Should I now (would it be more generally desirable for me to) just leave it at that?
I really enjoyed this discussion. I just hope I haven't bored you and other readers to bits.
Carry on if you like
My summary so far would be:
Thanks in the main to your contributions, my view has shifted slightly, inasmuch as I can see that there are circs when should/shall can make at least a theoretical difference in what the question is implying about the situation.
That said, I'm not overly convinced that many speakers are that bothered 'in real life' about the difference (as they aren't about less/fewer) as the net result is the same.
I personally find the distinction useful - or it would be, if everyone stuck to it.
While, clearly, there is a link between the emphasis/implication in the interrogative "shall/should I... ?" and the declarative (is that right?) "I shall/should....", I now wonder whether "should" has pretty much won the day (at least, it has from where I'm standing, in everyday speech) in questions of this type for reasons of politeness.
As kids, many of us are told not to say "I want..." but "I would like...." (or even "I should like..." !?). As we know, grammatical "pollution" or drift can occur - witness the amount of people who say things like "my brother & I" when it should be "..and me". So I wonder whether people are more inclined to ask "should I...." when they probably could more accurately use "shall I...." out of concern to seem polite? Just an idea...:-)
| | |
|
|
|
katsy
Local time: 05:42
English to French
+ ...
| politeness indeed | Feb 8, 2007 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: I personally find the distinction useful - or it would be, if everyone stuck to it . While, clearly, there is a link between the emphasis/implication in the interrogative "shall/should I... ?" and the declarative (is that right?) "I shall/should....", I now wonder whether "should" has pretty much won the day (at least, it has from where I'm standing, in everyday speech) in questions of this type for reasons of politeness.
I think you're probably right - there is a difference between what you say in everyday speech and what you might want to be more pernickety about in translation
So I wonder whether people are more inclined to ask "should I...." when they probably could more accurately use "shall I...." out of concern to seem polite? Just an idea...:-)
This was exactly what I was thinking to myself!! If you accept (either really, or just for the sake of argument) the explanation I proposed, then you are saying 'I would like you to tell me what's the best thing' with "should', instead of - oh how boldly!! - just proposing to do something with 'shall'. Is this all part of being British and not wanting to impose oneself?!
Have a good day!
| | | | katsy
Local time: 05:42
English to French
+ ...
| politeness and the revenge of linguistics | Feb 8, 2007 |
Charlie,
Oh dear, I should be working. You talk about "I should like" - yes, I agree with your '?!'. Having had a very traditional education, I was taught that one indeed should (sorry!) say 'I should like'. If you think about it, then as should is the past of shall, then it is logically no longer truly valid, insofar as for the simple future, will has , 99% of the time, supplanted shall.
This is the advantage of this linguistic approach which as I said before is not concerned wit... See more Charlie,
Oh dear, I should be working. You talk about "I should like" - yes, I agree with your '?!'. Having had a very traditional education, I was taught that one indeed should (sorry!) say 'I should like'. If you think about it, then as should is the past of shall, then it is logically no longer truly valid, insofar as for the simple future, will has , 99% of the time, supplanted shall.
This is the advantage of this linguistic approach which as I said before is not concerned with what is 'right' but with what is 'said'. No one (here) would teach 'I should like', but just say 'you might see it from time to time in an older text with the meaning 'I would like''. And the same with less and fewer - students are told "'fewer' is correct, you will pretty often see less, but don't do it yourselves'. I'm ready to bet that in a few years, less will have totally supplanted fewer and that it will be just as 'right' as 'fewer'....
My parents are probably spinning in their graves!
best
Katsy ▲ Collapse
| | | | | The trouble with should... | Feb 8, 2007 |
Yes, to all that including the ultimate demise of fewer. I read somewhere that old English (lower case since I'm not sure I mean OE in the technical sense, it might have been Saxon or something) used to have dual plural pronouns (= you two, us two, & suchlike) - bloody useful, I'd've thought. These things generally serve a purpose (with the exception of noun genders - why do other languages persist with such nonsense?!)
... See more Yes, to all that including the ultimate demise of fewer. I read somewhere that old English (lower case since I'm not sure I mean OE in the technical sense, it might have been Saxon or something) used to have dual plural pronouns (= you two, us two, & suchlike) - bloody useful, I'd've thought. These things generally serve a purpose (with the exception of noun genders - why do other languages persist with such nonsense?!)
The trouble I have with the "I should like to...." super-polite type of formulation is that I always think "but...what?".
For example:
Me: "Want a snack?"
Super-polite friend: "I should like to have an apple."
Me: "Ok, here's a Mars bar, then"
OK, yes, we all understand that you are supposed (I nearly put 'should' there!) to eat fruit every day, and therefore, yes, you should like to have an apple. But the plain fact is that we all prefer a sugar-hit and you can't dunk an apple in your tea. So even though you are supposed to want to prefer an apple (i.e. you should like to have an apple), here's something else ▲ Collapse
| | | | katsy
Local time: 05:42
English to French
+ ...
| sounds like can and may | Feb 8, 2007 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: OK, yes, we all understand that you are supposed (I nearly put 'should' there!) to eat fruit every day, and therefore, yes, you should like to have an apple. But the plain fact is that we all prefer a sugar-hit and you can't dunk an apple in your tea. So even though you are supposed to want to prefer an apple (i.e. you should like to have an apple), here's something else
Yes, sounds like the corny jokes 'I feel like a pizza', 'Well you don't look like one'
You're right of course. At the very least 'I should like an apple' sounds extremely prissy. It makes life difficult for some people to admit that one word may have more than one meaning: like the old 'Can I go out, Mum?'; 'you can but you may not' - which is just a play on words - whether Mum likes it or not 'can' is both permission and ability...... 'can I?' as it is used DOES mean 'will you give me permission'.
Goodness, we're going to go through all the modals at this rate.
Sometimes I'm really glad I'm English and don't have to learn it as a foreigner!
I quite like the idea of abolishing genders too. Haven't been able to come up with a good argument for keeping them!!
Have a nice evening.
| | |
|
|
|
Viktoria Gimbe
Canada
Local time: 23:42
English to French
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Nice conversation | Feb 8, 2007 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: I personally find the distinction useful - or it would be, if everyone stuck to it .
That is exactly my point. I think that shall is too widely accepted simply because most of us don't see the difference between shall and should, whereas a difference there clearly is.
I see the difference and I react when I see sentences where shall is used wrongly. Should I shut my mouth and forget about it, that is, accept that a lot of people use the word wrongly? Or should I raise the issue and try to educate people. After all, the beauty of any language lies in the subtle nuances most often - and when we don't use those nuances, they fade away and language isn't as beautiful anymore...
| | | | katsy
Local time: 05:42
English to French
+ ...
| back to the point!! | Feb 8, 2007 |
Viktoria Gimbe wrote:
That is exactly my point. I think that shall is too widely accepted simply because most of us don't see the difference between shall and should, whereas a difference there clearly is.
I see the difference and I react when I see sentences where shall is used wrongly. Should I shut my mouth and forget about it, that is, accept that a lot of people use the word wrongly? Or should I raise the issue and try to educate people.
Hello Viktoria
Charlie and I seem to have hogged the posts over the last 24 hoiurs.
I wonder if you'd get the same response from Charlie and me.
My view would be that yes, you should raise the issue - if his 'Should I open the window' for 'shall I open the window' is perhaps less problematic than I personally would like it to be (!!), I do think that a sentence 'shall I get a job or take a gap year' - which was I think your original example - is actually wrong.... the 'shall' does not ask for advice, which the 'should' clearly does. Even Charlie said (I think) that it sounded funny - I would say because it's not what you expect when someone is clearly asking which is the better option, not just saying 'how about if I do this...?'
So, very briefly, if the use of one word instead of another makes the meaning ambiguous, then I think you should try and ensure that the unambiguous expression is used. However, when the use of one word - Charlie and I were discussing earlier certain uses of should etc. - is merely a question of - perceived!!! - politeness or correctness, then just let it slide.
I wonder what you think (and what Charlie thinks)?? (Is this clear?)
all the best
Katsy
| | | | | Save your breath to cool your porridge :-) | Feb 8, 2007 |
Viktoria Gimbe wrote:
That is exactly my point. I think that shall is too widely accepted simply because most of us don't see the difference between shall and should, whereas a difference there clearly is.
You'll note I've shifted my position slightly from my first post
Personally, I would have perhaps thought it preferable that your sample question contained "should", but I still don't think shall is absolutely wrong - depends a bit on the asker's viewpoint.
I see the difference and I react when I see sentences where shall is used wrongly. Should I shut my mouth and forget about it, that is, accept that a lot of people use the word wrongly? Or should I raise the issue and try to educate people.
Up to you entirely, old stick!
Personally, I save my energy for the bigger issues as far as this kind of point goes - infer/imply, uninterested/disinterested, and suchlike. Lose those, and we're losing some relatively important distinctions.
After all, the beauty of any language lies in the subtle nuances most often - and when we don't use those nuances, they fade away and language isn't as beautiful anymore...
And the language will change with or without our permission or blessing, I'm afraid. If people don't feel the need for nuances, they will inevitably wither and die, like anything else that is unused or neglected.
And ultimately, despite what I said above, if the wider English speaking population decides it can live without a distinction between imply and infer, then so be it, something will spring up to compensate for the loss if need be.
People have been wailing about the demise of English pretty much since either wailing or English started, I forget which came first. But it struggles manfully on, just about keeping its head above water anyway.
All we can do is endeavour (or mebbe just plain ol' try) to write sound, coherent translations and if people pick up something good from that, great, an' if they don't, well, like, whatever
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Are we abusing the word "shall"? | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
