shall then will

>>Travis,

Yeah but the shall in "thou shalt not" still has a bit of intent behind it. It's not the same as "thou wilt not," which implies that it can never happen. "Thou shalt not" implies more that it should not happen.

Of course, in societies with lots of rules, perhaps this would be stronger. <<

Mind you, though, that I was talking about dialects which have lost the semantic difference between "will" and "shall" even when they use "shall" at all.

<that I was talking about dialects which have lost the semantic difference between "will" and "shall" even when they use "shall" at all. >

Standard AE, for example, is a dialect that has lost the distinction.

<As for shall v. will. Will seems to be a stronger statement, while shall implies intent for something to happen rather than certainty that it will, or at least that's what I've always thought. >

How about here?

"Article 4 – Duties of the Parties

Each Party shall take the necessary measures in its domestic law to give effect to the basic principles for data protection set out in this chapter.
These measures shall be taken at the latest at the time of entry into force of this convention in respect of that Party."

"Legalese" such as used in documents like that is something different entirely... even the clearest legalese will still be different from all other forms of English in some ways.

<"Legalese" such as used in documents like that is something different entirely... even the clearest legalese will still be different from all other forms of English in some ways. >

That's a kind of non-statement, Kef. How is "shall" in legalese different to that which we have been talking about?

My point is that legalese usage doesn't necessary match common usage. We've been saying that "shall" is uncommon in American English, for example, but if you examine American legal documents, you'll find it all the time.

The same also applies to other sorts of formal documents. For example, this is an excerpt from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_and_will#Technical_jargon):

"In many requirement specifications (particularly in software), the words shall and will have special meaning. Most requirement specifications use the word shall to denote a requirement. The word will is reserved for a statement of fact. However, some documents deviate from this convention and use the words shall, will, and should to denote the priority of the requirement. Well-written requirement specifications define these words near the beginning of the document."

Similar distinctions might be drawn in legalese. I can't really comment because I don't read legalese. ;)

- Kef

>>"In many requirement specifications (particularly in software), the words shall and will have special meaning. Most requirement specifications use the word shall to denote a requirement. The word will is reserved for a statement of fact. However, some documents deviate from this convention and use the words shall, will, and should to denote the priority of the requirement. Well-written requirement specifications define these words near the beginning of the document."

Similar distinctions might be drawn in legalese. I can't really comment because I don't read legalese. ;)<<

Actually, I have to note, that such a distinction is made at the place that I work in requirements documents. However, though, it is in no fashion a natural distinction actually made in everyday speech in this area, where "shall" has been limited to fixed usages and particularly formal, poetic, or emphatic usages.

I always wondered why Winston Churchill said "shall" instead of "will" in his famous line: "we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, 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."

<I always wondered why Winston Churchill said "shall" instead of "will" in his famous line: "we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, 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." >

Because, as I said before, the base meaning of "shall" is:

"According to my perception of the present situation, it is, if it's anything to do with me/you/us, inevitable that..." (Lewis 96)

Problem is, many folks don't know how to use "shall" correctly.

>>Problem is, many folks don't know how to use "shall" correctly.<<

Saying that they "don't know how to use 'shall' correctly" implies that "shall" still has a way of being used "correctly". The matter is simply that in at least North American English, the semantic difference between "will" and "shall" has been lost altogether, and furthermore "shall" has been limited to fixed expressions and particularly formal, emphatic, or poetic usages.

To say that North Americans do not know how to use "will" and "shall" properly is like saying that English-speakers today (outside of Quakers and some people from northern England) do not know how to use "thou" and "you" properly.

<Saying that they "don't know how to use 'shall' correctly" implies that "shall" still has a way of being used "correctly". The matter is simply that in at least North American English, the semantic difference between "will" and "shall" has been lost altogether, and furthermore "shall" has been limited to fixed expressions and particularly formal, emphatic, or poetic usages. >

Yes, I know. As I said, there are many who have lost the ability to distinguish between the two words. American English is famous for taking the easy option on usage.