Is Now and Ever Shall Be : Language Lounge : Thinkmap Visual Thesaurus

Oxford University Press has reprinted the first edition of a great classic — H. W. Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage — and we've been enjoying the book in the Lounge. It reproduces the text of the original, along with a new introduction and 25 pages of notes that refer to about 300 entries in the first edition, reflecting ways in which the language has changed since the 1920s, when Fowler's work first appeared. The notes are written by David Crystal, whose credentials as a contemporary authority on English are unassailable.

There is never a reason not to consult Fowler about usage: whether you find what you were looking for or not, you'll walk away from his text amused and edified in a way that you weren't when you went to it. We found an occasion to consult him the other day when we noted this sign that's just appeared, down the road a bit from the Lounge:

Shall be permitted? Today's mainstream English speaker would simply say "Ice fishing is permitted..." What's the deal?

Fowler has a lengthy entry at shall that treats shall & will, should & would. With characteristic wit, he notes:

He then goes on to delineate the distinctions between shall and will, rendered in various constructions as should and would, for three pages, during which the modern reader will come to lament that an important distinction of modality available to earlier refined speakers of English is now lost: Fowler has it that will was reserved for use in sentences where "intention, volition, choice, etc" are involved, while shall is for use in sentences of "plain future or conditional statements & questions in the first person." But is the distinction really lost, and perhaps more importantly, did it ever really exist? David Crystal, in his update of this entry, says that there is abundant evidence of this distinction being

He goes on to note that shall still holds its place in first-person questions, wherein the speaker signals a desire for input about a possible course of action (i.e., "Shall I leave the light on?"). This use, though concerned with the future, is essentially a modal use of shall that all dialects of English find useful, and it clearly serves a different function than the somewhat unlikely "Will I leave the light on?"

We would disagree with Mr. Crystal that, aside from the foregoing use, shall has "virtually disappeared" from American English. Even formal and polite Americans don't give it the exercise that Britons give it in speech, but shall is still common today in American English in many of the same contexts as it is in Britain — and our sign is an example of this. How and why does it survive, when nearly all speakers routinely use will as the all-purpose future auxiliary verb?

Though very few speakers today use it in a prescribed way, shall leaves an indelible impression on the minds of developing native speakers of English in many forms, starting early in life. There are, for example, nursery rhymes:

Prayers and hymns:

Even modern biblical translations, while largely dispensing with archaic shalt (the very sound of which may conjure visions of hellfire) still seem to prefer shall over will, no doubt for its authoritative tone. (See, for example, these parallel translations of Exodus 20:16, the 9th commandment.)

No sooner do Civics lessons begin in middle school than students get repeatedly pinged by shall in great historical documents. It occurs only once in the Declaration of Independence but nearly 200 times in the U.S. Constitution, nearly all of them in a "legal and authoritative" way, starting in Article 1, Section 1:

This is probably a good indication of why shall appears in our sign about ice fishing: we suspect that it's a direct quotation from a statute. Contemporary crafters of legislation still work in the very long shadow of the Founding Fathers, and shall worked so well for them when they were in ordaining mode that it continues to be in fashion today.

Perhaps inspired along similar lines, Abraham Lincoln uses a famous shall triplet in the peroration of the Gettysburg Address:

Through all of these means, shall still works its way into the matrix of the native-speaker speech center, without leaving a clear algorithm about how it should be used. Further complicating this, there is also for many adult speakers today a lingering uneasiness about shall, due to the confused pedagogy about it that prevailed for much of the 20th century — at least in American schools. We in the Lounge, for example, while not admonished or even encouraged to use shall as a future marker, were given to understand that it was the proper form in the first person. The implication seemed to be that we did not actually speak proper English, but that we would make progress toward doing so if we would mark our future utterances with shall — at the unmentioned price of sounding silly and affected to our peers.Take, for example, this explanation and exercise from a 20th century American textbook — in which the modal and future uses of shall are all conflated into one mindbending rubric:

The upshot today is that shall — besides its fixed modal use in soliciting input for actions — has a special status and is used, not altogether consistently, to impart an air of authority, formality, of loftiness that will would lack in the same context. This usage isn't lost on Hollywood, which sprinkles dialog with shalls for effect — an effect that Fowler calls "decorative and prophetic" in his original article. Thus,

Greta Garbo in "Grand Hotel":
I shall dance and you'll be with me and then — listen — After that you will come with me to Lake Como, I have a villa there. The sun will be shining. I will take a vacation — six weeks — eight weeks. We'll be happy and lazy. And then you will go with me to South America — oh!

Joan Crawford in "Mildred Pierce":
I shall prevent this marriage in any way that I can.

You can find scores of other examples with the search "you shall" on script-o-rama.com, where it is obvious that Hollywood is the true master of the "decorative and prophetic" shall. Alternatively, there's a pretty good case to be made that what Fowler said in 1926 still holds true today:

The time-honoured 'I will be drowned, no-one shall save me', so much too good to be true, is less convincing as a proof that there are people to whom the English distinctions mean nothing than the discovery that shall & will, should & would, are sometimes regarded as good raw material for elegant variation.

Rate this article:

Vocabulary, Language, Words, Usage

Suggest a topic / contribute

Click here to read more articles from Language Lounge.

Orin Hargraves is an independent lexicographer and contributor to numerous dictionaries published in the US, the UK, and Europe. He is also the author of Mighty Fine Words and Smashing Expressions (Oxford), the definitive guide to British and American differences, and Slang Rules! (Merriam-Webster), a practical guide for English learners. In addition to writing the Language Lounge column, Orin also writes for the Macmillan Dictionary Blog. Click here to visit his website. Click here to read more articles by Orin Hargraves.

Join the conversation

Comments from our users:

An excellent commentary! But consider: Imagine that you have written a book and you wish to tell the reader what to anticipate, what to expect as she or he reads along.

"I shall show. . ."? or, as has now become customary and de rigeur: "I show". Here, "I shall" tells the reader that in the future, as she moves along, she will encounter this or that. "I show" tells the reader that the argument is a done-deal. It's over. Finito. Get over it.

Any thoughts?

“In the (first) chapter, as you shall see, I talk about (such and such)” seems to me one way of introducing the reader to that chapter (of course, expressing oneself in this way assumes that the reader reads first the preface or the introduction and then the book itself, which is not always the case – I prefer to read the book first, and I’m sure that I’m not the only one in doing so, and then to read the preface or the introduction, because this procedure allows me to have a dialogue (about the book, and one cannot have a dialogue about something one has no knowledge about) with the person who wrote the preface or the introduction (either the author or someone else). As for shall and will, I generally (or rather when I think it is appropriate) use will when the subject of the sentence is myself and shall when I am not the subject. However, after reading this very enjoyable and instructive article, I can only hope to see an improvement (that is, a correct use at all times) of their use.

Regarding Mr. Crystal's observation that "shall still holds its place in first-person questions, wherein the speaker signals a desire for input about a possible course of action," as in 'Shall I leave the light on?'":

In suggesting that this is a use "that all dialects of English find useful, and it clearly serves a different function than the somewhat unlikely 'Will I leave the light on?'" he does not take into account the meaning of the question in that instance, at least as Americans use it. We would say, rather than "Shall I" or "Will I leave the light on?", "Should I leave the light on?"

I've often wondered why people add the word 'pretty' to a sentence. Is it used to emphasize something important? Example: from above sentence -"Alternatively, there's a pretty good case to be made that what Fowler said in 1926 still holds true today: " Any comments?

Also, if I am ever elected as king of the world my first decree would be to ban the expression 'you guys' especially when used when speaking to women. Then I would ban, under pain of punishment, the word 'like' when used improperly in a sentence. Are there any supporters of this out there?

A fine post! But you have unwittingly traduced Fowler while quoting him exactly, and he would not be pleased that your final sentence turns him into an apparent illiterate: "there are people to whom the English distinctions mean nothing than the discovery that shall & will, should & would, are sometimes regarded as good raw material for elegant variation" appears to use "nothing than" as an illegitimate equivalent of "nothing other than." What Fowler actually wrote (in his characteristically long-winded and clotted, but enjoyable when parsed, style) is: "The time-honoured 'I will be drowned, no-one shall save me', so much too good to be true, is less convincing as a proof that there are people to whom the English distinctions mean nothing than the discovery that shall & will, should & would, are sometimes regarded as good raw material for elegant variation" -- in other words, "If you want to be convinced that there are people to whom the English distinctions mean nothing, don't bother with amusing but invented examples like the old chestnut about drowning but instead take a look at these examples, where the two forms are simply regarded as good raw material for elegant variation."

In short, you need to expand the final quote or drop it, because as it stands it is meaningless.

[The quote has now been expanded by your humble editor. —Ed.]

A long winded discourse that does nothing to help an old farmer figure out when to use shall and when to use will.

You 'shall' either make it understandable or I 'will' continue to use which ever one comes to mind first.

Getting back on the subject of will vs shall:

If the intention is to be emphatic 'will' prevails over 'shall'. For example, 'I will go' opposed to 'I shall go' conveys certainty without any maybe or when I get around to it.

Also, 'shall' as opposed to 'will' as in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address has a nicer ring to it as it carries the moment rather than thrusts at it.

So which is better? Perhaps it is a matter of mood.

I use Fowler regularly when I have questions about usage. It is easier to use and more complete than Strunk and White and infinitely preferable to that abomination, The A P Style Book. I was mildly annoyed, however, when I read, in rhe first excerpt from Fowler, the term "to the manner born". Not wanting to sound too ignorant (too often a fault of mine when I leap into conversations without checking my facts), I researched the phrase. I was surprised to learn that for years, I had been under a misapprehension regarding the term. I thought it should be "to the manor born". I was wrong - even Shakespeare used "to the manner born" (Hamlet, written in 1603). "To the manor born comes much later and was possibly the result of a mistake.

As for "shall" and "will" I have always understood that "shall" carried an element of a requirement and "will" carries the element of desire. They are usually used with those contexts in the law.

Might I be permitted to make a suggestion which, perhaps, makes a profound distinction between 'shall' and 'will'?

None shall weep at my passing. (A dying wish for conformity?)

None will weep at my passing. A forlorn observation?

While I find the article intriguing, it is difficult to integrate it into use in day to day conversation without sounding like a snob or someone who doesn't know how to speak English. It reminds me of the fact that the word "gotten" does not appear in the dictionary but is part of everyday language. It is used so much that it is just part of everyday language. How do we deal with such a word when it permeates out day to day vercular.

Another word which has become part of our daily language is "nother" as in that's a whole nother matter. I find this the most misused word and it drives me crazy. After this entire diatribe, my only point is that we cannot always speak the Queen's English. To speak that way would deprive us of our basic language in the united states and that's American, not really English.

While I find the article intriguing, it is difficult to integrate it into use in day to day conversation without sounding like a snob or someone who doesn't know how to speak English. It reminds me of the fact that the word "gotten" does not appear in the dictionary but is part of everyday language. It is used so much that it is just part of everyday language. How do we deal with such a word when it permeates out day to day vernacular.

Another word which has become part of our daily language is "nother" as in that's a whole nother matter. I find this the most misused word and it drives me crazy. After this entire diatribe, my only point is that we cannot always speak the Queen's English. To speak that way would deprive us of our basic language in the united states and that's American, not really English.

I will keep all of you comments in mind today in my conversations and see how many strange looks I get.

In systems engineering, requirements for everything from submarines to satellites are crafted using the word "shall" in order to require the system to meet the stated requirement. The consensus of most systems engineers is that the word "will" implies a condition is not a requirement. From Mil-Std-961, which describes how to compose and structure a good system specification:

“Shall”, the emphatic form of the verb, shall be used throughout sections 3, 4, and 5 of the specification whenever a requirement is intended to express a provision that is binding.
“Will” is used to express a declaration of purpose or defining an environment. For example, “The item will be connected to an antenna through a coaxial cable.” It may be necessary to use “will” in cases when simple futurity is required.
Use “should” and “may” whenever it is necessary to express non-mandatory provisions.
“Must” shall not be used to express a mandatory provision. Use the term “shall.”
Avoid indefinite terms, such as “and/or,” “suitable,” “adequate,” “first rate,” and “best possible.”
Avoid using “e.g.,” “etc.,” and “i.e.,”

Example Requirement:
3.2.1.4 Out-of-band response. The item shall have a response to out-of-band signals that is not greater than 20 dB below its peak in-band gain. Out-of-band signals are defined as being not less than 20 MHz away from the center frequency in 3.2.1.3.

In most U.S. legal contexts, "shall" marks an imperative command, an important distinction from "will."

I will give you that: English is not my native language. But having studied it for over 30 years, and having lived for long years in England and in the US, I like Roy A.'s examples. Although to my foreign ears the first example does not sound exactly as a wish - it is almost an order, something that could be replaced by "you must not weep at my passing." I always read "shall" as a "must," or closer to "must" than to "will" - and the recurrent use of the adjective "authoritative" by Hargraves hints at my being right. Or not? As for the second example, it has a matter-of-fact tone - not a wish, not an order, simply a high probability. "I will go" may not happen because of weather or accidents. "I shall go" implies I feel obligated to go, and I will do my best to be there. The use of "shall" in authoritative texts, like the US Constituition or Lincoln's address seem to confirm that: "shall" seems to convey obligation and commitment, while "will" conveys just future probability. Am I wrong?
(I just realized my theory might not work with "Shall I leave the lights on?" but maybe it does if you substitute "should" or "must," huh?)

On leaving Bataan in 1942, MacArthur asserted, "I shall return." Was this use of "shall" a simple future tense? If it was a promise or desire, should he not have said, "I will return?" If imperative, is he commanding himself to return? The use seems to be "emphatic" and has force because it departs from the common vernacular.

In response to Robert W.

I enjoyed your comment and your premise illustrated what is simply my personal impression of your example. "I shall show" does tell the reader what they may expect to encounter while reading your book, it encourages exploration and a personal journey with the author as he develops his argument. My reaction to "I show" leads me to simply consider the author's final conclusion, because as you say "...the argument is a done deal. It's over. Finito. Get over it." The argument clearly does not require exploration or an exchange of thoughts or reasoning by the reader-so why would I read it?
Whether one is writing on a scientific subject, a philosophical treatise, or a historical commentary; "I show" is so dogmatic, one merely needs to consider the author's conclusion-the preface stating "I show" one conclusion or another suffices.

I cannot resist the famous quote from the brilliant Vulcan/Humanoid scientist, Spock, in not only the third and fourth of the original Star Trek movies, but even in the most recent Star Trek movie, with Leonard Nimoy as Spock stating once again to Jim Kirk (now played by Chris Pine), "I am now, and ever shall be, your friend."

Gene Roddenberry knew his English.

I think if I were elected (hehe) dictator, I would ban 'shall' in all circumstances except for this sort: Shall I do...

Trying to puzzle out which form, shall or will, should be used has wasted too much of my writing time already.

If we had smileys here, I'd post a smiley or grinny sort of one! I'm not meaning to put anyone down. I DO have my own pet peeves. (Another giggly smiley here)

The following quotes are from Wayne Schiess's legal-writing blog (http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/wschiess/legalwriting/2005/05/shall-vs-will.html):

"To correctly use 'shall,' confine it to the meaning "has a duty to" and use it to impose a duty on a capable actor."

"You can use "will" to create a promise--a contractual obligation."

"In most basic contracts, I recommend using 'will' to create obligations, as long as you are careful to be sure any given usage can't be read as merely describing future events. I'm generally against 'shall' because it is harder to use correctly and it is archaic. But not everyone agrees with me. Kenneth A. Adams, A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting 24-25 (ABA 2004). Adams prefers using "shall" as long as it's used correctly.

See also Joseph Kimble, The Many Misuses of Shall, 3 Scribes J. Leg. Writing 61 (1992)"

While I find the article intriguing, it is difficult to integrate it into use in day to day conversation without sounding like a snob or someone who doesn't know how to speak English. It reminds me of the fact that the word "gotten" does not appear in the dictionary but is part of everyday language. It is used so much that it is just part of everyday language. How do we deal with such a word when it permeates out day to day vernacular.

Another word which has become part of our daily language is "nother" as in that's a whole nother matter. I find this the most misused word and it drives me crazy. After this entire diatribe, my only point is that we cannot always speak the Queen's English. To speak that way would deprive us of our basic language in the united states and that's American, not really English.

I will keep all of you comments in mind today in my conversations and see how many strange looks I get.

Thanks to all for your comments, and particularly to James E. and Scott R.: I had not realized that there was specific, contemporary guidance on the use of “shall” in technical and legal contexts – I thought everyone was just copying established models, but it looks as if “shall” has in fact been appropriated have particular import in these contexts. My intention is not to be prescriptive about “shall” for general use, simply to point out how historical and existing use make it nearly impossible to decide how it should be used today.

Leslie W.: This is not Mr. Crystal’s observation but mine. And I do think there is a difference between “Shall I leave the light on?” and “Should I leave the light on?” They would be interchangeable in many contexts, but to me, “Shall I leave the light on?” is what you would say if you were standing in the kitchen and someone in hearing distance had an interest in the outcome. “Should I leave the light on?” would be more suitable for a situation in the future that you anticipate but that has not yet arisen.

Stephen D.: There was no intention to traduce the master! I would sooner die a thousand deaths. The truncated (and thereby ungrammatical) quote appeared originally because of a miscommunication.

Shall I mail it for you? Answer: yes (or no).
Will I mail it for you? Answer: How would I know what you will do.

Someone qualified might extract a usage rule from the above.

I agree with Leslie W.,'should' is the word I use[and hear]with queries. If I substitute shall for should as in "Shall I leave the the lights on" there is a softer tone, but it sounds a bit Masterpiece Theaterish.

Hummm...I use the word shall frequently.

Okay, Carla. If I am ever dictator, you get to stay! (Rolling my eyes here) I use it too, but in a questioning sort of way.

I remember someone pounding the table and saying, "I will!" to get me sorted out on the difference.

My answer to that was this: Was MacArthur determined or not to return to the Philippines? I shall return? or I will return?

I recall discussing this with my dad long years ago. Long long years ago. And I remember his saying that MacArthur knew what he was saying. I take it from that that MacArthur was expressing a simple futurity. But why did he say that 'will' so definitely?

That one statement probably explains my distrust for the word -- except in the question sense.

I just think it requires a bit more pondering over what to say to the extent that, as that lawyer above implies in the quoted bit, one can be so easily misunderstood.

If 'shall' were to be used only for questions, it would be clear.

And the questions are those of a perfunctory sortL The lights are on. When should we off them. It has a sort of 'now' sense there.

'Should' leaves me with a different sense. Chose one of a set of alternatives.

I guess I'm very basic when it comes to 'shall'. I shall not worry too much about it!

That you are able to read this on your PC, over the internet, is due in appreciable measure to the clarity of meaning in the use of "shall", as compared to "will", in the specifications that underpin the modern technological world. (Refer to the comments and citation by James E, or to international Systems Engineering standards.) As an engineer, I find it alarming to consider that lexicographers are ambivalent on the topic. Be assured, no matter what might be finally decided to be preferred or correct, Systems Engineers will persist with their hobgoblin of consistency, oft-times to the benefit of us all.

To us it’s simple: Shall statements are obligatory. The Bible, Lincoln and many others usages agree.

As for ice fishing, a sign that obligates the agency controlling the permitted usages of the reservoir would be more in place in the office of that agency, not at the side of the reservoir. Instead, I would have it say:
Keep off if ice is less than 4” thick. Use the reservoir at your own risk.
This now covers the dubious task of determining how thick the ice is, to know whether one can fish, as well as any other activities or outcomes – food poisoning from contaminated fish, hook and line injuries, ice-skating, etc.

I believe the engineers got it: "shall" implies some sort of authority that is beyond the speaker's will. Albert M.'s example clearly points to it: in "shall I mail it for you?" the decision is NOT in the speaker's power. When MacArthur said "I shall return," the obligation of returning was beyond his own will, he HAD TO return, and the decision was not his, although of course he could add his will to it. Homeland, faith, God, whatever - something larger than MacArthur's will mandated his return. "Shall" is no mere decoration, at all.

Leda B.'s and the engineers' comments regarding an obligation implicit in the construct "shall I...?" seem to be edging closer to my earlier one that in U.S. English, we would say "Should I turn out the light?" rather than "Shall I...?" In this case, too, "the decision is not in the speaker's power," but rather, that of the person who is being asked.

I yield!

I was always taught that SHALL is used for first person simple future, while WILL is used in the same sense in the second and third person. Then the usage is reversed when the sense is imperative or "no matter what". Obviously it's not so simple. Welcome to usage! I have a personal rule that if correct usage becomes a subject for argument, I find another way to convey my message.

Time out for some fun: LEXOPHILES (LOVERS OF WORDS)

1. A bicycle can't stand alone; it is two tired.

2. A will is a dead giveaway.

3. Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.

4. A backward poet writes inverse.

5. A chicken crossing the road: poultry in motion.

6. When a clock is hungry it goes back four seconds.

7. The guy who fell onto an upholstery machine was fully recovered.

8. You are stuck with your debt if you can't budge it.

9. He broke into song because he couldn't find the key.

10. A calendar's days are numbered.

11. A boiled egg is hard to beat.

12. He had a photographic memory which was never developed.

13. The short fortuneteller who escaped from prison: a small medium at
large.

14. Those who get too big for their britches will be exposed in the end.

15. When you've seen one shopping center you've seen a mall.

16. If you jump off a Paris bridge, you are in Seine.

17. When she saw her first strands of gray hair, she thought she'd dye.

18. Santa's helpers are subordinate clauses.

19. Acupuncture: a jab well done.

20. Marathon runners with bad shoes suffer the agony of de feet.

21. The roundest knight at king Arthur's round table was Sir Cumference. He
acquired his size from too much pi.

22. I thought I saw an eye doctor on an Alaskan island, but it turned out to
be an optical Aleutian.

23. She was only a whiskey maker, but he loved her still.

24. A rubber band pistol was confiscated from algebra class because it was a
weapon of math disruption.

25. No matter how much you push the envelope, it'll still be stationery.

26. A dog gave birth t o puppies near the road and was cited for littering.

27. Two silk worms had a race. They ended up in a tie.

28. A hole has been found in the nudist camp wall. The police are looking
into it.

29. Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

30. I wondered why the baseball kept getting bigger. Then it hit me.

31. A sign on the lawn at a drug rehab center said: "Keep off the Grass."

32. A small boy swallowed some coins and was taken to a hospital. When his
grandmother telephoned to ask how he was, a nurse said, "No change yet."

33. The soldier who survived mustard gas and pepper spray is now a seasoned
veteran.

34. Don't join dangerous cults: practice safe sects.

~ Sent along by John Ebersole ~

John, I did enjoy those!