Talk:Will (verb)

Ironically, this artical about grammar contains many grammatical errors. Does anyone disagree that this article badly needs an overhaul? Nulbyte 12:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * What errors in this article are you referring to in particular? Feel free to emend. &#8212;Sinuhe 18:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * One of the first examples, "they'll no doubt be there by now" gives a present time frame for a future action saying they will be there (future) by now (present). The second example of future perfect tense uses got where one should use gotten.  Otherwise, the article looks very disorganized; long lists of examples with little substance.  And why point the reader to discussion of appropriate times to use will on a page about shall after one has already discussed appropriate use of the verb will? -Nulbyte 13:30, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)


 * I don't see why you would assume that 'they'll no doubt be there by now' implies any futurity whatsoever. It is inferring from what you know of the past to the present. If a timeframe other than the present was used, the sentence would mean something else entirely (it would be prediction rather than inference). Will as a modal verb need not be related to the future and this is in fact one of the examples meant to demonstrate just this.
 * As for gotten, that word is archaic (or American) for got. The past participle of to get is got. See American and British English differences for details.
 * The article on shall discusses a rather different issue; it does not make sense to duplicate information when it can be linked. But feel free to improve and organise the article if you know how. &#8212;Sinuhe 16:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * An inference of what? An inference of an action yet to happen would cause confusion with the clause "by now," while an inference of an action happening now or having already happened would cause confusion with the use of will.  Inference is commonly made with other verbs, for example "they have to be there by now," in either style.  See http://cctc2.commnet.edu/grammar/auxiliary.htm for an excerpt from The New Fowler's Modern English Usage on will and bits on other auxiliary verbs, with information on both Brittish and American styles.  And I wasn't quite aware of the usage of got outside of the US, so thank you for that tidbit.  -Nulbyte 02:09, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)


 * It is an inference of something which should be true now based on information from the past. I'm not saying that other verbs are not used in this sense, but will is not at all uncommon in this rôle. The terminology 'inferential fact of the present' stems from Dr Onions; if you really can't come to terms with the sentence, we could well include another example. Say, 'You will no doubt be the person of whom my friend has told me.' (or do you see some connexion with the future in this sentence as well?)? &#8212;Sinuhe 19:22, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "'You will no doubt be the person of whom my friend has told me.' (or do you see some connexion with the future in this sentence as well?)"
 * Just out of curiosity, where do you live? I've never heard anything remotely like this sentence in reference to the present.  It would probably be spoken here as, "You're the guy my friend told me about?" or "And you're the guy he was talking about, are you?" (if requesting confirmation).  I can't say I've heard the present expressed in the future: "You will... be the person of whom my friend spoke" carries exactly the same connotation as "You shall be that person" to my ears.

There really should be a formal/informal distinction
I'm not seeing any real grammatical mistakes. Most of the informal or "incorrect" instances listed are said all the time in real life, even if they're unacceptable for any sort of formal writing. I also take issue with this part of the article:

"I would have thought that he would have been thrilled! (or, better: "I should have thought ...")"

Who's to say better? "I should have thought" is certainly more formal, and it maintains the shall/will distinction (which is in no danger of disappearing and preserves a very important shade of meaning). But "should" is really no longer the first-person simple conditional. The person distinction ("I should" = "You would"; "I shall" = "You will") has been mostly wiped out, so now "would" and "will" are neutral and "should" and "shall" indicate obligation or duty, regardless of person. This is the everyday usage. "If I lived in Flintlock Estates, I should be home now" sounds unnatural and stilted in everyday speech, and is usually shortened to 'd (or 'll) anyway. "I should be home now" comes off as "I ought to be home now".

And on the other side of the coin, the article really ought to explain the formal sh-/w- distinction. Throwing both written and spoken usage into the same pot isn't going to help anybody: a foreign learner wouldn't really grasp the words' nuances, as the article is mostly a list of examples; an English speaker looking for what's "proper" will find the traditional usage mixed in a haphazard list with just about every other use of the word there is; and someone who doesn't need the help that this article could provide... well, doesn't need the help that this article could provide.

Perhaps a split between traditional and everyday usage would be in order? Will, would, shall, and should are four very important words that are still kept separate in careful usage, simply because they imply so much in one word. Bulldozing the useful distinction for the sake of "progress" and descriptive grammar does no favors. The formal uses have passed out of common speech, but the sh- and w- words are so useful that they'll stay in writing for a long time.

Consider the well-known example of "I will die; no one will save me!" as opposed to "I shall die; no one will save me!". Both would probably be spoken "I will die; no one will save me!" (well, not really at all, but you get the idea); the speaker would provide the emphasis, and the verbal-diarrhoea element of spoken language is a safety net in that you can throw whatever words in to explain yourself if your initial thought can't. The shall/will distinction keeps "I shall die" and "I will die" separate and succinct; a reader can see the two and realize that the first is suicidal and the second forlorn, and the reader can get all of that with one word's difference. The distinction will always be in writing (which really ought to follow prescription to the letter: prescriptive grammar creates a form of the language that will be understood for centuries), so the traditional uses of these words ought to be included and marked. But the informal and idiomatic uses should definitely stay. If this article helps even one person out there speak and read better English, that's enough for me.

But please, don't argue about prescription and description. Both are equally valuable and ought to be covered. Speaking isn't a thing like writing, and the two really follow different rules: most speech isn't going to be remembered even in a day or two from now. We can still read Shakespeare, 400 years later. Written language ought to be conservative; it reads more easily and writing is a semi-permanent record that doesn't change with the tides as speech does (In 100 years, I doubt that people will still say "If I would have seen it" for "If I had seen it": in my mind, it's wordy and takes too much effort to mentally convert from conditional to preterite. There are no advantages to this usage at all except that it throws out meaningless verbal fluff so the speaker can think of what to say next.  Although I must say that the phrase "the fact that" has stuck around surprisingly long despite adding nothing but dead weight to the language: you'd think that people would get sick of saying so many meaningless words, but "I take offense to the fact that he's eating meat" has inexplicably stayed more popular than "I'm offended that he's eating meat".  It adds nothing and can even lead to misunderstandings: the phrase is so popular that it's used for opinions as well ("The fact that potato chips taste good", for one), and you could easily take such an opinion the wrong way. "The fact that Bill Clinton was a good president" doesn't just state an opinion; it calls everyone who disagrees a liar, and all because some people just can't seem to write "that" without a "the fact" before it.

Sorry for the digression, it's just that "the fact that" has always been one of my great unsolved mysteries of the English language: considering that it's wordy and adds nothing to the language but ambiguity and monotonous sentence structure. And not only is it still around: it's grown even more widespread. It's snuck into newspaper articles and other formal writing despite being a prime example of "dead wood", and it's gone from a rarely-used phrase to a ubiquitous one, encountered two or three times -- if not more -- in some paragraphs. One of the great curiosities of the tongue, I guess.

Usage
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)

"the fact that"
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)