Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 04:01:24 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org> 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 notes that the distinction is obsolete, especially in en_US.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 Heritage® 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 <smurf@smurf.noris.de> said:
> Hi,
> Manoj Srivastava:
>> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:29:33 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson
>> <peter@softwolves.pp.se> 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 <srivasta@debian.org> <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
Reply to: