« ZurückWeiter »
parties £20,000 or £30,000 each'. (Paley.) The 'shall' may indicate that the speaker supposes the case; 'will' would suggest more definitely an action about to take place in the ordinary course of events.
Sometimes 'will’ is used for the present indefinite: Accidents will happen', the same as—'accidents happen'. The 'will' gives emphasis by a kind of personification; 'accidents take it into their heads, and resolve to happen'.
Differences, however, arose, as they will aniongst all communities of the kind'.
*If my valour should leave me! Valour will come and go'. (Sheridan.)
"The maidens will converse with each other in that manner from cliff to cliff, through storm and tempest, were there a mile between'. (Scott.)
• Any thermometer will answer the purpose'. This is really the expression of a universal fact, and ought to be present, 'answers'. The use of 'will’ is dramatic; it tells the person addressed to take and try any thermometer, and predicts what the result of the trial will be.
In Interrogation, the auxiliaries are ruled by the same principle. ‘Shall' expresses that the subject is under external influence; 'will' implies that the action is entirely within the control of the subject.
The only complete Interrogative forms are those expressing will or determination on the part of the second person.
• Will you be this honest gentleman's cupbearer, or shall I ?' (Pirate, ch. 30.) The action is left in the power of the person addressed : are you willing to---?' Is it
will or inclination to- ?' There is no pressure from without. On the other hand, ‘Shall I ?' indicates that the speaker is under outward control,-in this instance, the control of the person addressed. “If you should think fit not to do the action, then it will fall to me’; the action of the speaker is entirely dependent upon the will of the second person. So, • Shull he ?' would imply that the speaker expresses the
SHALL' AND 'WILL' AS INTERROGATIVES.
action of the person 'he'as resting on the will or control of the second person.
• Will you give thanks, sweet Kate? or else shall I ?'
• What shall we drink?' I submit my taste to yours : the choice lies with you; yours is the determining voice.
'If we refuse, what shall we suffer ?' Our fate depends on your will or determination; we are in your power.
Shall I pour your honour out a glass of sack to your pipe ?' 'Do, Trim', said my uncle Toby. (Sterne.)
• Hamlet. One word more, good lady.
Queen. What shall I do?' The Queen asks Hamlet: "What wilt thou do? thou wilt not murder me?' There is more than mere futurity here; the Queen inquires of Hamlet what his own will or resolution is. The action is altogether dependent on Hamlet, who is addressed.
Antony says to the Citizens : Shall I descend ? and will you give me leave ?' The orator professes to be the humble servant of those he addresses.
Shall our coffers, then, Be emptied to redeem a traitor home?' The speaker puts it to his hearers to say whether they can reasonably sanction the action.
• Shall be expire, And unavenged ?' I put it to you: whether he shall or shall not rests with you to decide.
· Hector is gone : Who shall tell Priam so, or Hecuba?' Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, &c. ?'
• What! shall an African, shall Juba's heir
Reproach great Cato's son ?' Next as to the Interrogative forms available for mere futurity. Shall I ?' is already set apart for the case
where the first person acts under the control of the second person or person addressed. Still there is no other form for simple futurity with the first person as subject. “Will I ?' is obviously impossible as a direct question; yet it is the regular Scotch form.
For enquiring as to a future action on the part of the second person, we have to consider two forms. "Shall you ?' would naturally inquire as to the influence of external circumstances upon 'you'; and, being not an affirmation but merely a question, it is not considered as at all uncourteous. * Will you ?' would be the form of courtesy, were the expression of this considered necessary or desirable ; it is a form moreover, that is already engaged to make inquiry as to the second person's will or determination. However, Will you?' is used for mere futurity side by side with 'Shall
· Shall you
'What shall you do?' 'What will you
do?' come back to-morrow ?'-may inquire as to the future merely. The meaning is— What are you to do?' 'Are you to come back?'
For the third person, “Shall he ?' puts the action as dependent on the second person, and accordingly must be set aside. Apart from this pre-occupation, it might have stood for simple futurity: the motive of courtesy, which caused the substitution of 'will’in the affirmative form, has no influence here. Will he ?' while naturally inquiring as to his' will, inclination, or determination, is also the form used for the case of mere futurity. Will they be present ?' · Who will be next president ?' express simple futurity: much the same as Are they to be present?' 'Who is to be next president ?
• Will it be dark before you reach the tower?'
Pupils find great difficulty in parsing these under all their various uses ; such as are disposed to err with 'shall' and 'will' still oftener go wrong with the preterites.
The following are the distinctions that have to be kept clearly before us. First. The regular future
He will becomes
He would and the meaning is, that, under certain circumstances, I shall write. Hence this is called the future of Contingency, or Conditionality.
We cannot have a past future, except in narrative. Referring to some incident of the past, we say, “it was known that I should be there, and that he would be there'. This is the transformation of the simple future when we are relating events that have already taken place. This is not in the scheme of the verb.
I shall return' becomes, in indirect speech, “I said I should return'.
• You did better than I should have done'.
'I should be fatigued if I walked so far'. The position is here stated quite speculatively; the case is merely supposed. If I were to speak of walking so far as a probable action, then I might say: 'I shall be fatigued if I walk so far'. The first form is simply the past corresponding to the second form, the meaning being changed to suit a case that is only supposed.
Looking forward to an action that is to take place, I may say: 'I shall go out'. Suppose, however, that rain has prevented my going out: I may then say, speaking with refer
ence to my position before the rain, 'I should have gone out, if it had not rained'.
Under similar conditions, will’of the second and third persons changes into 'would'. • You (or 'he', or 'they') will be fatigued if you (he, they) walk so far '—becomes ' You (he, they) would be fatigued if you walked so far'. * You (he, they) will go out if it do not rain'—' You (he, they) would have gone out if it had not rained'. 'You (he, they) will return '_' We were sure that you (he, they) would return'.
Similarly : 'but for one man, the enemy would have crossed the bridge'; “it would be shameful to leave her in such distress'; they would be glad to hear from you’; I have seen him buy such bargains as would amaze one'; 'it was announced that a strict inquiry would be instituted'.
Second. The form of determination
He shall is not a tense of the verb; it does not mean futurity pure and simple; it means determination for the first person, and compulsion for the second and third, and that is all. When the preterites are used
He should the meaning is past or historical determination and compul. sion. Speaking of what is past we say—'I would not give my consent’: ‘it was ordered that he should proceed'.
We will be satisfied '—the cry of the Citizens to Brutus and Cassius after the murder of Cæsar-means We are determined, we have made up our minds, to get satisfaction '. After a time, one of these Citizens might say in reference to this action : we would be satisfied '—that is, 'we resolved to be satisfied'.
• I will not go’expresses the speaker's resolution prior to