Skip to main content
English Language & Usage

Return to Question

edited body
Source Link
Phil Marlowe
Phil Marlowe
  • 21
  • 3

I came across this distinction between shall and will in Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage:

That-clauses after intend or intention, desire, demand, be anxious, &c., have shall & should for all persons. Among the &c. are not included hope, anticipate, & the like; but the drawing of the line is not easy; roughly, shall & should are used when the word on which the that-clause depends expresses an influence that affects the result, as a demand does, but a hope or fear does not; a serviceable illustration is expect; mistresses expect (i.e. demand) that their maids shall wear caps; but we expect (i.e. are of opinion) that tomorrow will be fine.

He enumerates a few more examples, one of which is:, “And it is intended that this shall be extended to every division and important branch.”

I acknowledge that it’s been about hundred years since its publication, and that Fowler was more pedantic than I could ever hope or want to be, but I had to wonder about the changes in what we call the “mandative subjunctive” in the intervening time. For example, I would have written the sentence, “It is intended that this be extended to every division and important branch,” in preference to shall. But had I written shall or should, would the meaning of the sentence have changed? Moreover, is there any meaningful difference between shall and should in this case? Maybe only among hyper-fastidious speakers?

I came across this distinction between shall and will in Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage:

That-clauses after intend or intention, desire, demand, be anxious, &c., have shall & should for all persons. Among the &c. are not included hope, anticipate, & the like; but the drawing of the line is not easy; roughly, shall & should are used when the word on which the that-clause depends expresses an influence that affects the result, as a demand does, but a hope or fear does not; a serviceable illustration is expect; mistresses expect (i.e. demand) that their maids shall wear caps; but we expect (i.e. are of opinion) that tomorrow will be fine.

He enumerates a few more examples, one of which is: “And it is intended that this shall be extended to every division and important branch.”

I acknowledge that it’s been about hundred years since its publication, and that Fowler was more pedantic than I could ever hope or want to be, but I had to wonder about the changes in what we call the “mandative subjunctive” in the intervening time. For example, I would have written the sentence, “It is intended that this be extended to every division and important branch,” in preference to shall. But had I written shall or should, would the meaning of the sentence have changed? Moreover, is there any meaningful difference between shall and should in this case? Maybe only among hyper-fastidious speakers?

I came across this distinction between shall and will in Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage:

That-clauses after intend or intention, desire, demand, be anxious, &c., have shall & should for all persons. Among the &c. are not included hope, anticipate, & the like; but the drawing of the line is not easy; roughly, shall & should are used when the word on which the that-clause depends expresses an influence that affects the result, as a demand does, but a hope or fear does not; a serviceable illustration is expect; mistresses expect (i.e. demand) that their maids shall wear caps; but we expect (i.e. are of opinion) that tomorrow will be fine.

He enumerates a few more examples, one of which is, “And it is intended that this shall be extended to every division and important branch.”

I acknowledge that it’s been about hundred years since its publication, and that Fowler was more pedantic than I could ever hope or want to be, but I had to wonder about the changes in what we call the “mandative subjunctive” in the intervening time. For example, I would have written the sentence, “It is intended that this be extended to every division and important branch,” in preference to shall. But had I written shall or should, would the meaning of the sentence have changed? Moreover, is there any meaningful difference between shall and should in this case? Maybe only among hyper-fastidious speakers?

Source Link
Phil Marlowe
Phil Marlowe
  • 21
  • 3

Shall & Should & the “Mandative Subjunctive”

I came across this distinction between shall and will in Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage:

That-clauses after intend or intention, desire, demand, be anxious, &c., have shall & should for all persons. Among the &c. are not included hope, anticipate, & the like; but the drawing of the line is not easy; roughly, shall & should are used when the word on which the that-clause depends expresses an influence that affects the result, as a demand does, but a hope or fear does not; a serviceable illustration is expect; mistresses expect (i.e. demand) that their maids shall wear caps; but we expect (i.e. are of opinion) that tomorrow will be fine.

He enumerates a few more examples, one of which is: “And it is intended that this shall be extended to every division and important branch.”

I acknowledge that it’s been about hundred years since its publication, and that Fowler was more pedantic than I could ever hope or want to be, but I had to wonder about the changes in what we call the “mandative subjunctive” in the intervening time. For example, I would have written the sentence, “It is intended that this be extended to every division and important branch,” in preference to shall. But had I written shall or should, would the meaning of the sentence have changed? Moreover, is there any meaningful difference between shall and should in this case? Maybe only among hyper-fastidious speakers?