wow>Is there a lawyer on the Board who would care to give the legal distinctions between "will" and "shall"?
Well, you may know that basic Western law (British & American, anyway) is based on the Torah - yes, whether you like it or not - and the TEN COMMANDMENTS - believe in them or not, as you wish - ALL translate to SHALL (not will), as in "Thou shall have no other gods before me" and "Thou shall not murder" (it's not kill, but murder... an important distinction), etc. etc.
So perhaps, after all, SHALL is the stronger of the two?
Shoshannah
Of course, Israeli law is basically the Torah, though we do use some concepts from British & American modern law and some Jordanian (from 1948-1967, but not the Islamic laws that require body dismemberment for crimes committed) and even some Ottoman laws still apply in some cases.
suzanne pomeranz, tourism consultant
jerusalem, israel - suztours@gmail.com
Dear Shoshannah: remember the distinctions that have been made between the first and second persons. "I will" to me is stronger than "I shall". "Thou shalt" is stronger than "you will", unless the "will" is really emphasized.
wwh>remember the distinctions that have been made between the first and second persons. "I will" to me is stronger than "I shall". "Thou shalt" is stronger than "you will", unless the "will" is really emphasized.
Bill - that's what I always thought (and mostly still do), except for that Ten Commandments thing - I've been studying more on the 613 Mitzvot, so it was fresh in my mind which is why I brought it up. Ordinarily, I would have just agreed with the 'I will' part, but now, I'm not so sure. More thinking and perhaps examples would be helpful on this one!
Shoshannah
suzanne pomeranz, tourism consultant
jerusalem, israel - suztours@gmail.com
tsuwm - well, why can't I seem to find 'agita' in my dictionary??? I was stopped when I read that post - never heard the word, and certainly no one I know over here (English speakers at least) uses it? Did someone just start using it as slang or what?
suzanne pomeranz, tourism consultant
jerusalem, israel - suztours@gmail.com
I'm not a lawyer (and await Sparteye's more detailed elucidation on this), but having been involved in the negotiation of a couple of international treaties, I can tell you that the lawyers at the US Department of State feel that "shall" is strong stuff indeed. The first international agreement I've had anything to do with was full of that word, and it took FOREVER to get even the little pieces done, because "shall" was seen as so very strong and binding. Working on a less lofty agreement (I believe, in fact, we had to call it an "arrangement," as agreement meant a greater commitment than was intended), we had to use "should," because it was not going to be signed at the executive (i.e. Presidential) level.
Ever since I've had a very strong feeling that "shall" carries the most water among the wills, shoulds, woulds and coulds.
p.s. Sparteye - I imagine you know this, but I winced when the spellwrecker rendered your name as Spasm. It thinks mine is Hyman (yes, spelled with an "a" - which is not a word I know).
Ummm, I think Mav. was referring to prescriptive grammar rules rather than rules for living in general. The two should not be confused. Even if no English speaker ever again ended a sentence with a preposition (the point presently under discussion) there would be the same amount of murder, rape, and other violent crime in this sorry world.
Bingley, you're right indeed. What with ranting and raving and sentences ending in prepositions, you really wonder sometimes what the world's coming to ...
Thanks all, public and private. In a way, though, perhaps I am also getting at something more than just the preposition thing, though my argument was mainly linguistical. My reply to Shoshannah:
Thanks for sparing us a long screed – by reducing it to just personal bitching, I suspect you kept the main points of your argument.
What interests me about many of your posts is your readiness to leap to assumptions. You are actually unlikely to find many people in this world who care more passionately about rules than do I – but I prefer rules that are negotiated openly between rational human beings, not handed down as second- or third-hand mantra. I have a pretty good ‘grip’, and a key part of that is keeping in mind the thoughts of Cromwell, beseeching another group of ‘educated, intuitive and intelligent’ people to just consider the possibility that they are wrong. Maintaining that core of humility underpins rationality. I believe your approach is fundamentally irrational, which is why I find your spoutings so disagreeable.
I cannot know your circumstances, as you cannot know mine, which is why I gave my use of ‘real life’ a heavy dose of irony by use of SelloType™. But your arrogant assumption that people being killed (for reasons that I would suggest have a lot to do with just such a failure to negotiate as described) around you gives you some sort of special insight into “TRUTH” is deeply sad. From such closed minds, blood flows as it has throughout mankind’s history.
Shoshannah notes: So perhaps, after all, SHALL is the stronger of the two?
This is, of course, from an early Modern English translation and in no way reflects any Hebrew language conventions which would be irrelevant anyway. Those who use such words as shall, will and should in a context in which it is critical that they be understood as intended by the writer are well advised to make the meaning clear in the introduction or foreword to the document in which the terms are being used. In technical manuals this is usually accomplished by such statements as:
In this document when the word SHALL is used in all caps and bold print it means that failure to follow the directions can cause severe damage to equipment and personnel. When the word SHOULD is used it means that minor errors could cause improper functioning of the equipment. Whether the improper functioning will cause collateral damage is dependent on external circumstances, e.g., failure of a program to operate properly in a device that is controlling the manufacture of ice cubes may result in failure to produce ice cubes; failure of a program to operate properly in a device that is cooling a nuclear reactor may cause meltdown of the reactor and significant damage to neighboring communities.
I must precede my discussion of legal definitions of shall, must, will, should and may with the caveat that common use of these terms can differ from legal use, the efforts of the Plain English in the Law movement notwithstanding. These definitions are based on American law, which, except for Louisiana, is based on the English common law, and thus I suspect that usages are similar in many other English language legal systems.
Shall = has a duty to Must = (no legal definition, so the lay definition applies) = used to express an imperative Will = (no legal definition other than that pertaining to the document used to dispose of a decedent’s estate, so a lay definition) = expected or required to Should = (lay again) = pt of shall, indicative of duty, propriety or expediency May = is permitted to
In drafting contracts or statutes, "shall" is often used to impose a mandatory duty, but the use of "shall" is in large part attributable to the inertia of legal writing (some of the statutes still in effect were initially drafted over 100 years ago). I use "must" instead. It also conveys imperative, but at least in the US is the more modern and common term, and thus far has not caused confusion over its meaning like "shall" occasionally does. Sometimes, the Legislature will confuse "shall" and "may," or "and" and "or," making interpretation more of an art than a science.
I agree with prior posters that "shall" clearly means an imperative when spoken by one as a command to another, but conveys a meaning closer to expectation when spoken about oneself. In contracts or statutes, of course, only the command nuance arises.
Per Webster’s, the traditional rule says that future time is indicated by "shall" in the first person and "will" in the other persons, and that determination is expressed by "will" in the first person and "shall" in other persons. Webster’s and the Gregg Reference Manual both say that "shall" has largely given way to "will" in all but the most formal writing and speech, and that "should" and "would" similarly have formal and informal distinctions and follow the same rules in expressions of future time, determination, and willingness.
Well, I could go on, but I will not, as there are things I must do and I should get back to work.
Shoshannah, while I found your outburst very disturbing, egregious almost, I will respond by simply pointing out that mav's comments about the rules were made specifically, and exclusively, in regard to rules of language. The extrapolation you made to rules in general was both unwarranted and off-topic. It is very easy for someone to hold rules of grammar in low esteem while still living by other rules. I happen to think that mav's original post could well have been couched more diplomatically, and that its tenor was somewhat confrontational. I think that such an approach is unfortunate and not in the best interests of this Board, and it is my concern for the Board that has moved me to post this publicly, loathe though I was to do so.
This Board as thrived as a community of people with widely, nay hugely, disparate views on almost any subject imaginable. In my opinion, it has thrived because those views have always been expressed calmly, quietly, and with civility, often even with humour. When those differing views begin to be expressed with rancour, aggression, and personal hostility, the unique spirit of AWADtalk comes under threat. I do not ask, nor do I wish, that everyone agree on everything, or even keep quiet about everything they don't agree on, I simply beseech all to maintain the remarkable history of tolerance and civility this Board has established. I also recognise that every person who reads this has the absolute right to think of me, and this post, whatever they will. To all I extend my sincere wish that you may be at peace.
thank you, max. your post - together with your eloquent birthday sentiments - summed my own feelings in a way that i could never have expressed so clearly.
nobody loves a good argument more than me, provided it's done with exceeding respect by all involved parties. some of these posts are making me feel uncomfortable, and it can't be much fun for the posters, either.
would it be hopelessly naive of me to suggest that we all start with clean slates, in honor of AWAD's birthday, and more importantly so that we don't tarnish this wonderful forum that Anu has given us, which so many of us hold dear?
Bridget96 suggests : we all start with clean slates, in honor of AWAD's birthday
Hear! Hear! Bridget96. Having peeked in on several chat/board sites before I found AWAD I am particularly aware of the decency and civility of AWADtalk. Long may it endure. wow
I used to erase blackboards, but haven't seen an eraser for a long time. It used to be fun to let my fingernails overlap the felt just enough so that they made a real screech. The teacher was as deaf as I am now, and kept wondering why the girls were jumping so, until one of them squealed on me. I got excused from further blackboard duty. How do I clean my slate now? The moving finger keeps writing.......
Bravo, Max! Although I've only lately registered, I've browsed AWADtalk for months and the change in the tenor of the posts is a little disturbing. One of the things I've enjoyed has been the general good-spirited apparent camaraderie among the posters. Stridency is not my thing, so let's all shake hands and begin again! (And, no, my real name is NOT Polyanna)
good show, max. I'd just add one thing: remember back around election time in the U.S. when politics last reared its ugly head 'round here? we stomped that puppy flat. I'm thinkin' we should have remained vigilant....
who knows what evil lurks therein? (the shadow do!)
Of prescriptivism vs. descriptivism, Of shoes - and ships - and sealing wax - Of cabbages - and kings - And why the sea is boiling hot - And whether pigs have wings.'
... and whether 42 in fact was the correct answer, and whether CapK should carry on abusing ellipsis now he that knows how to spell it [ellipsis] that should do for starters!
Without meaning to pick on my dear friend Fiberbabe, the word "sucks" is one I dislike very much. It seems quite likely that it originated in an activity that is not party talk.I am almost surprised the gay community has not managed to make its use as a pejorative non PC.
>Without meaning to pick on my dear friend Fiberbabe...
No picking taken!
I actually thought for a moment as I wrote the word, "Hmmm... probably not indicative of my most sparkly vocabulary, particularly in such gentle company. Oh well." [Send]
I apologize if I did offend. Let's just say I find sealing wax despicable, for the sake of causing a stir...
One more question : is the Louisiana law based on the Napoleonic Code ?
Yes, Ma'am. Exactly. And I, for one, have never done a dot of research on Louisiana law, and have no idea how near or far it might be from English common law. Scribbler? Father Steve?
Yes-- again- I got "extra credit" in an accounting class for knowing that-- the GAAP--(General Agreed Accounting Practices--i think) does not apply in Louisiana either.
It effects inhertence-- in Napolionic code, the first son inherts-- not the wife, and if there are only daughters, the daughters husbands have control of the money (think of the scene from "Streetcar named Desire" when Stanely tell his sister in law -- he know the law! ) there are some other changes in stock, bonds, shares and investments. Our class didn't cover how it was different--and we were taught gaap rules-- and the louisiana didn't use them!
*wow*, it just occurred to me that i've been mondegreening one of my favorite songs for the past 30 years. i've always thought that Jackie Paper brought ceiling wax to entertain Puff.
and i thought i was crazy for (wall) papering my ceilings-- you wax your? I have enough trouble getting to wax my floors--
I am able to say you are able to off my floors-- there are crumbs everywhere! I believe in an orderly house everything has place, and each thing is in its place-- So dust bunnies belong under the beds and furniture, and cobwebs belong in the dark corners.. It make cleaning much easier to keep things to clean when you realize the things like dust bunnies and cobwebs have their place.
As always, Max, your plea for tolerance and civility is eloquent indeed. I will take note and try to moderate my occasional outbursts.
I do not, however, retract or apologise for a single word, as I meant all I said from the depths of my soul. This, too, is an important function of language.
of troy's post reminded me of a poem i have hanging in the hall, which i refer to when my husband complains about coming home to a disaster:
Some houses try to hide the fact That children shelter there. Ours boasts of it quite openly; the signs are everywhere:
For smears are on the mirrors, little smudges on the doors... I should apologize, i guess, for the toys strewn on the floor.
But i sat down with the children (in between AWAD sessions) and we laughed and played and read... and if the doorbell doesn't shine, their eyes will shine instead.
So quiet down, cobwebs, dust go to sleep... I'm rocking my baby, and babies don't keep.
it just occurred to me that i've been mondegreening one of my favorite songs for the past 30 years. i've always thought that Jackie Paper brought ceiling wax to entertain Puff.
I don't think that's really a mondegreen because you didn't hear the word wrong, just interpreted it incorrectly. Not sure which one is worse, you decide.
bill objects the word "sucks" is one I dislike very much. It seems quite likely that it originated in an activity that is not party talk.
yah, boo! (as shanks would say.) that may be a logical assumption to draw, bill, but the OED traces it differently; to wit:
15f. To be contemptible or disgusting. slang. Cf. suck n.1 12. 1971 It 2–16 June 3/2 Polaroid sucks! For some time the Polaroid Corporation has been supplying the South African government with large photo systems+to use for photographing blacks for the passbooks+every black must carry. 1976 G. V. Higgins Judgment of Deke Hunter vi. 59, I had a lousy summer.+ I thought it sucked, and I bet next summer'll suck too. 1978 M. Gordon Final Payments xi. 193 All the hotels have the same pictures. The last one, the food sucked.
and so we dutifully follow along to the noun.1 12:
12. Canad. slang. A worthless or contemptible person. Cf. suck v. 15f; suck-hole* s.v. suck-. 1974 Globe & Mail (Toronto) 8 Mar. 1/6 The teachers are copping out. They're now saying, if we can't have our way, then we're going to be sucks and refuse to work. 1975 Citizen (Ottawa) 28 Oct. 1/1 A neighbor described Rob as ‘a quiet guy who was always getting put down a lot. Lots of people used to call him a suck.+ He didn't do much socially or in the way of sports.’
...but this also regresses to n.1.11: 11. pl. as int. Used as an expression of contempt, chiefly by children. Also in phr. sucks to you and varr. slang. 1913 C. Mackenzie Sinister Street I. i. vii. 98 This kid's in our army, so sucks! 1922 F. Hamilton P.J.: Secret Service Boy iv. 178 ‘S’, he announced, ‘u,c,k,s,t,o,y,o,u.’ 1935 N. Mitchison We have been Warned i. 28 Brian is a baby. Oh sucks, oh sucks on Brian. 1945 E. Waugh Brideshead Revisited ii. v. 287 It's great sucks to Bridey. 1952 ‘C. Brand’ London Particular xv. 191 A most regretable air of sucks to you. 1968 Melody Maker 30 Nov. 24/5 This is a rotten record—yah boo and sucks. 1974 Times 4 Mar. 9/5 Sucks boo, then, with acting like this, to that new National Theatre down the road. 1978 ‘J. Lymington’ Waking of Stone ii. 45 ‘Sucks to you!’ she said+tossing her head so her pigtails swung. 1983 Listener 19 May 11/1 The council treated the urbane Mr Cook to the politician's equivalent of ‘Yah, boo, sucks’.
I sincerely hope that explication didn't suck too much.
*suck-hole - [n] a whirlpool [v] to toady [he won't suck-hole to anyone]
Dear tsuwm: for once I am not impressed by your references' I remember hearing "cocksucker" shortened to "sucker" to "he sucks" over seventy years ago. There was also "sucker" meaning a gullible person. I don't believe "sucks" can be totally divorced from "cocksucker". I don't doubt that a lot of people that have used it were not aware of that possibility. But that is similar to the number of times I have heard "scumbag" used by people who had copied it from someone else without knowing what it really meant.Don't try calling a cop that.
It may not be hazardous now, but I can remember when calling a Canadian a "bum" could get you a punch in the mouth.
>...shortened to "sucker" to "he sucks" over seventy years ago.
well, bill, 1913 (in use by kids) is almost 90 years ago. sometimes we see connections that we want to see -- it's probably true of the OED folks as well.
Of course many commonly used words had meanings related to sex a long time ago. I wonder how old male and female for threads is. And the expression "I won't stand for that" is so similar to the stock breeder's term that I wonder if it originated with the stock breeders.
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.
)
