I have one question about english grammar - is it true, that

get the closest thing in your proximity and bash yourself to death

>>66303480
"shall" is something you say when you;re being either

a. cheeky
or
b. very formal

>>66303509
what are you talking about?

>>66303480
You can get a very long way without ever using 'shall'.

'shall' has some uncertainty to it. its meaning is not the same as 'will'.

>>66303480
I think in normal speech you can just use "should" instead of "shall". As Mr. Rare Flag >>66303622
said, it's quite formal.

>>66303768
But what about
SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED
?

>>66303901
ok, thank you

"I shall" would sound out of place to most people, "shall we" is acceptable but pushing it.

Legalistic jargon
Unnecessary formality in common use

>>66304195
It's not legalistic jargon, it's actually a really shit word to use in a legal document because of the uncertainty of meaning. 'Must' is best.
T. Lawyer

>>66303480
It's pretty close to German desu. We use "soll" for "shall". So the equivalent would be "should".

>>66303768
Not true

>>66303480
I'm English and not entirely sure how I use it. It is basically interchangeable with "will" but only in certain cases.

>>66304358
So it's actually a smart move, if you want to disguise your intention.

Ok. Here it is.

In 'normal' language, down the street, most plebs would always use 'will'.

However, in 'proper' usage, one should use 'shall' with the first persons.

> I shall go
> You will go
> He will go
> We shall go
> You will go
> They will go

>>66303622
> cheeky or informal
No, quite common and 'normal' speech in parts of Britain.

>>66303660
> You can get a very long way without ever using 'shall'.
True, but using it rightly sounds better.

>>66303768
Not really. Quite interchangeable.

>>66303901
'Should' infers the concept of obligation; 'shall' is simply the auxiliary verb of the future.

>>66304127
Maybe in New Zealand; it's quite common here.

>>66304195
Maybe in America; it's quite common here.

>>66305107
t. ponce

Most 21st century Anglophones are not far ascended from farm animals, so they frown on words like 'shall' that depart from the memespeak they've internalised.

>>66305107
So I should to use "shall" with "I", right? It will be more pretty grammatically. Is it true?
Also, what about american english, for example? "shall" will be more pretty too?

>>66305107
What about when you say:
>You shall live!
I think this is closer
>You may live!
>You should live!

>>66306041
>>You shall live!
I think, it is not grammatically correct.
May be there "you should" - something like you must, but in future - should. But not "shall"

>>66306134
It's what old kings said to their prisoners when they set them free.

People in the UK use shall very often

>>66306364
in Raymond Murphy book I have "shall" rule, but in one video course of english I've seen, that 'shall' is too old and noone use it anymore. So Iwant to know trueth. Is In UK 'shall' rule exists or people use it by old memory?

>>66305107
>Shall we go to the mall?
Also this? Will we go to the mall? instead of Should we go to the mall?

>>66306614

I think something like this:
should to eat = you will MUST to eat
will to eat = you just will eat in future, without any "commands minds"

them are different words

Will is a drive that comes from yourself. You are dedicated to it. That's why it's stronger than shall.

Shall is more reserved. It's an obligation. You probably answer a silent question. Yes, I shall.

>>66306521
Shall is a normal word that's still in common use. The two words don't entirely mean the same thing either.

Shall I buy this drink?
Will I buy this drink?

Don't mean the same thing.

>>66307260
In the first sentence you ask if you should.
In the second sentence you ask if you are going to.

>>66307236
>>66307143
They mean exactly the same thing.

>>66306614
>Shall we go to the mall?
Yes, this is fine.

>>66306521
'Shall' is used in Britain all the time. The rest of the world's English seems not to use it.

>>66306041
> You shall live
Simply the future tense.
> You may live
The jussive subjunctive - a wish or a command.
> You should live
The conditional, with a sense of obligation or 'must'.

>>66305745
> So I should to use "shall" with "I", right? It will be more pretty grammatically. Is it true?
Yes.

> Also, what about american english, for example? "shall" will be more pretty too?
I have no idea how often 'shall' is used in American English. I think it's not often used.

>>66307376
Shall I punch you in the face?
Sure, give it your best shot.

Will I punch you in the face?
No, because there's a pond between us.

>>66307319
but instead of shall you should to use "should", so it is not true.

"shall" is not the same like "should", isn't it?
shall = will for "I/we"
I have this rule in grammar, but in one course I've heard abut, that 'shall' is old rule, so what is the true?

>>66307466
With should you're asking if you're doing the right thing.

With shall you leave the moral bit out.

>>66307523
don't try to find what does the words mean.
"shall" and "will" - it is like "is" and "are" for future.
I have this rule, that you should to use "shall" with "I" or "we" in future simple.

But in one course I've seen, that "shall" is not exist today and for "I" and "we" using of "will" is correct.

So I want to know what is true.
don't try to find what this words mean.

>>66307622
That rule is probably meant to give you some guidelines. So it's good to use it.

But technically it's not correct. Because there are some very important nuances between the words.

File: sddefault.jpg (67KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x480px

>>66305107
> in 'proper' usage, one should use 'shall' with the first persons.
What about "You shall not pass"?

>>66307687
On Wikipedia they reason the other way around. That rule is correct, except in specific situations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_and_will