Underground grammar fail
 

Used Mornington Crescent station for the first time in years today, and
was disappointed to find that the mechanical voice doesn't know the
difference between 'will' and 'shall', and now intones "The next lift
shall be the one to the right."

In my experience this error is usually made by people who want to look
better at grammar than they are, and who are prone to saying "whom"
instead of "who" on every occasion.

G.
--
Grebbsy McLaren

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Underground grammar fail
 

On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 18:02:04 +0000, Grebbsy McLaren
wrote:

Used Mornington Crescent station for the first time in years today, and
was disappointed to find that the mechanical voice doesn't know the
difference between 'will' and 'shall', and now intones "The next lift
shall be the one to the right."

In my experience this error is usually made by people who want to look
better at grammar than they are, and who are prone to saying "whom"
instead of "who" on every occasion.

G.
Themselve's should be ashamed.

Underground grammar fail
 

On Saturday, 12 March 2016 18:12:25 UTC, Grebbsy McLaren wrote:
Used Mornington Crescent station for the first time in years today, and
was disappointed to find that the mechanical voice doesn't know the
difference between 'will' and 'shall', and now intones "The next lift
shall be the one to the right."

In my experience this error is usually made by people who want to look
better at grammar than they are, and who are prone to saying "whom"
instead of "who" on every occasion.

G.
--
Grebbsy McLaren

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Criticising LU's grammar using fail as a noun seems a bit rich!

Underground grammar fail
 

On 14/03/2016 09:43, Ralph Ayres wrote:

Criticising LU's grammar using fail as a noun seems a bit rich!

Times change and usage with it: the OED's 1993 draft additions included
that usage - "A failure to achieve the standard required to pass an
examination; a classification denoting this." - with quotations from
1944 and 1988.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Underground grammar fail
 

On Saturday, 12 March 2016 18:12:25 UTC, Grebbsy McLaren wrote:
Used Mornington Crescent station for the first time in years today, and
was disappointed to find that the mechanical voice doesn't know the
difference between 'will' and 'shall'

Could you perhaps explain the difference?
--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================

Underground grammar fail
 

In message , at
05:22:47 on Mon, 14 Mar 2016, remarked:

Used Mornington Crescent station for the first time in years today, and
was disappointed to find that the mechanical voice doesn't know the
difference between 'will' and 'shall'

Could you perhaps explain the difference?

"Will" is a mere prediction, "Shall" implies that the speaker is somehow
complicit in making it happen.
--
Roland Perry

Underground grammar fail
 

On 14/03/2016 12:22, wrote:
On Saturday, 12 March 2016 18:12:25 UTC, Grebbsy McLaren wrote:
Used Mornington Crescent station for the first time in years today, and
was disappointed to find that the mechanical voice doesn't know the
difference between 'will' and 'shall'

Could you perhaps explain the difference?

Traditionally it's the difference between:

a. a statement of (expected) fact: eg "you will read this post"; and
b. an order or command: eg "you shall read this post" [often with an
explicit or implicit "or else"]

And just to make English that bit harder, the shall/will switch when in
the first person. So eg the old example of the girl who fell in the
Thames at Henley and cried out:

"I will drown; no one shall save me!"

The English gentlemen on the riverbank naturally honoured her clear
expression of intent ("I will...") and her command to them ("no one
shall...") and left her to drown.

They would have of course have leapt to her recuse if only she had cried
out "I shall drown; no one will save me".

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Underground grammar fail
 

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:40:06 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
05:22:47 on Mon, 14 Mar 2016, remarked:

Used Mornington Crescent station for the first time in years today, and
was disappointed to find that the mechanical voice doesn't know the
difference between 'will' and 'shall'

Could you perhaps explain the difference?

"Will" is a mere prediction, "Shall" implies that the speaker is somehow
complicit in making it happen.

A good definition. Though I think its safe to say the distinction is pretty
blurred these days and they tend to be used interchangably a lot of the time.

--
Spud

Underground grammar fail
 

In message , at 13:58:27 on Mon, 14 Mar
2016, d remarked:

Used Mornington Crescent station for the first time in years today, and
was disappointed to find that the mechanical voice doesn't know the
difference between 'will' and 'shall'

Could you perhaps explain the difference?

"Will" is a mere prediction, "Shall" implies that the speaker is somehow
complicit in making it happen.

A good definition. Though I think its safe to say the distinction is pretty
blurred these days and they tend to be used interchangably a lot of the time.

cont'd: "Dogs Must/Shall/Will be carried" - on escalators.

Although the latter means "are allowed to be", rather than an
instruction to carry dogs (whether one has one handy or not...)
--
Roland Perry

Underground grammar fail
 

On 2016\03\14 14:18, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:58:27 on Mon, 14 Mar
2016, d remarked:

Used Mornington Crescent station for the first time in years today,
and
was disappointed to find that the mechanical voice doesn't know the
difference between 'will' and 'shall'

Could you perhaps explain the difference?

"Will" is a mere prediction, "Shall" implies that the speaker is somehow
complicit in making it happen.

A good definition. Though I think its safe to say the distinction is
pretty
blurred these days and they tend to be used interchangably a lot of
the time.

cont'd: "Dogs Must/Shall/Will be carried" - on escalators.

Although the latter means "are allowed to be", rather than an
instruction to carry dogs (whether one has one handy or not...)

The "latter"... of three items? Talk about a grammar fail!

(It should be "last" if there are more than two items.)

Underground grammar fail
 

In message , Robin writes
ce?

Traditionally it's the difference between:

a. a statement of (expected) fact: eg "you will read this post"; and
b. an order or command: eg "you shall read this post" [often with
an explicit or implicit "or else"]

Many years ago now I was the personal assistant to the senior partner in
a professional firm.

In the days before computers / word processors I often dictated reports
of maybe hundreds of pages to my secretary. When finished the reports
then went to the senior partner to sign and send to clients. Many pages
with diagrams, graphs, forecasts, tables, etc.

Quite often the reports came back with lines through many pages because
the senior partner did not like my use of would, should, shall, will,
could, can etc. Meaning my secretary often had to retype the whole
report

I felt like I could have killed him

I felt like I should have killed him

I felt like I would have killed him
--
Bryan Morris
Public Key http://www.pgp.uk.demon.net - 0xCC6237E9

Underground grammar fail
 

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 13:58:27 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:40:06 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
05:22:47 on Mon, 14 Mar 2016, remarked:

Used Mornington Crescent station for the first time in years today, and
was disappointed to find that the mechanical voice doesn't know the
difference between 'will' and 'shall'

Could you perhaps explain the difference?

"Will" is a mere prediction, "Shall" implies that the speaker is somehow
complicit in making it happen.

A good definition. Though I think its safe to say the distinction is pretty
blurred these days and they tend to be used interchangably a lot of the time.

My school Latin teacher claimed that shall was only appropriate in the
first person; at other times will should be used. It's still unclear
to me what benefit was gained by the distinction.

A very old example. I hadn't heard that one since I was
in my teens. Thanks for reminding me. It makes the point
rather well.

Underground grammar fail
 

"Bryan Morris" wrote in message
...
In message , Robin writes
ce?

Traditionally it's the difference between:

a. a statement of (expected) fact: eg "you will read this post"; and
b. an order or command: eg "you shall read this post" [often with an
explicit or implicit "or else"]

Many years ago now I was the personal assistant to the senior partner in a
professional firm.

In the days before computers / word processors I often dictated reports of
maybe hundreds of pages to my secretary. When finished the reports then
went to the senior partner to sign and send to clients. Many pages with
diagrams, graphs, forecasts, tables, etc.

Quite often the reports came back with lines through many pages because
the senior partner did not like my use of would, should, shall, will,
could, can etc. Meaning my secretary often had to retype the whole report

I felt like I could have killed him

I felt like I should have killed him

I felt like I would have killed him

Like the English tourist who fell into Loch Ness, and shouted 'I will drown
and no one shall save me'

So they left him to get on with it...

James

Underground grammar fail
 

"Robin" wrote in message
...
On 14/03/2016 12:22, wrote:
On Saturday, 12 March 2016 18:12:25 UTC, Grebbsy McLaren wrote:
Used Mornington Crescent station for the first time in years today, and
was disappointed to find that the mechanical voice doesn't know the
difference between 'will' and 'shall'

Could you perhaps explain the difference?

Traditionally it's the difference between:

a. a statement of (expected) fact: eg "you will read this post"; and
b. an order or command: eg "you shall read this post" [often with an
explicit or implicit "or else"]

And just to make English that bit harder, the shall/will switch when in
the first person. So eg the old example of the girl who fell in the
Thames at Henley and cried out:

"I will drown; no one shall save me!"

The English gentlemen on the riverbank naturally honoured her clear
expression of intent ("I will...") and her command to them ("no one
shall...") and left her to drown.

They would have of course have leapt to her recuse if only she had cried
out "I shall drown; no one will save me".

I will read the whole thread before replying
I will read the whole thread before replying
x50...

James

Underground grammar fail
 

On 14/03/2016 21:43, James Heaton wrote:


I will read the whole thread before replying
I will read the whole thread before replying
x50...

I just assumed you liked the idea of drowning English people :)
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Underground grammar fail
 

"James Heaton" wrote

Traditionally it's the difference between:

a. a statement of (expected) fact: eg "you will read this post"; and
b. an order or command: eg "you shall read this post" [often with an
explicit or implicit "or else"]


Like the English tourist who fell into Loch Ness, and shouted 'I will
drown and no one shall save me'

So they left him to get on with it...


Nope, has to be the Thames or rather the Isis unless all his auditors were
Oxfordian too.

The Scots never observed the rule.


--
Mike D

Underground grammar fail
 

On Tuesday, 15 March 2016 01:36:09 UTC, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:

Nope, has to be the Thames or rather the Isis unless all his auditors were
Oxfordian too.

cough Oxonian /cough

I rather thought you would have fun with that one.

For what it's worth, and personally I think it's largely an attempt to divine a rule where none is needed, the Penguin Writer's Manual has this to say:

"Traditionally 'shall' was used to form the future tense for the first person singular and plural ('I/we shall go tomorrow') and to state a firm intention if used with any other personal pronoun ('You shall go to the ball'; 'Britons never, never, never shall be slaves'). Conversely 'will' formed the future tense for the second and third person ('You/they will know soon enough') and expressed a firm intention if used with 'I' or 'we' ('I will not put up with this'). This distinction has largely died out, with 'I will' or 'we will' being used in informal usage and the general use of the contraction ''ll', e.g. 'I'll', 'we'll'. 'Shall', however, is needed when asking questions that relate to the immediate situation: 'Shall we dance?' is an invitation to someone to dance now; 'Will we dance?' only makes sense if the speaker is looking ahead to the possibility of dancing at some future event, as in 'Will there be dancing?'"

To my mind, the reliance on stock phrases from pantomime and music hall rather undermines the attempt to justify any hard and fast rule. But hey ho. I shall test you on "may" and "might" next. (Or will I?) :-)
--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================

Underground grammar fail
 

On 14-Mar-16 12:40 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
05:22:47 on Mon, 14 Mar 2016, remarked:

Used Mornington Crescent station for the first time in years today, and
was disappointed to find that the mechanical voice doesn't know the
difference between 'will' and 'shall'

Could you perhaps explain the difference?

"Will" is a mere prediction, "Shall" implies that the speaker is somehow
complicit in making it happen.

I don't know why, but I was taught to use 'shall' for the first person
singular and plural, 'will' for the rest - with that being reversed for
the emphatic use - 'I will go to bed earlier', 'she shall go to the ball.'

Peter Beale

Underground grammar fail
 

In article , (Peter
Beale) wrote:

On 14-Mar-16 12:40 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
05:22:47 on Mon, 14 Mar 2016, remarked:

Used Mornington Crescent station for the first time in years today,
and was disappointed to find that the mechanical voice doesn't know
the difference between 'will' and 'shall'

Could you perhaps explain the difference?

"Will" is a mere prediction, "Shall" implies that the speaker is somehow
complicit in making it happen.

I don't know why, but I was taught to use 'shall' for the first
person singular and plural, 'will' for the rest - with that being
reversed for the emphatic use - 'I will go to bed earlier', 'she
shall go to the ball.'

So was I. Seems simple enough. Young people today, eh?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Underground grammar fail
 

On 2016\03\14 12:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
05:22:47 on Mon, 14 Mar 2016, remarked:

Used Mornington Crescent station for the first time in years today, and
was disappointed to find that the mechanical voice doesn't know the
difference between 'will' and 'shall'

Could you perhaps explain the difference?

"Will" is a mere prediction, "Shall" implies that the speaker is somehow
complicit in making it happen.

So why isn't a will called a shall?

Underground grammar fail
 

In message , Basil Jet
writes
On 2016\03\14 12:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
05:22:47 on Mon, 14 Mar 2016, remarked:

Used Mornington Crescent station for the first time in years today, and
was disappointed to find that the mechanical voice doesn't know the
difference between 'will' and 'shall'

Could you perhaps explain the difference?

"Will" is a mere prediction, "Shall" implies that the speaker is somehow
complicit in making it happen.

So why isn't a will called a shall?

Is it "I will write a Will, will you?"
or
"I shall write a Will, will you?"
?
--
Bryan Morris
Public Key http://www.pgp.uk.demon.net - 0xCC6237E9