“Will” = “want” and “shall” = “must”
What is the correct & original meaning of “will” (verb) is, roughly, “want”; similarly, “shall” means “must, ought to.”
But “will” and “shall” are normally used as the auxiliaries of the future tense.
Why do I say “will” and “will” in the same sentence in both languages?
Can someone explain to you that “I want to go”? If, in talking, I pronounced “will ” or “shall”
with emphasis, or, in writing, I wrote these two words in italics (or underlined them, etc.) — thus: “I will go” —, this would probably be understood as an energetic future, but still as a future (admittedly, in the case of “I will go” this energetic future would often be not very far in meaning from an energetic volition: as in “Whether you agree or not, ” However in the end, this is not the same as “I want to go”).
How can I use “shall” and “will” with the meaning of “must” and “want”, and avoid every possible confusion with the future tense?
What are some good examples of the differences between the two types of articles?
Do you think you can simplify it down to
- this: ‘Want’ is desire, and is used to express desire of some type. ” With the example of Will in the ‘Will’ text (which is not an expression for Will) still having the semantics of “volition” and “will” (the two are synonyms). X is the following. It however is not the same context as “do as what you are willing,” in which ‘willing’ means something like “what you’d be comfortable doing, reasonably.” Can you justify “It is not a need.”
- ‘Shall’ is relative to ‘will’. Is volition a lot more important than will? Is it meant to be a duty? If taken in a modern context,’must’ is more informal and explains a more flexible range of time?
If you need an example of what will in the more archaic context, here’s
one.
If someone wishes to go to another city or city, saying and writing “I will go” is very unlikely to be understood as well. In modern English, the verb “will”, is used as an auxiliary verb, and a such it does not carry the meaning of the noun “will”.
I am unwilling to go? This is a common and well-understood phrase.
I would not interpret “shall” as “must” as you suggest, except where it means something like “required in order to comply”. “Should” is not quite used nowadays, but it suggests an solemn promise.
Note that the verb “want” also has a different “original” meaning, similar to “miss” or “lack”. With that meaning, you can still find it as “wanting”.
English verbs have various history…
How do I use “shall” and “will” without “must” and “want”?
In many contexts, you can’t; that’s not what those words mean anymore. the history of that word is owing, ought, shall. Shall
-
is used when the law is very conservative; and its past-tense form should is often in both present- and past-tense contexts with the oldest recorded sense, which is not must but owed and shall. (You really should read Ulysses this great book ).
-
Will may have the sense be willing to in the protasis of a conditional construction, and that sense will spill over to the apodosis ( If you’ll get the beer, I’ll get chips ); and the past-tense form would is still occasionally used in both present- and past-tense contexts with the archaic sense want, albeit mostly in fossilized expressions ( Do what you will, I don’t care ).
If you employ these words in these senses, you could not eliminate future reference because both want and must entail futurity: the obligation and the desire are present at Reference Time, but the actualization of what you want or are obliged to do—the verb complement expressed with an infinitive—necessarily lies at some point after Reference Time.
What’s the etymological fallacy? Why does the Golden Age of English don’t limit the meaning of a word.
In the traditional use, shall in the first person (singular or plural) indicates volition or simple future, and in any other person it indicates necessity or enforcement (think legal contracts or prophecies).
On the other hand, good will in the first person means strong determination, while good will indicates simpler future.
So, what should that first person indicate, whereas in any other person, it indicates an obligation.
If you read Harry Potter, the character Dumbledore pretty much follows these traditional rules when it comes to using auxiliary verbs.
In American English, you rarely use shall in the first person. I have asked a question on Quora that started with “Shall I”, “Not to ask”? (If you say I should, it more often than not has the same meaning as in any other person (an obligation or expectation )).
“Shall” has largely disappeared in modern usage (except as a synonym of “will,” sometimes employed by a NAmE writer or speaker who wishes to be perceived as British) and “will” has largely lost its relationship to “want. What
is your definition of today?
Is it possible to influence the voting decisions of the ELU members?
