"shall" vs "will"?

[FBM]

I've read the dictionary definitions, but still lack intuitive insight into how/when to use this word. Would appreciate any input from native speakers of any version of English that still uses it routinely and meaningfully. I am almost completely at a loss as to how to explain this to my Korean students. :beg:

[Gawdzilla Sama]

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/sh ... -will.aspx

[Azathoth]

Shall is archaic and rarely used. That is all your students need to know

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Shall is archaic and rarely used. That is all your students need to know

Shall we discuss that?

[Bella Fortuna]

Shall v. will is interesting as it often comes into play in contracts - collective bargaining agreements in my experience. Often a lot of niggling is done between these two words in negotiations to define precisely what the obligation is.

Here's a distinction in terms of its use in legal documents: http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/wschi ... -will.html

[FBM]

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/sh ... -will.aspx

This bit seems useful:

Shall With Determination

The British traditionally use shall to express determination or intention on the part of the speaker or someone other than the subject of the verb. Fowler’s offers an example from British author Evelyn Waugh: “One day you shall know my full story.” This does seem to offer a different connotation than “One day you will know my full story.” It makes the author sound more determined. However, using shall in this way isn't common in America.

Wonder if native BrE speakers agree with that...

[FBM]

Shall v. will is interesting as it often comes into play in contracts - collective bargaining agreements in my experience. Often a lot of niggling is done between these two words in negotiations to define precisely what the obligation is.

Here's a distinction in terms of its use in legal documents: http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/wschi ... -will.html

To correctly use "shall," confine it to the meaning "has a duty to" and use it to impose a duty on a capable actor. Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 940–941 (2d ed., Oxford U. Press 1995). Here's how:
Lessee shall sell the remaining oil . . .
In other words--
Lessee [an actor capable of carrying out an obligation] shall [has a duty to] sell the remaining oil . . .
Some suggest that lawyers are incapable of using "shall" correctly, so we ought to banish it entirely. Michèle M. Asprey, Shall Must Go, 3 Scribes J. Leg. Writing 79 (1992). One recommendation is to use "must" instead. Of course, you cannot search and replace every "shall" with "must." Scrutinize each use carefully.

This makes me yearn for the North Koreans to attack.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think "shall" is more of a "command", rather than the "forecast" of "will".

[Azathoth]

boing boing boing boing boing boing boing

sorry distracted

[FBM]

boing boing boing boing boing boing boing

sorry distracted

And how shall/will we boing, O Lord?

a) shall

b) will

[Pappa]

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/sh ... -will.aspx

This bit seems useful:

Shall With Determination

The British traditionally use shall to express determination or intention on the part of the speaker or someone other than the subject of the verb. Fowler’s offers an example from British author Evelyn Waugh: “One day you shall know my full story.” This does seem to offer a different connotation than “One day you will know my full story.” It makes the author sound more determined. However, using shall in this way isn't common in America.

Wonder if native BrE speakers agree with that...

There are probably class distinctions at play. "Shall" in most contexts is alien and archaic to me, but to the middle and upper classes it's just another one of those useful words that serve to distinguish their user from the unwashed masses.

[FBM]

There are probably class distinctions at play. "Shall" in most contexts is alien and archaic to me, but to the middle and upper classes it's just another one of those useful words that serve to distinguish their user from the unwashed masses.

Ah. Now I think we're hitting paydirt.

[Pappa]

Unless I was taking the piss, I'd never say "Shall we go". I'd say "Should we go". As for shall/will, I'd always say will.

[Bella Fortuna]

Shall v. will is interesting as it often comes into play in contracts - collective bargaining agreements in my experience. Often a lot of niggling is done between these two words in negotiations to define precisely what the obligation is.

Here's a distinction in terms of its use in legal documents: http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/wschi ... -will.html

To correctly use "shall," confine it to the meaning "has a duty to" and use it to impose a duty on a capable actor. Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 940–941 (2d ed., Oxford U. Press 1995). Here's how:
Lessee shall sell the remaining oil . . .
In other words--
Lessee [an actor capable of carrying out an obligation] shall [has a duty to] sell the remaining oil . . .
Some suggest that lawyers are incapable of using "shall" correctly, so we ought to banish it entirely. Michèle M. Asprey, Shall Must Go, 3 Scribes J. Leg. Writing 79 (1992). One recommendation is to use "must" instead. Of course, you cannot search and replace every "shall" with "must." Scrutinize each use carefully.

This makes me yearn for the North Koreans to attack.

Welcome to my wonderful world of contract interpretation. After reading things over and over trying to parse every single word you start to just see gibberish and have to fight the urge to go run into traffic.

[FBM]

Unless I was taking the piss, I'd never say "Shall we go". I'd say "Should we go". As for shall/will, I'd always say will.

Lowlife heathen! Unwashed and untouchable, you are!