¹ See the Bibliographical Note on pp. 983 below.

² Important contributions to the shall and will problem appear in the following:

Sweet, New English Grammar, II, Syntax (1898), 92-96.

Krüger, Syntax der Englischen Sprache, IV, Zeitwort, (2nd ed. Dresden and Leipzig, 1914) 1425-1500.

The New English Dictionary, (article shall).

C. B. Bradley, “Shall and Will—An Historical Study,” Trans, of Am. Phil. Assn., 42 (1911), 5-31.

G. O. Curme, “Has English a Future Tense?“ J.E.G. Ph. XII(1913), 515-539. Ph. Aronstein, “Shall und Will zum Ausdrucke der Idealität im Englischen,” Anglia, XLI, (1917), 10-93; 301-392.

³ Compare for example the rules for shall and will as given in Blount and Northrup, English Grammar, Woolley, Handbook of Composition, Fowler and Fowler, The King's English.

⁴ R. G. White, Every Day English: ” …. I proposed to give in this chapter a long series of plain unmistakable examples of its misuse by English writers of which I have numerous memorandums scattered upon the fly-leaves of my books. But my readers I am sure will be quite content that I should spare my labor, and give only the following from Cowley, Richard Burthogge, Samuel Shaw (the Puritan divine), Steele, Addison, Swift, Samuel Palmer, Shenstone, Burke, Landor, Robert Blakey, and Sydney Smith ….”

Fowler and Fowler, The King's English (pp. 141-153) contains examples of “blunders” taken from the following: Daily Telegraph, London Times, Richardson, Jowett, F. M. Crawford, Westminster Gazette, Burke, S. Ferrier, Wilde, Stevenson, Crockett, Conan Doyle, Spectator, H. Sweet, Gladstone.

See also Molloy, Shall and Will, 85-105; and S. P. E. Tract VI, Shall and Will, Should and Would in the Newspapers of Today. In the latter, five pages of examples are introduced with the statement, “It is therefore the' object of this paper to exhibit groups of sentences all from newspapers of the better sort in which one or other principle of idiom has been outraged.”

⁵ See, for example, the following statement by Curme (J.E.G. Ph., XII, (1913), 530, 531).

“It will become clear upon reflection that the statement of the English grammarians that shall, not will expresses futurity in the first person will not hold. Here, as elsewhere, shall does not approach this idea as closely as will. Shall represents the speaker as planning in present time for a future act, while will breaks the connection with the present and in lively tone directs our attention to the future. We have here two futures, each with a distinct and useful meaning, the result of a long historical development.”

It may be interesting to note here the following instances of Curme's own use of these auxiliaries. Whether they would (by the ordinary reader) be interpreted in accord with his statements of the meaning of these two words is perhaps an open question. The we will agrees, but does the we shall of the first example following convey the idea of present plan or does it indicate the inevitable result?

“It is a delicate piece of work we have before us, where we must think and feel, but it's worth all the pain and effort. We shall get an insight into an earnest struggle of over seven hundred years, where the English people with its characteristic dogged persistence has striven for a finer and more accurate expression of its thoughts and feelings that have reference to future time“ (Ibid., 516).

“If we take up a copy of the King James version of the Bible (1611 A.D.) we will find an exceedingly large number of cases where in all parts of the English speaking territory we today use will instead of the older shall” (Ibid., 521).

⁶ Some of the outstanding conflicts in the statements concerning shall and will as they appear in the leading discussions of the present generation are:

A. Sweet, The New. Eng. Dict., and Aronstein accept the usual conventional rule for independent declarative statements of a shall with the first person corresponding to a will with the second and third. Bradley, on the other hand, insists that, outside of London, Oxford, and Boston, and those few people who have schooled themselves consciously to say I shall, “will is now the accepted auxiliary for simple prediction in all persons”; Krüger finds that many native southern Englishmen use will for shall; and Curme, in more definite fashion asserts that “the statement of the English grammarians that shall not will expresses futurity in the first person does not hold.”

B. Sweet and Krüger emphasize the difference between the meaning of the strongly stressed and that of the unstressed auxiliary. The New Eng. Dict., Bradley, and Aronstein are silent in respect to the special stressing of the auxiliary, although the New Eng. Dict. does recognize in a limited way the meaning of determination or resolve which Sweet asserts attaches to the strongly stressed form. Curme speaks of the strongly emphasized shall or will but insists that this emphasis does not change the fundamental ideas carried “in every instance” by these two words.

C. Sweet and Aronstein agree that we two, we all, etc. take will not shall for simple prediction; Krüger flatly asserts that these combinations take shall not will.

D. The New Eng. Dict. accepts the conventional rule for the use of shall in “categorical questions with the second person.” Bradley, although accepting the fact that shall you? is used sometimes, declares that this use is not directed by any “sentiment” for “that auxiliary which is naturally to be expected in the answer” but solely because it has “not yet been wholly supplanted by will you?” Aronstein adds to the usual statement of the usage in questions with the second person that will is used in “rhetorical questions” where no answer is expected.

E. The New Eng. Dict. gives as the usage in indirectly reported speech “either the retention of the auxiliary used by the speaker or the substitution of that which is appropriate to the point of view of the person reporting.” Bradley represents usage in this situation as shifting the auxiliaries to fit the grammatical persons “as they stand in the report” with the exception of an original I shall which is “always reported by shall.“

F. Sweet calls the past development of the use of these two words “unmeaning fluctuation” which in Southern England has settled down into a “fixed system of complicated rules” but which in other dialects has tended to completely banish shall. To Bradley this development is not “unmeaning fluctuation” but “the age long attempt of English speech to achieve a colorless statement of futurity,” in which he sees the hopeless obscuring ”of a singularly sound and valuable distinction“ to make ”an unworkable scheme for simple prediction.“ Curme views the development as ”an earnest struggle of over seven hundred years“ in which the English people ”has striven for a finer and more accurate expression of its thoughts and feelings that have reference to future time.“ The result, in his opinion, has been a successful forming of ”two futures with finely differentiated meanings.“ This result has not been attained in England where ”a defective arrested development“ still uses I shall in the first person to express simple futurity, nor in the Irish and the Scotch dialects where the valuable distinctive meanings of shall have been lost, but it has been attained in American usage where shall is retained whenever its indefinite meaning is appropriate but is elsewhere replaced by will for the sake of greater accuracy of expression and a finer differentiation of meaning. Aronstein repudiates the idea that the change shown in American usage is a finer differentiation of clear cut meanings and contends that it is rather a cruder simplification of those meanings.

G. Sweet finds an explanation for the supposed present use of shall and will in the “desire to keep the original meaning of these verbs as much as possible in the background.” Krüger follows Grimm's suggestion of “courtesy” to account for the usual shift of forms in direct statements. But this “courtesy” came into conflict with ambiguity in some situations and there, as in questions with the second person, clearness of idea won out. Bradley finds the modern use to arise from a “disqualifying of shall” for the work of simple prediction. Three causes contributed to this ”disqualifying of shall“: (a) the rise of a new meaning in shall of personal compulsion which caused a reluctance to use it in connections where it might be understood as a threat; (b) the affected formalism of the eighteenth century in dealing with the second person; (c) the reduction of will in the spoken language to the enclitic form 'll. Aronstein finds that the two futures of the seventeenth century (an objective future with will and a subjective future with shall, having finely differentiated meanings especially in the second and third persons) have been partially wrecked in the present speech because the rationalizing tendency of the eighteenth century and the conscious analyzing of speech by grammarians have overridden this nicety of instinctive feeling and placed in its stead less discriminating conventions and rules.

H. Krüger and Bradley insist that the present usage has developed since Shakspere; Curme and Aronstein that it was already fixed in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

⁷ This term “grammars” includes dictionaries and other discussions of the language published during the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries.

“Q. What signe hath the Future tense?

“R. These signes, shall or will or hereafter.

Anon, Certaine Grammar Questions, (1602) 43, 45

(e) “Formatio temporum in Activis: & Neutris.

“Futurum formatur á Praesenti, per signa shal, aut wil in Indicativo; shal in Imperativo; hereafter, in Potentiali, & Infinitivo.”

“I shall luv dou shalt luv hí shal luv amabo

Futur aut tëch aut tëch aut tëch docebo

wil spëk wilt spëk wil spëk dicam

Plur. wi', yi', dei, shal aut wil luv, tëch, spëk”

“Modi Imperativi.

luv Amato luv amato

Futur, đou shalt tëch doceto hi shal tëch doceto ille

spëk Dicito spëk dicito

luv Amatote luv amanto

Plural yi shal tëch docetote ei shal tëch docēto

spëk Dicitote spëk dicūto”

Fut. I shal bi' tauħt, aut I wil bi' tauħt, docebor.

Gil, Logonomia Anglicana (1619, 1621), 63, 69, 70, 72.

⁹ Grammaire / Angloise / Contenant reigles bien exactes & / certaines de la Prononciation, Or / thographe, & Construction de nostre langue; / En faveur des estrangiers qui en / son desireux. / Par George Mason / Marchand de Londres. / A Londres. / Chez Nat. Butler / 1622.

¹⁰ For example, no distinction is recognized in the following:

Phillips, New World of Words (1658)

Milton, Accedence Commenced Grammar (1669)

Martin, An Introduction etc. (1754)

The following authors repeat the statements of Wallis:

C. Cooper, Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae (1685)

R. Johnson, Grammatical Commentaries (1706)

Anon. (for Brightland), English Grammar (1710)

Anon. (for Hodges), A New English Accidence (1736)

J. Newbery, Grammar Made Familiar (1745)

J. Priestley, English Grammar (1761)

The two exceptions are the books of Samuel Johnson (1755) and V. J. Peyton (1756). Peyton's grammar points out no distinction of use with the several grammatical persons but says, “Shall denotes necessity, and will the will; so that, when the thing depends on the will of the agent, they use the sign will, and on other occasions the sign shall.“

Samuel Johnson's grammar (prefixed to his dictionary) rather characteristically disposes of the matter by giving the conjugation of shall with the infinitive as forming one future, then the conjugation of will with the infinitive as forming a second future, and adding the remark, “By reading these futures may be observed the variations of shall and will.“

The explanation given in his dictionary in the discussion of the word shall is somewhat more definite. “The explanation of shall, which foreigners and provincials confound with will, is not easy; and the difficulty is increased by the poets, who sometimes give to shall an emphatic sense of will: but I shall endeavour, crassa Minerva, to show the meaning of shall in the future tense. ”(1) I shall love. It will so happen that I must love; I am resolved to love.

(2) Shall I love? Will it be permitted me to love? Will you permit me to love? Will it happen that I must love?

(3) Thou shall love. I command thee to love; it is permitted thee to love; (in poetry or solemn diction) it will happen that thou must love.

(4) Shalt thou love? Will it happen that thou must love? Will it be permitted to thee to love?

(5) He shall love. It will happen that he must love; it is commanded him that he love.

(6) Shall he love? Is it permitted him to love? In solemn language, Will it happen that he must love?

(7) The plural persons follow the signification of the singulars.“ ”(To) will—

(5) It is one of the signs of the future tense, of which it is difficult to show or limit the signification.

I will come. I am determined to come; importing choice.

Thou wilt come. It must be so that thou must come; importing necessity.

Wilt thou come? Hast thou determined to come? importing choice.

Be will come. He is resolved to come; or it must be that he must come. importing either choice or necessity.

It will come. It must be that it must come; importing necessity.”

The substance of his explanations of the uses of these auxiliaries with the several grammatical persons seems to be,

Shall—in all persons implies necessity, obligation, permission; in the 1st person, in addition to these ideas, it may signify resolution on the part of the speaker.

Will—in all persons, except the 2nd and 3rd (neuter pronoun) in declarative sentences, imports determination or resolution; in these two situations he indicates that will implies necessity.

Johnson's illustrations (see above) omit without comment will I come? Will he come? Will it come?

¹¹ Lowth, A Short Introd. to Eng. Grammar, pp. 64, 65: “Will, in the first Person singular and plural, promises or threatens; in the second and third Persons, only foretells; shall, on the contrary, in the first Person simply foretells; in the second and third Persons, promises, commands, or threatens.⁸ But this must be understood of Explicative Sentences; for when the Sentence is Interrogative, just the reverse for the most part takes place: Thus, I shall go; you will go; expresses event only; but will you go? imports intention; and shall I go? refers to the will of another. But again, He shall go, and, shall he go? both imply will, expressing or referring to a command. Would primarily denotes inclination of will; and should obligation; but they both vary their import, and are often used to express simple event.”

⁸ This distinction was not observed formerly as to the word shall, which was used in the second and third Persons to express simply the event So, likewise, should was used, where we now make use of would. See the Vulgar Translation of the Bible.

¹² Ward, Gram, of the Eng. Lang., pp. 121-3: “Of the difference between the Future by shall, and that by Will.

2. The Verb by shall, States of fixed Order shows;

Or States which Chance directs, as we suppose.

And shall those verbal Future States declares

Which for itself, an Object hopes or Fears,

Thinks of itself, surmises, or foresees;

But which for other Objects it decrees.

3. The Verb by will those Future States declares

For others, which an Object hopes or fears,

Of others thinks, surmises or foresees;

But for itself, States which itself decrees.

“The Future by shall is used in sublime Language to express those States which are irrevocably fixed; as, they (i.e. the Heavens & the Earth) Shall perish, but thou (O God) Shalt endure. Old Test. i.e. it is irrevocably fixed that they shall perish, &c, and States which are supposed to depend on Chance are expressed by shall; as, if it shall happen; or, if it shall come to pass that you go. Shall is often omitted in Expressions of this Kind; as, if it happen that you go.

“In simple declarative Sentences, the Thoughts that are expressed are conceived to be those of the Speaker; therefore, as shall denotes a State which the Speaker, hopes, fears, or foresees concerning himself, but which he determines concerning others; the Expressions I or we shall go, are equivalent to I or we foresee, or imagine that we are to go: But you, he or they shall go, are equivalent to I or we determine that you, he, they are to go. But, on the contrary, will denotes a State which the Speaker determines concerning himself, but which he hopes, fears, or foresees concerning other Objects; And therefore I or we will go are equivalent to I or we determine to go; but you, he, they will go, are equivalent to I or we foresee, or believe that you propose to go, that your going is some way determined.

“When questions are asked, shall denotes a State which the Person of whom the Question is asked foresees concerning himself, but determines concerning other Objects; will a State which he determines concerning himself, but foresees concerning others: Therefore shall you go? is equivalent to do you expect to go? but will you go? to do you resolve or determine to go? But shall I, he, they go? are equivalent to do you determine that I, he, they may go? or do you permit us to go? and will I, he, they go? to do you think or believe that I, he, they are determined to go? or, in such a situation as that our, his or their going is likely to take place?

“In Compound Sentences, if a Person is represented as determining his own Future State, will is used; but, if the Future State of others, shall is used; as, I resolve, determine that I will go; you, that you will, he, that he will go; But, I resolve, determine that you, he, they (or anyone but myself) shall go; you resolve, determine that I, he, they (or any one but yourself) shall go: he resolves, determines that I, you, we, they (or anyone but himself) shall go.

“In Compound Sentences, if a Person is represented as foreseeing, believing, hoping, fearing his own Future State, shall is used; as, I foresee, believe, hope, fear that I shall; we, that we shall; thou, that thou shall; he, that he shall; you, that you shall; they, that they shall go; But, I foresee, believe, hope, fear, that you, he, they (or anyone else but myself) will go; you foresee, &c. that I, he, they (or anyone but yourself) will go; he foresees, &c. that I, you, they (or anyone but himself) will go.

“In Suppositions it is often immaterial whether we use shall or will, or mention the Verb without any Sign; as, I will meet you if my Business shall permit me; or, will permit me; or, if my Business permit me to do it.

“Should and would are used with the same Distinctions as shall and will; as, / determined that I would; that you, he, they (or anyone but myself) would go, &c.”

¹³ “The Forms to be about, being about, which are set down in the Future of the Infinitive Mood, and in the Future Participle, are little used at present: For the Participle going is now commonly made use of instead of about; as, to be going to have: But this is only in the Language Conversation (Ibid. p. 46).”

¹⁴ Murray's many editions repeat the statement of the first of 1795:

“Will, in the first person singular and plural, intimates resolution and promising; in the second and third person, only foretells; as, I will reward the good, and will punish the wicked; we will remember benefits and be grateful; thou wilt, or he will, repent of that folly; you or they will have a pleasant walk.

“Shall, on the contrary, in the first person, simply foretells; in the second and third persons, promises, commands, or threatens: as, I shall go abroad; we shall dine at home: thou shall, or you shall, inherit the land; ye shall do justice and love mercy; they shall account for their misconduct.

“The following passage is not translated according to the distinct and proper meaning of the words shall and will: ‘Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.‘ It ought to be, will follow me, and I shall dwell.“ …

“These observations respecting the import of the verbs will and shall, must be understood of explicative sentences; for when the sentence is interrogative just the reverse, for the most part, takes place: thus, I shall go; you will go; express event only: but, will you go? imports intention; and, shall I go? refers to the will of another. But, he shall go, and shall he go? both imply will; expressing or referring to a command.

“When the verb is put in the subjunctive mood, the meaning of these auxiliaries likewise undergoes some alteration: as the learner will readily perceive by a few examples: he shall proceed, if he shall proceed, you shall consent, if you shall consent. These auxilaries are sometimes interchanged, in the indicative and subjunctive moods, to convey the same meaning of the auxiliary: as, he will not return, if he shall not return: he shall not return, if he will not return.”

¹⁵ I give here in somewhat summary fashion what seems most directly concerned with our immediate problem of the formation of the rules for shall and will. This material is part of a larger treatment of the development of the apparatus of the accepted formal grammar in which I attempt a more complete analysis of the evidence from the prefaces and introductions to the early grammars in relation to the literary and linguistic tendencies of the times.

¹⁶ These mid-eighteenth century grammars are acknowledged by Lindley Murray to have been the sources of his “compilation” which ran through nearly two hundred editions in the 19th century.

“It is …. proper to acknowledge, in general terms, that the authors to whom the grammatical part of this compilation is principally indebted for its materials, are Harris, Johnson, Lowth, Priestley, Beattie, Sheridan, Walker, and Coote.“ Lindley Murray, Eng. Gram. (1795) Introduction.

¹⁷ (a) “ …. I cannot but think it would be of great Advantage, both for the Improvement of Reason in General …. and also for the exact Use of our own Language; which for want of Rule is subject to Uncertainty, and the Occasion of frequent Contentions. And upon this account, it has been the Practise of several wise Nations, such of them, I mean, as have a thorough Education, to learn even their own Language by Stated Rules, to avoid that Confusion, that must needs follow from leaving it wholly to vulgar Use.” Richard Johnson, Grammatical Commentaries, (1706) Preface.

(b) [Several other grammarians] “deserved well of their Country, for their laudable Endeavours to cultivate and improve their own Native Speech, which had long lain, and is at this Day too much neglected, notwithstanding the many brave, but unsuccessful Attempts, to bring it into request, by reducing it to order, and shewing the Beauties and Excellencies it is capable of.”Anon, A New English Accidence (1736), Introduction.

(c) “Thus have I laboured to settle the orthography to regulate the structures, and ascertain the signification of English words.” Samuel Johnson, Grammar, (1775), Preface, 7.

(d) Whether many important advantages would not accrue both to the present age, and to posterity, if the English language were ascertained, and reduced to a fixed and permanent standard?“ ….

“To compass these points …. has been the chief object of the Author's pursuits in life, and the main end of the present publication.“ Thomas Sheridan, Dictionary, (1780), Preface, 4.

¹⁸ (a) “Considering the many grammatical Improprieties to be found in our best Writers such as Swift, Addison, Pope, etc. a Systematical English Syntax is not beneath the Notice of the Learned themselves.

“Should it be urged, that in the Time of these Writers, English was but very little subjected to Grammar, that they had scarcely a single Rule to direct them; a question readily occurs: Had they not the Rules of Latin Syntax to direct them?“ James Buchanan, Grammar, (1767), Preface, VI.

(b) “But all this apparent difficulty arises from our utter neglect of examining and regulating our speech”…..

“Yet so little regard has been paid to it (English language) in either respect, (writing and speaking) that out of our numerous army of authors, very few can be selected who write with accuracy; and among the multitude of our orators, even a tolerable speaker is a prodigy.“ ….

“Nay it has lately been proved by a learned Prelate, in a short essay upon our grammar, that some of our most celebrated writers, and such as have hitherto passed for our English Classics, have been guilty of great solecisms, inaccuracies, and even grammatical improprieties, in many places of their most finished works.“ Thomas Sheridan, Dictionary, (1780) Preface, 1, 2.

(c) “Among the middling ranks of life, grammar appears to be too much disregarded. Those who are occupied in trade or manufactures, are, for the most part, so intent upon the consideration of things, that they regard words as almost unworthy of attention, being satisfied with rendering themselves barely intelligible.

“The members of the three learned professions are confessedly superior to the generality in the accurate use of their native language. But even among them, there is some deficiency in this respect ….. Persons of rank and fashion, though they generally speak with ease and elegance, are not remarkable for being models of accurate expression.

“Authors are, without controversy, the persons on whom it is more particularly incumbent both in speaking and writing, to observe a strict adherence to grammatical propriety….. But this is a point to which the greater part even of our most esteemed writers have not sufficiently attended.“ Coote, Grammar, (1788) Preface, IV, V.

¹⁹ The distinctions between the words shall and will as first explained in the early part of the seventeenth century (Mason, Grammaire Angloise, for instance) may easily have been the result of no more than the feeling for the difference between the modal and the tense uses of these auxiliaries. Whatever the fact in this respect, however, the matter of especial importance for us is the grammars in which first appeared the complete system of rules developing out of these early simple statements.

²⁰ Lowth, Grammar, (1762), Preface, IV, V.

²¹ W. Ward, Grammar, (1765), Preface, V, XVII, XXI.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

The discussions of the uses and meanings of shall and will seem to have had their beginnings in the search for a “rational grammar,” ”the attempt to give a reason for every part of construction,” so prominent first in France and then in England in the latter part of the 18th century. This is the spirit which characterizes the following 19th century discussions:

Edinburgh Review, Review of Jamieson's Scottish Dictionary, XXVII(May 1828), 492-495.

Archdeacon J. C. Hare, On Certain Tenses Attributed to the Greek Verb, Philological Museum, II (1833), 218-221.

Edwin Guest, On English Verbs, Substantive and Auxiliary, Trans. of the Philological Society, II (1846), 224-229.

Prof. DeMorgan, On the Uses of the Verbs, Shall and Will, Trans. of the Phil. Soc. IV (Jan. 1850), 185-187.

Hensleigh Wedgewood, On the Use of Shall and Will, Trans. of the Phil. Soc. VI (Nov. 1852), 1-5.

R. G. Latham, The English Language, (London, 1855, 4th ed., 1841, 1st ed.) II, 395, 405-414.

Sir Edmund Head, Shall and Will or Two Chapters of Future Auxiliary Verbs, (Toronto, 1858, 2nd ed., 1856, 1st ed.), 5-120.

Dean Alford, The Queen's English, (London, 1864, 2nd ed.), 168-179.

Richard Grant White, Words and their Uses, (New York, 1870), 264-273.

Richard Grant White, Every-day English, (New York, 1880), XXIII, 331-358.

Gerald Molloy, The Irish Difficulty, Shall and Will, (London, 1897).

²² See e.g. Curme's use of assumed meanings for shall and will, Jr. of Eng. and Gmc. Phil. XII, 519, 520, 521.

²³ Prose fiction, especially realistic conversation, would perhaps serve equally or better in this respect were it not for the objection that it fails to meet the demand indicated in (3).

²⁴ See above, page 985, Bibliographical note, the objection offered to the argument from statistics proposed by Blackburn. Certainly one cannot assume that under ordinary circumstances there is likely to be an equal number of the uses of the first person, for example, in Shakspere's Tempest, Spenser's Faerie Queene, and the 1611 English Bible.

²⁵ For this reason, too, it seemed undesirable to use prose comedy exclusively for the latter half of the survey, although the language of this type of drama would perhaps have better represented actual usage.

²⁶ The reduced form, always atonic and written as an enclitic '11, is interpreted by practically all who have written of shall and will, as a contraction for will only. One, however, Professor G. P. Krapp, insists that “I'll, you'll, he'll may as well stand for I will, etc. as for I shall, etc.” (Modern English: Its Growth and Present Use, p. 295.)

The decision of this point is forced upon the investigator at the very beginning of any study of shall and will and, because of the following considerations, I have taken the position generally maintained, that these contractions I'll, you'll, he'll stand for contractions of will only.

These considerations, which seem to have been ignored by Professor Krapp, are:

(a) The very common loss of (w) in English unstressed syllables. Middle English examples are abundant of the loss of (w) both with the pronoun of the first person, with the negative particle, and other words.

ichulle wel neomen þe—St. Juliana, (Royal Ms.) v. 41.

(Morris, Spec. of E.E.)

ichulle þat he wite wel—St. Juliana, (Royal Ms.) v. 75.

(Morris, Sp. of E.E.)

þat, quab he nelle ich nevre do—Floris and Blauncheflur.

(Emerson, M.E.R. 45, 28)

þe man þe nele do na god—Poema Morale.

(Emerson, M.E.R. 180, 1)

For loss of (w) in more modern English see Wyld, History of Modern Colloquial English, p. 296 and Jespersen, A Modern English Grammar, I, 7.32.

(b) The phonetic difficulty involved in accepting I'll, you'll, etc. as a probable contraction of I shall, you shall, etc. For the unstressed form of shall in modern English see Jespersen, Modem English Grammar, I, 9.211, 10.32. In this connection one ought also to call attention to the instances given in the New English Dictionary of the reduction of shall, atonic, to an enclitic with an unmistakable form. These “reduced enclitic forms (all persons and numbers)” are represented as spelled in the following ways: -sh, -s, -ce, -se, -s'. Some examples of this enclitic shall are:

Gammer Gurton, I, v. 39.

Hodge. By the masse, and she burne all yoush beare the blame for mee.

Gammer Gurton, III, iii, 44.

Gammer. Now ware thy throte, losell, thouse paye for al!

King Lear, IV, vi, 246.

Edgar….. keep out or Ice try whither your Costard or my Ballow be the harder.

These considerations lead me to believe that the weight of the evidence is still in favor of interpreting I'll, you'll etc. as reductions of I will, you will, etc. This does not mean that it is assumed that the user is consciously choosing a will rather than a shall in these combinations. The lack of stress which makes the form an enclitic is evidence of a want of attention directed to this word. But it is assumed that for whatever idea may be in the user's mind he employa in the enclitic '11 the reduced form of the word will.

²⁷ Whether the tense use of shall and will also appears in O.E. as a possible means of indicating future time alternative with the use of the present form of the verb, is a matter of some dispute. Maetzner (I, 325) insists that these words are not used in O.E. without the recollection of their original meanings; and Blackburn (The English Future, 24), rather than accept the shall or will as at this date expressing simple futurity, assumes ”intentional variation“ from the original idea where Aelfred and Aelfric use a shall or a will to translate a Latin future. On the other hand, Wülfing (Die Syntax in den Werken Alfreds des Grossen, 57, No. 414) and Sweet (New English Grammar, II, No. 2198) assert that in some instances in O.E. these words shall and will were used as tense signs to express pure futurity.

Although Ælfric, in his grammar, translates the Latin future in the usual fashion by using the present form of the verb, when he comes in the course of his discussion to set forth a general statement of the tenses (page 123), he uses the shall and will periphrasis to translate the Latin future participles (pp. 136, 150, 152, 246, 247).

The interpretaton of specific instances without allowing assumed modern use or some theory of former meanings to color our readings is extremely difficult. In the following cases, however, the context seems to exclude the modal meanings of shall and will, leaving these words to be mere signs of the future tense.

(1) “Se fore þonc is sio godcunde gesceadwisnes; sio is faest on þæm hean sceppende þe eall fore wat hu hit geweor đan sceal ær ser hit geweorđe.”

Alfred, Boethius, XXXIX, 5.

(2) “Gelyfst þu þæt we sceolon ealle arisan mid urum lichaman on domes dæge?” (“Credis tu resurrecturos omnes nos?”)

Alfred, Bede, 181m (Quoted Lüttgens, 47)

(3) “Hafast þu gefered þœt þam folcum sceal Geata leodum ond Gar-Denum sib gemæum ond sacu restan.“

Beowulf, 1855.

(4) “Se þe getimbraþ ofer þam grundwealle treowa oþþe streab pþþe ceaf, untrylice næg witan, þæt his weorc sceal on þam micclum fyre forbyrnan.“ (”Qui super fundamentum illud ligna sive foenum, sive stipulam aeificat, indubitantor scire posset, quod opus suum in tanto igne exarserit.“)

Alfred, Bede, 385u, (Quoted Lüttgens, 49)

(5) “Swae swæ sio wund wile toleran, gif hio ne bid gewridan mid wraed, swae willad da synna weaxende toflowan, gif hie beod gebundne hwilum mid stræclice lareowdome.”

Alfred, Pastoral Care, (Sweet, E.E.T.S.) 122, 15.

(6) “donne hie gesiođ đare ođerra gesælđo eaciende, đonne đyncđ him đœt hie willan acwelan for đære mettrymnesse đæs odres gesæ lignesse, swæ he bid genierwed on his mod”

Alfred, Pastoral Care, (Sweet, E.E.T.S.) 230, 20.

(7) “Ic wat, þæt hit wile þincan swyđe ungeleaffulic ungelæredum mannum gyf we secgađ…..”

Koch, Historische Grammatik, II, 43. (Quoted out of Wright, Pop.

Treat., 16).

(8) “Sođlice twegen sint gewilniende þæt hi on us eardian wylla ure drihten …. & se swicula deoful …. is.”

R. Brotanek, Texte und Untersuchungen, 22, 15.

It seems impossible that the shall and will should have different meanings in the following passage, or that they should not parallel the use of the present form, forl¡te in line No. 21 :

(line 6) “Hwa is þæt be eall đa yfel þe hi donde wærqn asecgean mæge ođđe areccean? Eac ic wille geswigian Tontolis & Philopes þara scondlicestena spella; hu manega bismerlica gewin Tontolus gefremede syđđan he cyning wæs; ….”

(line 14) “Ic sceall eac ealle forlœtan þa þe of Perseo & of Cathma gesæde syndon, ….”

(line 17) “Eac ic wille geswigian þara mandæda þara Lemniađum & Ponthionis þæs cyninges, ….”

(line 21) …. ic hit eall forlaete. Eac ic hit forlœte, Adipsus hu he ægber ofsloh ge his agenne fæder, ge his steopfæder, ge his steopsunu.”

Alfred, Orosius, E.E.T.S., I, 42.

Compare also the following from the 16th century:

“of whiche in the thryde boke I wyl speke in this place more at length.“ (p. 104)

“very seldom used without SE before them, as I shal in the thryde boke in this place more playnely declare.“ (p. 114)

“as I have afore touched, whiche I wyll also conjugate as I have done the other verbes meanes ….“ (p. 123)

“But of the use and signification of this verbe I shal more speke here after in the thryde boke.“ (p. 128)

“and howe they put Il faict before diverse other adjectives …. I shal defer to speke of, tyl I come to the thryde boke in this place where I wyll also speke of Il y a…..” (p. 130, 131)

Palsgrave, L'Esclarcissement etc. (1530) 104, 114, 123, 128, 130, 131.

²⁸ The figures given seem also to indicate no ground for the statements of a difference in use between the first person singular and the first person plural. See Bruening, Formation of Future Tense in English, 46.

²⁹ The apparent return to the 50% relation indicated for 1713 in Figures A and B of Plate 3 seems to be explained by the individual characteristics of the play Jane Shore by Nicholas Rowe. The situation in this play leads rather naturally to the using of an excessively large number of unmistakably modal shalls with the third person.

³⁰ I give here the twelve instances which occur in the plays examined:

(1) The Alchemist (1610), I, 1, 222.

Dapper—You know, I shewed the statute to you.

Face— You did so,

Dapper—And will I tell, then? By this hand of flesh,

Would it might never write good court-hand more,

If I discover.

(2) The Alchemist, II, 1, 536:

Mammon—And wilt thou insinuate what I am, and praise me, And say I am a noble fellow?

Face— O, what else, sir?

And that you'll make her royal with the stone,

An empress; and yourself king of Bantam.

Mammon—Wilt thou do this?

Face— Will I, sir?

(3) Hyde Park (1637), V, 1, 250:

Miss Carol—Because, forsooth, I do not love you, will you

Be desperate?

Fairfield— Will I be desperate?

(4) Cutter of Coleman Street (1661), I, 2, 271:

Servant —It should be Mrs. Lucia by her voice, …. Will you please to see her, Sir?

Truman— Will I see her, Blockhead? Yes; go out and kneel to her and pray her to come in.

(5) The Wonder (1714), V, 1, 65:

Felix— Give me your hand at parting, however, Violante, won't you—won't you, won't you—won't you?

Violante— (Half regarding him) Won't I do what?

(6) Bon Ton (1775), I, 1, 416 (a):

Miss T— my uncle is in an ill humour, and wants me to discard you, and go with him into the country.

Col. T— And will you, Miss?

Miss T—Will I?—no, I never do as I am bid.

(7) Fortune's Fool (1796), IV, 1, 46:

Sir Bamber—…. She has no home, I tell you; and as I heard you were going to your lodgings, will you take her under your arm?

Ap-Hazard—Will I not?—My dear Bam, always put yourself in Fortune's way.—Madam!

(8) Fortune's Fool, IV, 2, 55:

Sir Bamber—There! now haven't I been libel'd?—hasn't Miss Union been lampoon'd? and won't I have you pilloried, sir, for saying that volume of virtue was in these apartments?

(9) The Hunchback (1832), II, 2, 41:

Julia— At town

Or country ball, you'll see me take the lead,

While wives that carry on their backs the wealth

To dower a princess, shall give place to me;—

Will I not profit, think you, by my right?

Be sure I will!

(10) Babes in the Wood (1860), I, 1, 15:

Lady Blanche—Will you have a sugar plum? (putting up her mouth) Rushworth— Won't I? (kisses her)

(11) The Second Mrs. Tanqueray (1893), II, 52. (a):

Mrs. Cortelyon— —Come, Mrs. Tanqueray, won't you spare her? Paula—Won't I spare her? (Suspiciously) Have you mentioned your plan to Aubrey—before I came in?

(12) The Faithful (1915), II, 1, 78:

Kurano— Shall we pour the wine on our heads first?

Captain—No, afterwards, when we are hot.

Kurano— But we will?

Captain—Yes; oh yes?

Kurano— Yes, we will pour the wine on our heads. We are going to pour the wine on our heads.

³¹ I give here the seven instances of the second person questions using shall:

(1) Wealth and Health (1557) 279.

Health—If these goods came with wrong-doing

Shall ye have heaven for so spending,

Or yet any meed?

(2) Hyde Park (1637), V, 1, 246.

Lord B—Do I not make a reasonable motion?

Is't only in myself? shall you not share

I' the delight? or do I appear a monster

'Bove all mankind, you shun my embraces thus?

(3) Cutter of Coleman Street (1661), V, 6, 329.

Tabitha— —Oh ! my Mother ! what shall I do? I'm undone,

Cutter— What shall thou do? why, thou shalt Dance—

(4) Siege of Damascus (1720), II, 1, 732. (b)

Eumenes.—O, I could curse the giddy changeful slaves,

But that the thought of this hour's great event

Possesses all my soul.—If we are beaten!

Herbis.— The poison works; 'tis well—

I'll give him more. (aside)

True, if we're beaten, who shall answer that?

Shall you, or I?—Are you the governor—

Or say we conquer, whose is then the praise?

(5) The Hunchback (1832), I, 2, 19.

Helen.— —Would you be more rich,

More wise, more fair? the song that last you learned

You fancy well; and therefore shall you learn

No other song?

(6, 7) A Blot in the 'Scutcheon (1843), III, 1, 802. (b) Guendolen—Where are you taking me?

Tresham— He fell just here.

Now answer me. Shall you in your whole life

—You who have nought to do with Mertoun's fate,

Now you have seen his breast upon the turf,

Shall you e'r walk this way if you can help?

³² The following are a few examples:

(1) The Tempest (1611), III, 2, 43:

Calaban—I thank my noble lord. Wilt thou be pleased to hearken once again to the suit I made thee?

(2) Cutter of Coleman Street (1661), I, 2, 271:

Truman Jr.—With me? who is it?

Servant— It should be Mrs. Lucia by her voice,

Sit, but she's veil'd all over.

Will you please to see her, Sir?

(3) Bury Fair (1689), II, 1, 383:

Goldsmith—Will you please to rafle for a teapot, a pair of candlesticks a couple of sconces?

(4) She Wou'i if She Cou'd (1668) :

Lady Cockwood—Will you be pleased to repose, sir?

(5) A Blot in the 'Scutcheon III, 1, 811:

Tresham—But will you ever so forget his breast

As carelessly to cross this bloody turf

Under the black yew avenue?

³³ The numbers for the adverbial clauses, the result clauses, and the adjective clauses are considered together. There is also no separate group for the uses in indirect discourse as such. These cases are included in the group marked noun object clauses, a group made up of all the noun clauses, objects of such verbs as say, think, know, swear, believe, promise, pray, declare, hope, expect, assure. To separate artibrarily, “He says that he will come,” from ”He promises, swears, declares, assures me, or thinks that he will come,” seemed to be artificially excluding from the totals many cases which had an obvious bearing as evidence. ³⁴ The three instances of conditional clauses in the first person with will are: (1) Way of the World, Congreve (1700) II, 1, 511 (a):

Mrs. Fainall—Ay, ay, dear Marwood, if we will be happy, we must find the means in ourselves, and among ourselves. Men are ever in extremes; either doting or averse. While they are lovers, if they have fire and sense, their jealousies are insupportable; and when they cease to love (we ought to think at least) they loathe.

(2) Blot in the 'Scutcheon, Browning (1843) II, 1, 796 (a):

Tresham—I have despatched last night at your command

A missive bidding him present himself

Tomorrow—here—thus much is said; the rest

Is understood as if 'twere written down—

“His suit finds favor in your eyes.“ Now dictate

This morning's letter that shall countermand

Last night's—do dictate that!

Mildred— But Thorold—if

I will receive him as I said?

Tresham— The Earl?

Mildred— I will receive him.

(3) The Madras House, Barker (1910) IV, 203 (b):

Philip—(summing up) Then there's precious little hope for the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth. I know it sounds mere nonsense, but I'm sure it's true. If we can't love the bad as well as the beautiful—if we won't share it all now—fresh air and art—and dirt and sin—then we good and clever people are costing the world too much.

The two instances with shall (neither case after 1700) are:

(1) Way of the World, Congreve (1700) IV, 1, 531 (a):

Petulant—If I have a humor to quarrel, I can make less matters conclude premises,—if you are not handsome, what then, if I have a humor to prove it? If I shall have my reward, say so; if not, fight for your face the next time yourself—I'll go sleep.

(2) Plain Dealer, Wycherley (1666) IV, 1, 458:

Sailor— Here are now below, the scolding, daggled gentlewoman, and that Major Old—Old—Fop, I think you call him.

Freeman—Old fox;—prithee bid 'em come up, with your leave, captain, for now I can talk with her upon the square, if I shall not disturb you. (Exit Sailor)

Manly— No; for I'll be gone, come, volunteer.

³⁵ “Altho shall has thus lost some of its former territory in principal proposi tions, it has still kept its old distinctive meaning there and has become, perhaps a greater favorite in the subordinate clause than it has ever been“ (Curme, J.E.G. Ph. XII, 522).

³⁶ It must be borne in mind, of course, that the figures given are the totals for a large body of material in which the usage of the individual writers differs considerably in a few cases. It would be strange indeed if the influence of the schools and a century of teaching should not noticeably affect the usage of a few. An example of such difference taken from the dialog of fiction rather than from drama is the following comparison of the use of shall and will with the first person in independent-declarative statements in Wells' Ann Veronica and in Marshall's The Old Order Changeth:

(Wells)—1st person with will 75%; with shall 25%.

(Marshal)—1st person with will 54%; with shall 46%.

The figures for Wells are quite normal; those for Marshall are perhaps the most extreme variation from the usual situation for any large number of instances. The attempt here has been to examine enough material so that these individual characteristics will be subordinated to a representation of the more general usage.

It seems impossible to suppose a difference in meaning for the auxiliary with the several grammatical persons in the following example:

The Faithful (1915), II, 1, 77.

Captain—Yes. First, let us all three be drunk.

Kurano— All be drunk. I'll be drunk, you'll be drunk, she'll be drunk. We'll be drunk, you'll be drunk, he'll be drunk. We'll all be drunk. Let us see who'll be drunk first.

³⁷ I give here the four instances of shall you? found in this material:

(1) Younger Generation, p. 193.

Mr. Kenyon (taking it from her)—No, no; we'd better not do that.

Mrs. K.—What shall you do then?Mr. K.— I shall ask Grace to show it to me.

Mrs. K.—Suppose she refuses?

Mr. K.— Then I shall make her show it to me.

(2) The Lie, p. 24.

Elinor— ….Shall you be down here much before you go back to Egypt?

(3) The Double Game, p. 270.

Nielson— I see our author has published a new book.

Elizaveta—Who, Rakint?

Nielson— Yes. It's called “Giordano Bruno and the Movement of Liberation.” Shall you read it?

Elizaveta—I haven't time to read his books.

(4) The Honeymoon, p. 33.

Cedric—I shall always be your grandstand.

Flora— Shall you? I can only do my best when I've got the undivided attention of my audience.

³⁸ I quote here the only two instances of shall with the second person:

(1) The Easiest Way, 179, a:

Laura—Mr. Madison is coming up the path.

Mrs. Williams (off stage) That's good.

Laura—Shan't you come and see him

Mrs. Williams (same)—Lord, no ! I'm six dollars and twenty cents out now, and up against an awful streak of luck.

(2) The Truth, 259, a:

Becky— Shall you speak to Mr. Linden about them?

Warder— No. I wouldn't insult you by discussing you with Linden, unless I was convinced every word and more here was true.

³⁹ I give here the instances from the American dramas of questions using will with the first person.

(1) New York Idea, 731, b:

John—The case meant a big fee, big Kudos, and in sails Cynthia, Flashlight mad ! And will I put on my hat and lake her? No—and bang she goes off like a stick o' dynamite.

(2) The Nigger, 128:

Phil.— Run down an' choke him—quick. Take his papahs.

Barrington—Will I? Oh Lord! Honest, I pity that kid from the bottom o' my tendah hea't. Just you wait.

(3) Unchastened Woman, II, 412:

Hildegarde—I'd play the game out for all it's worth. It's no use weakening now. Lawrence (pointing to bills)—What will we do with these?

Hildegarde (encouragingly)—We'll meet them with your first installment.

(4) Witching Hour, 771, b:

Viola— Haven't you seen this house, Mrs. Whipple?

Helen— Not above this floor.

Alice— Wouldn't it interest you?

Helen— Very much.

………

Alice— Will I do as your guide?

(5) Witching Hour, 773, b:

Clay.—…. Always you when I think about a real house, you bet—a house for me—and you'll be there, won't you?

Viola— Will I?

Clay— Yes, say, “I will.”

(6) Witching Hour, 786, b:

Prentice.—….When in your own mind your belief is sufficiently trained you won't need this. (another slight pass)

Jack—I won't?

Prentice—No.

Jack—What'll I do?

Prentice—Simply think ….

(7) Witching Hour, 800, 9:

Jack— No, you stay here.

Alice— That's scandalous.

Jack— But none of us will start the scandal, will we?

⁴⁰ See page 1000.

⁴¹ See also page 1010.

⁴² In subordinate clauses with the first person appears the only great increase of shall forms in the contemporary English material over those from the survey. See also page 1007.

⁴³ See Curme, Jr. of Eng. & Gmc. Phil., 13, 517; and Bradley, Trans. of Am. Phil. Assn., 42 (1911), 15, 16, 17.

⁴⁴ See above page 986, Bibliographical Note.

⁴⁶ New English Grammar, No. 2202.

^46a See Blount and Northrop, English Grammar, No. 144, e.

^46b “You will go to your room and stay there!, being the speaker's command.“ The King's English, p. 138.

^46c ”—Sehr oft drückt you will mit einem Z., das Tun besagt, einen gemessenen Befehl aus (you must, you are to) wie im D. und Frz. die 2 P. der Zukunftform eines solchen Z.—

'You will come tomorrow at ten o'clock!

Sie werden morgen um 10 Uhr antreten!

Vous viendrez demain à dix heures!

You will take this packet to Mr. Molloy.

I say you will sweep my room.' ”

Krüger, Syntax, IV, 2926.

⁴⁷ Aronstein, Anglia, 41, p. 39.

⁴⁸ See also Royster and Steadman, The “Going-to” Future, Manly Anniversary Studies, 399-402.

⁴⁹ In view of the meanings which attach themselves not only to shall and will but also to the other phrases used to express the future, and the fact that these meanings of intention, resolve, determination, compulsion, necessity, are necessarily the grounds upon which future predictions are made one naturally raises the question whether these meanings are not inevitable connotations of the future idea unrelated to the particular words by which the future is expressed. If so they will attach themselves to any phrase used to express the future and thus prevent the development of any one word group to indicate a pure uncolored future. This question, however, is not a matter concerning English alone but one of comparative syntax and must be reserved for future publication.