The Commonly Confused Verbs Shall and Will

The Commonly Confused Verbs Shall and Will The verbs shall and will both point to the future, but in contemporary  American English, shall is used only rarely. In  British English, shall and will are often used interchangeably with little or no difference of meaning. According to linguist R.L. Trask, traditional rules regarding  shall and will are little more than a fantastic invention. Internationally, will is now the standard choice for expressing future plans and expectations. However, in first-person questions shall is often used to express politeness  (Shall we dance?), and in legal statements, shall is used with a third-person subject for stating requirements (Rent shall be paid  when due,  in accordance with the terms hereof). Examples I signed the lease. Incredible. In the middle of all this fine print, there was the one simple sentence, There shall be no water beds.(John Updike, Gesturing. Playboy, 1980)   Stuttering, Bessie told him  what had happened to her. She showed him the handle of the key she had clutched in her hand all night.Mother of God! he called out.What shall I do? Bessie asked.I will open your door.But you dont have a passkey.(Isaac Bashevis Singer, The Key. The New Yorker, 1970)   [W]hen people come and see me they always say, Shall we meet in the local pub?(Simon Russell Beale, quoted by  Imogen Carter  and  Kathryn Bromwich, What Goes On in the Wings. The Observer [UK], November 20, 2016)   If you do not eat your potatoes, you will be upset, and I will be upset; your father, clearly, is already upset. If you do eat your potatoes, I shall be pleased, you will be pleased, your tummy will be pleased.(William Goldman, The Princess Bride. Harcourt, 1973)   I will go home, Bessie decided. People will not leave me in the streets.(Isaac Bashevis Singer, The Key.  The New Yorker, 1970)   Humans need to find a new  planet within 1,000 years to keep the species alive,  Stephen Hawking said in a talk this week. Hawking, the noted theoretical physicist, said that humans will likely expend the planet’s resources in that time.(Justin Worland, Stephen Hawking Gives Humans a Deadline for Finding a New Planet. Time,  November 17, 2016) Usage Notes [T]heres simply  no reason to hold on to shall. The word is peripheral in American English.(Bryan A, Garner,  Garners Modern English Usage, 4th ed. Oxford University Press, 2016) The Traditional Rules There is a traditional textbook ruling that runs as follows. For simple futurity, you use shall after I or we but will after everything else, while, to express determination or command, you use will after I or we but shall after everything else. By these rules, the required forms are We shall finish tonight (simple statement) versus We will finish tonight (expressing determination), but They will finish tonight (simple statement) versus They shall finish tonight (an order).As grammarians never tire of pointing out, these bizarre rules do not accurately describe the real usage of careful speakers at any time or in any place in the history of English, and they are little more than a fantastic invention. If you are one of the handful of speakers for whom these rules now seem completely natural, then by all means go ahead and follow them. But, if you are not, just forget about them, and use your natural forms.Do not try to use shall if the word does not feel entirely natural, and especia lly dont try to use it merely in the hope of sounding more elegant. Doing so will probably produce something that is acceptable to no one.(R.L. Trask, Say What You Mean! A Troubleshooters Guide to English Style and Usage, David R. Godine, 2005) The Hazy Distinction Between Intention and Futurity [T]he distinction between intention and futurity can be hazy, and grammarians of C17 and C18 devised an odd compromise whereby both shall and will could express one or the other, depending on the grammatical person involved. . . . Research by Fries (1925) into the language of English drama from C17 on showed that this division of labor was artificial even in its own time. These paradigms were however enshrined in textbooks of later centuries and still taught a few decades ago. Their neglect is one of the better consequences of abandoning the teaching of grammar in schools.(Pam Peters, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, Cambridge University Press, 2004)​ British Uses of Shall and Will British people use I shall/I will and we shall/we will with no difference of meaning in most situations. However, shall is becoming very much less common than will. Shall is not normally used in American English. . . . Shall and will are not only used for giving information about the future. They are also common in offers, promises, orders and similar kinds of interpersonal language use. In these cases, will (or ll) generally expresses willingness, wishes or strong intentions (this is connected with an older use of will to mean wish or want). Shall expresses obligation (like a more direct form of should).(Michael Swan, Practical English Usage, Oxford University Press, 1995)​ Where Shall Survives In colloquial and indeed all spoken English . . . will is fast displacing shall in all cases in which shall was formerly used and in which we are recommended to use it. . . . It survives chiefly in first person questions, where it usefully distinguishes Shall I open the window? (as an offer or proposal) from Will I need a towel? ( will it be necessary). It is useful that the construction ll stands for both shall and will. (Eric Partridge, Usage and Abusage, edited by Janet Whitcut, W.W. Norton, 1995)​ AP Style Use shall to express determination: We shall overcome. You and he shall stay. Either shall or will may be used in first-person constructions that do not emphasize determination: We shall hold a meeting. We will hold a meeting.For second- and third-person constructions, use will unless determination is stressed: You will like it. She will not be pleased.(The Associated Press 2015  Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law, Basic Books, 2015) Practice (a) Lets go into the church, _____ we?(b) If you build it, he _____ come.(c) Martha _____ bring the salad. Answers to Practice Exercises: Shall and Will (a) Lets go into the church, shall we?(b) If you build it, he will come.(c) Martha  will bring the salad. Glossary of Usage: Index of Commonly Confused Words

President Obamas First Executive Order

President Obamas First Executive Order Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13489 on Jan. 21, 2009, one day after being sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. To hear the conspiracy theorists describe it, Obamas first executive order officially closed off his  personal records to the public, especially his  birth certificate. What did this order actually aim to do? In fact, Obamas first executive order had exactly the opposite goal. Its aim was to shed more light on presidential record, including his own, after eight years of secrecy imposed by former President George W. Bush. What Obamas First Executive Order Really Said Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the federal government.  Presidential executive orders are much like the written orders or instructions issued by the president or CEO of a private-sector company to that company’s department heads. Starting with George Washington  in 1789, all presidents have issued executive orders.  President Franklin D. Roosevelt, still holds the record for executive orders, penning 3,522 of them during his 12 years in office. President Obamas first executive order merely rescinded an earlier executive order severely limiting public access to presidential records after they left office. That now-rescinded executive order, 13233, was signed by then-President George W. Bush on Nov. 1, 2001. It allowed former presidents and even family members to declare executive privilege and block public access to White House records for virtually any reason. Rescinding Bush-Era Secrecy Bushs measure was criticized heavily and challenged in court. The Society of American Archivists called Bushs executive order a complete abnegation of the original 1978 Presidential Records Act. The Presidential Records Act mandates the preservation of presidential records and makes them available to the public. Obama agreed with the criticism. For a long time now, theres been too much secrecy in this city. This administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but with those who seek it to be known, Obama said after signing the order rescinding the Bush-era measure.The mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it. Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency. So Obamas first executive order didnt seek to shut down access to his own personal records, as conspiracy theorists claim. Its goal was exactly the opposite- to  open up White House records to the public. The Authority for Executive Orders Capable of at least changing the ways in which the laws enacted by Congress are applied, presidential executive orders can be controversial. Where does the president get the power to issue them? The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly provide for executive orders. However, Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution mentions relates the term â€Å"executive Power† to the president’s constitutionally-assigned to â€Å"take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.† Thus, the power to issue executive orders can be interpreted by the courts as a necessary presidential power. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that all executive orders must be supported either by a specific clause of the Constitution or by an act of Congress. The Supreme Court has the authority to block executive orders that it determines to exceed the Constitutional limits of presidential power or involve issues that should be handled through legislation.   As with all other official actions of the legislative or executive branches, executive orders are subject to the process of judicial review by the Supreme Court and can be overturned if found to be unconstitutional in nature or function.   Updated by Robert Longley