Shall and will

The English language is atypical in many aspects of verb use; one of these aspects is the
discussion of the future. English has no single simple verb form to express future, such as exists
in many other languages. In consequence, the area of the future is often a great confusion for
learners of this language; and many traditional comments about the distinction between shall and
will, which are based on a reading of social use and not on the actual meanings of the verb
forms, have only served to muddy waters still further.
Shall and will are both modal verbs in English primarily used to express the future. However,
neither shall nor will is the principal method of expressing what is going to happen in the future.
Technical jargon

In many requirement specifications (particularly in software), the words shall and will have
special meaning. Most requirement specifications use the word shall to denote a requirement.
The word will is reserved for a statement of fact. However, some documents deviate from this
convention and use the words shall, will, and should to denote the strength of the requirement.
Well-written requirement specifications define these words near the beginning of the document.
For example, on standards published by IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission),
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), IEEE (Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers), requirements with "shall" are the mandatory requirements, meaning,
"must", or "have to". The IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) defines shall and must as
synonymous terms denoting absolute requirements, and ‘‘should’’ as denoting a somewhat
flexible requirement, in RFC documents.

Historic former usage

There was once thought to be a meaningful distinction between "shall" and "will," but whether it
ever existed outside the minds of grammarians, it is largely or completely ignored by American,
Scots and Irish speakers of English, which of course constitute the vast majority of English-
speaking people. Nevertheless, the differences between the two words were once thought by
some people to be real, so much so that David D. Eisenhower was reputed to have fired an aide
who could not understand the (then supposed) distinction between "shall" and "will."

"Pure" forms of "shall" and "will"

Shall and will are now most often used as auxiliary or modal verbs. However, they have their
origins as main verbs and in what is known as the pure system are still used in their original Old
English senses, regardless of grammatical person:

Hence the following forms were felt to be required usage:

Thou shalt not steal.
Shall I open the door?
You should not say such things.
And shall Trelawney die?
Whom should he meet but Jones? (...was it his fate...)
Why should you suspect me?
It should seem so. (It would apparently be incumbent on us to believe)
I will have my way.
I (he) asked him (me) to do it, but he (I) would not.
I would not have done it for the world.
I would be told to wait a while (Habitual).
Will you come with me?
I would I were dead.
He will bite his nails, whatever I say.
He will often stand on his head.
You will still be talking (i.e., you always are).
A coat will last two years with care.

Simple future

Old English did not have a future tense, but because the verbs shall and will hint at one, they
were conscripted by the language's development and became modal verbs.
In declarative sentences under the pure system, shall is not used in the first person, since one
does not usually give commands to oneself. Therefore, shall became the auxiliary verb for
expressing simple futurity in the first person. Will, on the other hand, is not often used in the
second and third persons in statements under the pure system and so second and third person will
became the auxiliary verb for expressing simple futurity in the second and third persons:
Shall and its past tense form should denote simple futurity in the first person.
Will and its past tense form would denote simple futurity in the second and third persons.
Hence the following were supposed to be the proper forms of expressing simple futurity:
I shall, you will, die some day.
Shall I, will they, be here to-morrow?
We should, he would, have consented if you had asked.
Should we, would he, have missed you if you had been there?
I should, you would, like a bath.
Should I, would he, like it myself, himself?

Modal future

Example of shall in the lead editorial of the Chicago Tribune after the Chicago Fire.
As a modification of the simple future, the verbs shall and will are used to express the speaker's
wish, intention, menace, assurance, consent, refusal, promise, offer, permission, command, etc.
Under this colored future system, the verbs are really used as extensions of the pure system verbs
shall and will:
Shall and its past looser tense form should denote the modal future in the second and third
persons.
Will and its past tense form would denote the modal future in the first person.
Hence:
I will tell you presently. (My promise.)
You shall repent it before long. (My menace.)
He shall not have any. (My refusal.)
We would go if we could. (Our conditional intention.)
You should do it if we could make you. (Our conditional command.)
They should have had it if they had asked. (My conditional consent.)

Current usage

At the beginning of the 20th century, the various special cases made it necessary for Fowler's
The King's English to devote 20 pages to the rules for shall vs. will, with the comment "the
idiomatic use, while it comes by nature to southern Englishmen ... is so complicated that those
who are not to the manner born can hardly acquire it".
According to the English grammarian Charles Talbut Onions, the correct idiomatic use of shall
and will was an infallible test of the true English speaker, since American, Irish, and Scottish
speakers have such difficulty using the words correctly. There is an illustrative old joke about the
Scotsman who drowned in a river because he had cried "I will die! Nobody shall help me!"
Many current authorities, however, regard this approach as too formal, arguing that will is
displacing shall in most situations. Some dispute whether the rule ever applied. For instance, the
Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, OUP, 2002, says of the rule for the use of shall and will:
"it is unlikely that this rule has ever had any consistent basis of authority in actual usage, and
many examples of English in print disregard it". The rule has even less force in American
English, where shall has a much more restricted role, and the negative contraction shan't does not
occur.
The old should-would distinction partially lives on with its sense of obligation (which is really
command expressed in the conditional) for should, whereas would has lost any identifiable sense
of wish except as an archaism or affectation; it is now used exclusively as a simple-conditional;
should is synonymous with ought to.
Nevertheless, there are notable remaining uses of shall and ‘‘should’’, which remain present in
modern language:
Legal codes use "shall" and "shall not" to express mandatory action and prohibition.
Songs and poetry may use "shall," as in "I Shall Be Released", "We Shall Overcome", and "Shall
We Gather at the River?"
A speaker who normally says "I will" or "I'll" may use "I shall" as a marker of irony.
In many parts of the English-speaking world (but not in the United States), shall is the normal
form for first-person offers and suggestions of the type: A: It is a bit hot in here. B: Shall I open
a window? (In the United States, the speaker would say, "Should I open the window?")
Other uses noted below
In American English, the supposed traditional differences are not observed except in the limited
case of formal legislative acts. Should and would, which are under no threat of extinction, are
both used either as conditionals or to refer to future events in the past; should to express
obligation, and would to express a conditional copula.

External links

"Shall and Will." Fowler, H. W. 1908.

The King's English - thorough discussion on the subject
"shall." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
"should." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
"if." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. - "The
Origins of some Prescriptive Grammar Rules" - quoting The Origins and Development of the
English Language, Pyles and Algeo, 1993