shall

[2006]

All modals can be used with a modal perfect to talk about past events;

I have always assumed that is what they mean by being the 'past tense of ____'.

Just call me and I will help you.
I would have helped you, but you didn't call.

He said he shall do it immediately.
Good, so he should have done it by now.

2006

[albeit]

...
I am convinced that would is the past tense of will, but I am not convinced at all that should is the past tense of shall.
I do not know why!!

What has convinced you that would is the past tense of will, Sash?

[albeit]

albeit: All modals can be used with a modal perfect to talk about past events;

2006
I have always assumed that is what they mean by being the 'past tense of ____'.

Just call me and I will help you.
I would have helped you, but you didn't call.

He said he shall do it immediately.
Good, so he should have done it by now.

I've never hear that argument put forward by any person or any source as an illustration that modals have tense, 2006.

There is no syntactic connection in your examples between the verbs in the paired sentences. Past tense verbs, when they are being used syntactically as past tenses, have both a semantic and a syntactic connection to their present tense form.

Jump! -->> I jumped.

In your second example, there isn't even a semantic connection.

In your first example, "would have helped" does not describe a past action, which is what a past tense does and which is what most people, including all these ESL students expect it to do.

"would have helped" describes an unrealized future, an event that never took place. There's no doubt that each modal does have its uses and vestiges of what they once were, remain to today so that the normal neutral for describing a counterfactual situation falls to those modals that were, historically, the past tense forms.

How would you account for the purported present tense modals doing the same thing, ie. being used to describe past events?

He climbed the frozen waterfall.
He can't have climbed that thing.

even the purported "future tense" modal, 'will';

"Whatever business challenges you face, it is highly likely that another member of your group will have already tackled it. ..

As you will have already seen I have changed the colour scheme.

[sash2008]

What has convinced you that would is the past tense of will, Sash?

From the very early years in learning English for me, I know that we use "should" to give advice.
I know that "shall" means will.
So, there is no relation between them.
So, I am not convinced that should is the past tense of shall.


Regarding will and would, I think they have the same meaning and the only difference is in time or tense.

Note:
When we want to change a sentence from direct to indirect or "reported speech" and this sentence contains "will" we change it into "would"; as we do in all cases of tenses.

http://www.athabascau.ca/courses/eng...ect_speech.htm

[albeit]

Regarding will and would, I think they have the same meaning and the only difference is in time or tense.

will and would, like can and could share certain areas of meaning but they have different meanings and different nuances.

A quick look at a few examples from English tells us that the two have no tense, Sash. Modals carry emotive/modal meaning into sentences, not tense.

Will you have some tea? & Would you like some tea?

He would do that/He will do that

He would have already come here. / He will have already come here.

Note:
When we want to change a sentence from direct to indirect or "reported speech" and this sentence contains "will" we change it into "would"; as we do in all cases of tenses.

What you have to understand. Sash, is that these changes from direct to reported speech are not examples of actually changing tense inorder to mark a past time/a finished action.

English uses what's called backshifting, as an indicator to listeners, readers, that the person isn't giving the actual words of the original speaker/writer.

The change is a change in FORM specifically for this purpose, denoting that it is an indirect quotation and not a direct quotation.

Watch:

Sash: I will go to London.

Bill: [to Joe] What did he say, Joe?

Joe: He said that he would go to London.

There's no past tense in 'would' because you, Sash haven't gone anywhere. Joe could/can also say,

Joe: He says that he will go to London.

OR

Joe: He said that he will go to London.

None of these examples of reported speech address the action, they only address one thing, what was said and the saying is marked by 'said' and that is the only past action involved here.

Look at all many many examples of reported speech. None of them have anything to do with any finished actions. The change in tense is only a change in tense FORM, again for one specific purpose, to mark it as reported/indirect speech.

[2006]

I've never hear that argument put forward by any person or any source as an illustration that modals have tense, 2006.
But used in combination with other words they can express tense, as you indicated. And this is the way I can see "would" and "should" being considered to be past tenses of "will" and "shall", and it makes some sense to me.


There is no syntactic connection in your examples between the verbs in the paired sentences. Past tense verbs, when they are being used syntactically as past tenses, have both a semantic and a syntactic connection to their present tense form.
Well usually they do, but I don't know that they have to have a close syntactic connection.


In your second example, there isn't even a semantic connection.
I don't agree. Of course, should has more than one meaning.

'He should do it.' (should = ought to)
'He (should)(ought to) have done it by now. But he didn't.'

'Good, so he should have done it by now.'
Here "should" means that as far as I am concerned, it is done.
So, I think one can argue that there is a semantic connection

In your first example, "would have helped" does not describe a past action, which is what a past tense does I agree, and I'll try another example in a minute. But even in that example, one can say that "would" is the past tense. One can't say, 'I will have helped you, but you didn't call.'
"would" is conditional, but why can't it also be a past conditional?

'I am certain it would be done already.' expresses a past action.

How would you account for the purported present tense modals doing the same thing, ie. being used to describe past events?

He climbed the frozen waterfall.
He can't have climbed that thing. I would say 'He couldn't have climbed that thing.'

even the purported "future tense" modal, 'will';

"Whatever business challenges you face, it is highly likely that another member of your group will have already tackled it. One might say that "would" is better, or at least that you can choose between the present and past words. (if you see "would' as being the past form)


As you will have already seen I have changed the colour scheme. As this expresses the past, "will" is not needed.

I tried to explain how I can see "would" and "should" being past tense equivalents. I admit that those two word's function as past tense forms is not glaringly obvious, but again I can see why they are considered to be past tense forms.


Some of my 'answers' were more involved, others perhaps more off the cuff. But I think they have validity.

The next word is yours.

[albeit]

Originally Posted by albeit
I've never hear that argument put forward by any person or any source as an illustration that modals have tense, 2006.

But used in combination with other words they can express tense, as you indicated. And this is the way I can see "would" and "should" being considered to be past tenses of "will" and "shall", and it makes some sense to me.

Yes, I noted that all modal verbs can be used in all time situations. This includes the purported present tense modals. Verbs that can be used in all time situations have to be tenseless.

In modal perfect sentences,

He can't/couldn't have done that.

He won't/wouldn't have done that.

the modals are used only to carry modal/emotive meaning. The time aspect is conveyed by the use of "have + PP". If the modals carried the tense/time meaning, then "have + PP" wouldn't be needed.

As you well know, there is considerable difference in meaning between,

He couldn't have done that and He couldn't do that.

He can't have done that and He can't do that.


Albeit wrote: There is no syntactic connection in your examples between the verbs in the paired sentences. Past tense verbs, when they are being used syntactically as past tenses, have both a semantic and a syntactic connection to their present tense form.

Well usually they do, but I don't know that they have to have a close syntactic connection.

And a most important consideration that you seem to be trying to avoid is their semantic connection; something that is virtually always missing when we deal with modals.

Is it that much trouble to come up with examples?


Albeit wrote: In your second example, there isn't even a semantic connection.

I don't agree. Of course, should has more than one meaning.

'He should do it.' (should = ought to)
'He (should)(ought to) have done it by now. But he didn't.'

'Good, so he should have done it by now.'
Here "should" means that as far as I am concerned, it is done.
So, I think one can argue that there is a semantic connection

'should' does have more than one meaning, but a recitation of those meanings doesn't mean that you've shown a semantic connection to 'shall' as you used it in your example.

He said he shall do it immediately.
Good, so he should have done it by now.


Albeit wrote: In your first example, "would have helped" does not describe a past action, which is what a past tense does.

I agree, and I'll try another example in a minute. But even in that example, one can say that "would" is the past tense. One can't say, 'I will have helped you, but you didn't call.'

You can't use 'will', or 'could' or should' for that matter, because they don't fit semantically. "will have [already] done sth" is a step below "has/have done something" in terms of level of certainty, so an "I" person can't use 'will' in this fashion for an "I' knows what he or she is about, what he or she has done.

"would" is conditional, but why can't it also be a past conditional?

'I am certain it would be done already.' expresses a past action.

No, it doesn't. It offers one's speculation of the likelihood of an action being done. It doesn't describe a past action anymore than,

It might/may have been done // It probably/likely/almost certainly has been done.


Albeit wrote:
How would you account for the purported present tense modals doing the same thing, ie. being used to describe past events?

He climbed the frozen waterfall.
He can't have climbed that thing.

I would say 'He couldn't have climbed that thing.'

even the purported "future tense" modal, 'will';

"Whatever business challenges you face, it is highly likely that another member of your group will have already tackled it.

One might say that "would" is better, or at least that you can choose between the present and past words. (if you see "would' as being the past form)

As you will have already seen I have changed the colour scheme.

As this expresses the past, "will" is not needed.

Your comments are at best, considerations of style. You have allowed that they are possible, they certainly are grammatical.

Just one of the examples, the last one, with 'will'. It is needed if that's the nuance the speaker wants.

As you have already seen, ...

is a simple statement of fact. With 'will', added, there is emotive meaning added to the sentence.

As you will have already seen, ...

[sash2008]

Ok. The argument is still there over shall and should.
Why then is it stated clearly in ALL dictionaries that should is the past of shall?
Why don't you agree?
I am very confused and really I am surprised that there is a piece of information in all dictionaries that even I, being not a native speaker, suspect it.

[bhaisahab]

Ok. The argument is still there over shall and should.
Why then is it stated clearly in ALL dictionaries that should is the past of shall?
Why don't you agree?
I am very confused and really I am surprised that there is a piece of information in all dictionaries that even I, being not a native speaker, suspect it.

"Should" is not given as the past tense of "shall", the O.E. sceolde is given as the past tense of sceal. "Sceolde" is the origin of should and "sceal" is the origin of shall. A lot of things have changed since the 12th century, the English language has changed almost beyond recognition, here is an example of Old English:
Cnut cyning gret his arcebiscopas and his leod-biscopas and Þurcyl eorl and ealle his eorlas and ealne his þeodscype, twelfhynde and twyhynde, gehadode and læwede, on Englalande freondlice.
This is the translation, keeping the original structure:
Cnut, king, greeteth his archbishops and his people-bishops and Þurcyl, earl, and all his earls and all his peopleship, greater (having a 1200 shilling weregild) and lesser (200 shilling weregild), hooded(ordained to priesthood) and lewd(lay), in England friendly.

[sash2008]

"Should" is not given as the past tense of "shall", the O.E. sceolde is given as the past tense of sceal. "Sceolde" is the origin of should and "sceal" is the origin of shall. A lot of things have changed since the 12th century, the English language has changed almost beyond recognition, here is an example of Old English:
Cnut cyning gret his arcebiscopas and his leod-biscopas and Þurcyl eorl and ealle his eorlas and ealne his þeodscype, twelfhynde and twyhynde, gehadode and læwede, on Englalande freondlice.
This is the translation, keeping the original structure:
Cnut, king, greeteth his archbishops and his people-bishops and Þurcyl, earl, and all his earls and all his peopleship, greater (having a 1200 shilling weregild) and lesser (200 shilling weregild), hooded(ordained to priesthood) and lewd(lay), in England friendly.

So, in conclusion, what is your opinion or what is the correct answer of my original question?
Is "should" the past tense of "shall"?
What is the relation between them?