Skip to main content

word choice - "Should" versus "would"


The NOAD reports the following notes about should and would:



The traditional rule is that should is used with first person pronouns (I and we), as in I said I should be late, and would is used with second and third persons (you, he, she, it, they), as in you didn't say you would be late. In practice, however, would is normally used instead of should in reported speech and conditional clauses: I said I would be late; if we had known, we would have invited her.



I thought that should and would really had a slightly different meaning. Am I wrong?



Answer



Smirkingman's answer is right but unhelpful. There are historically two different uses of "should", and kiamaluno is asking about the other one.


In older works you will find writers generally use "I/we should" where today most of us would write (and say) "I/we would", i.e. without any sense of obligation.


This is separate from the obligatory sense that smirkingman describes, and has no meaning different from "would".


There is a parallel with "shall" and "will" (and historically, "should" and "would" were the past tense of these): "Shall" has a sense of command - little used in speech today, but very much alive in legal documents and technical specifications; but for speakers of many varieties of English it is quite normal to say "I shall" as an alternative to "I will". For me at least "Shall I?" is the normal question form: I would only say "Will I?" when asking for a prediction.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more