rogatories, we find, by a little attention, that the choice for the different futures depends on the same principles as in direct assertions. The expected answer ought always to be made by the same auxiliary with which the question is asked; and the answer will immediately determine the choice. Thus, "When shall we meet again?" is to be answered by "We shall meet again" (at such a time). Had the reply been "We will meet again" (at such a time) it would have expressed the will, or desire, of meeting, which was no part of the question. Again, "Shall your brother be in town to-morrow?" The answer, if in terms of the question, must either be "He shall" or "He shall not," which, in either case, would imply compulsion; and, therefore, if it were not intended to exercise power over this brother, the question should have been put, as well as answered, by will. "Shall I have my money to-morrow" is proper; and the answer may be "You shall," which is a promise of payment. Shall I call upon you to-morrow” is a substitution of shall for may; or the sentence may be considered as elliptical, in place of "Shall I (be allowed to) call upon you tomorrow?" or, in other words, "Will you allow me to call upon you to-morrow?" "Shall I help you to a cup of tea?" "May I help you to a cup 66 of tea?" and "Will you allow me to help you to a cup of tea?" are spoken indiscriminately. The etiquette of polished society has prescribed laws to these and other colloquial phrases with which written language, in general, has nothing to do. The Scotch mode of expression "Will I call upon you?" or "Will I help you?" is, however, unquestionably, erroneous. It would signify “Am I willing to do so?" which is not, probably, the meaning of the speaker. We shall now proceed to give some miscellaneous examples of the application of these troublesome auxiliaries; but, previously, we beg the reader's attention to the following Rule, which embraces the whole of the subject; and, being of easy application, will be convenient for referring to in our explanatory remarks: GENERAL RULE. If the speaker is the nominative to the verb, and also determines its accomplishment;-or, if he is neither the nominative to the verb nor determines its accomplishment,—the proper auxiliary is WILL:-in every other case it is SHALL. Miscellaneous Examples. "I will speak." Here I is the nominative and also determines the act to speak, which therefore requires will. Had the speaker simply declared the act as a future, without alluding to his determination, the phrase should have been "I shall speak." He says that James will be hanged." This is a compound sentence, and will be better understood by reversing the clauses thus: "James will be hanged,—he says that." We have then only to consider the simple sentence, "James will be hanged," in which James is the nominative, but the speaker is not James, neither does he determine James's death; and, therefore, according to the Rule, will is the proper auxiliary. Had the speaker been a judge, and pronouncing his fiat from the judgment seat, he would, then, have determined James's death, and the expression would have been "He says that, James shall be hanged." "My master desires me to tell you that,—he will call upon you to-morrow.' Here it is the servant (not the master) who speaks; and he is neither the nominative of the verb call, nor possessed of power over the action; will is, therefore, the proper auxiliary. "Thou shalt not steal." Here the speaker is not the nominative, but he determines the verb, which, in consequence, requires shalt. Shall and must are often, erroneously, considered as syno nymous. They have nevertheless distinct meanings. "You must not steal" is an imperious moral precept, for which different reasons may be assigned; but "You shall not steal" is a mandate independent of any regard to the crime, and assumes that the speaker will exercise his power, either in preventing, or in punishing. When the latter is in view, the penal clause is frequently added, as, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." Speaking of the defender of a fortress, it may be said, "He will die rather than surrender," which, by Dr. Wallis's Rule, would be ungrammatical, because will is here in the third person, and nevertheless is not a simple future; but, according to the preceding General Rule, it is good English: for "the speaker is neither the nominative to the verb nor determines its accomplishment." "He shall die," &c. would express a determination in the speaker to put the governor to death, should he attempt to surrender the fortress. The solemn and the poetical styles have generally been said to be excepted from the ordinary rules, in the use of these auxiliaries: but this we believe, in most cases if not all, to be a misapprehension. The spirit of enthusiasm views the future as if it were present. The threatenings of the Bard and the denunciations of the Prophet, though derived from different sources, have a similarity of manner. The language too has the same name: it is that of Inspiration. When we look at the phraseology of ordinary life, we perceive no compulsive act unassociated with the agent that compels. If the judge say "the man shall die," we know that it is in consequence of the fiat of the speaker that the man is to suffer death; but the predictions of the prophet, or the poet, although they are equally absolute, suppose no energy inherent in the speaker; he is the real or the imaginary representative of a superior being in whose name he speaks. That being is shrouded in darkness. Unseen and unapproachable, his will is inexorable and his fiat irrevocable; and hence it is that denunciations of the future are so often allied to the sublime. The following examples will explain what we have now stated: 66 Rapt into future times, the Bard begun: A virgin shall conceive,- Whose sacred flower with fragrance fills the skies. |