Shall vs. Will? Why?
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Gregorian Missal:
    Ask, and you will receive; seek, and you shall find; knock, and
    it shall be opened to you; for all who ask, receive, he who seeks,
    finds, and to him who knocks it shall be opened, alleluia.

    Why not "Ask, and you shall receive" ?
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,200
    I think it's a matter of action and intention. "Ask" does not express the degree of action that "seek" and "knock" do. "You will" is used with "ask" as the simple (non-intentional) future for second or third person subject; on the other hand, "you shall" and "it shall" express a different (either determinative, command, or willful) future action. In other words, "I/we shall" and "you, he, she, it/they will" express a simple (non-intentional, non-determinative, non-command) form of the future tense, while "I/we will" and "you/he, she, it/they shall" express the more emphatic, less simple (intentional, determinative, command) form of the future tense. This is in keeping with the "older" or "stickier" or traditional interpretation.

    Thus, "Ask, and you will receive" simply means that something will happen. "Seek, and you shall find" and "Knock, and it shall be opened to you" represent (to me, at least) the willful (will of God) determinate future consequence of asking or knocking.

    Chuck
    Thanked by 1Ragueneau
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    I see A and B as more similar than B and C.
    Thanked by 1Ragueneau
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    Absolutely no reason. The difference between shall and will is that one is emphatic ("I will," "you shall") and the other is not ("I shall," "you will").

    Assuming you're referring to the communion chant for this Sunday, the Latin forms are identical.
    Thanked by 1Ragueneau
  • Bruce E. Ford
    Posts: 431
    The editors of the psalter found in the Episcopal Church's 1979 Book of Common Prayer decided to ignore the grammarians' distinctions between shall and will, noting that these distinctions were not observed in the Coverdale psalter. I suspect that they were not observed in the King James Version or the Revised Standard Version, either.

    According to grammarians: In the first person shall is simply declarative and will expresses strong volition; but in the second and third persons will is simply declarative and shall has imperative force.
    Thanked by 3Ragueneau E_A_Fulhorst Ioannes Andreades
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,424
    Many thanks, Bruce:
    I prefer to retain the grammarians' distinctions, and, I shant ignore them.
    Thanked by 1Ragueneau
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Which grammarians?

    Different books at different times have made statements about it either way. Furthermore, grammarians are supposed to be reporting what is correct, not deciding what is correct. How exactly is some punitive schoolmarm in a position to argue English usage with Coverdale (or Shakespeare, or King James).

    There are all sorts of "rules" that were essentially made up by these "grammarians" in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and which had no basis in historical usage among even the best writers. (For example: Did you know that Shakespeare uses the third-person singular non-gendered "we" on more than one occasion?)

    As Strunk and White point out- the best guide to writing style is the ear of an experienced reader. That's why Kathy keeps saying that if you want to write good hymns, you need to read a lot of hymns. I've never heard her say you need to read a lot of grammar books.
    Thanked by 4CHGiffen CharlesW Ragueneau E_A_Fulhorst
  • WiesOrganista
    Posts: 128
    Maybe it's a typo? LOL
    Thanked by 1Ragueneau
Add a Comment