Proper English... "going to"

[John Cuthber]

 

Not according to the Oxford English.

 

The word is the present tense of a verb, which has its roots in the Gothic 'skal' and the old Dutch 'zal' etc

 

Will, it seems BTW, is also the present tense of an Old Gothic verb wilja, Old Dutch wil etc

 

Thank you for getting me to look it up.

OK, so what's the difference between

"I will eat" and

"I shall eat"

?

[Delta1212]

 

It looks a little bit like the subjunctive. (But because English doesn't mark the subjunctive, it is hard to be sure.)

Hm, you might be right.

[Strange]

 

Not according to the Oxford English.

 

The word is the present tense of a verb, which has its roots in the Gothic 'skal' and the old Dutch 'zal' etc

 

Will, it seems BTW, is also the present tense of an Old Gothic verb wilja, Old Dutch wil etc

 

Thank you for getting me to look it up.

 

This appears to be another example of the etymological fallacy.

 

Shall and will are both auxiliary verbs that express the future tense.

 

The future tense of "be" is "will be", "shall be" or going to be".

 

Delta212 is correct that "will" as an auxiliary derives from a verb meaning "to wish".

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=will

 

"Shall" derives from a verb meaning "owe" or "must"

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=shall

 

Because of their origins, there can still an implication that "will" means something you intend to do, rather than something that is inevitable. But I don't think many modern speakers make this distinction.

[Delta1212]

OK, so what's the difference between

"I will eat" and

"I shall eat"

?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_and_will

 

If you read down, it notes that the Germanic languages didn't retain a future tense from PIE and ended up making use of auxiliary verbs instead. Will and shall are two such verbs, but are not technically, themselves, the future tense of any particular verbs, including 'to be.'

 

"I was correct."

"I am correct."

"I shall correct?" "I will correct?"

The future tense would be "I shall/will be correct" where shall/will is an auxiliary verb modifying the verb 'to be.'

 

This appears to be another example of the etymological fallacy.

 

Shall and will are both auxiliary verbs that express the future tense.

 

The future tense of "be" is "will be", "shall be" or going to be".

 

Delta212 is correct that "will" as an auxiliary derives from a verb meaning "to wish".

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=will

 

"Shall" derives from a verb meaning "owe" or "must"

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=shall

 

Because of their origins, there can still an implication that "will" means something you intend to do, rather than something that is inevitable. But I don't think many modern speakers make this distinction.

Their origins are most visible when comparing with the forms should/would/could.

 

Should: I am hypothetically obligated to do something

 

Would: I hypothetically want to do something

 

Could (from can): I am hypothetically able to do something

[studiot]

 

online etymological dictionary

The word (go - my expanation in brackets) in its various forms and combinations takes up 45 columns of close print in the OED.

 

I have to observe that your reference source prostrates itself before the OED, since it manages 5 lines about the same word and does not seem to describe the use of go as an auxiliary verb at all.

Edited September 26, 2014 by studiot

[Delta1212]

 

I have to observe that your reference source prostrates itself before the OED, since it manages 5 lines about the same word and does not seem to describe the use of go as an auxiliary verb at all.

Still, though, shall isn't used as a present tense form of a verb meaning 'owe' any longer, and the form of 'will' under discussion isn't the present tense form of the verb meaning 'to want or to desire.' As used in the future tense, both are auxiliary verbs used pretty much exclusively (especially in American English) to denote tense, although both were derived from their respective aforementioned verb forms.

 

You were correct, however, that neither is the future tense of the verb 'to be' and that they are both derived from other sources, so I'm not going to say it's strictly the etymology fallacy, although technically it's not completely outside the realm of possibility that a word with a different etymological origin could be adopted as the future tense of another word, so simply providing the etymology of the word doesn't strictly prove what its current usage is, which I think is what Strange was getting at.

[Strange]

 

I have to observe that your reference source prostrates itself before the OED, since it manages 5 lines about the same word and does not seem to describe the use of go as an auxiliary verb at all.

 

Because it is not a dictionary in the same sense as the OED. The OED provides definitions, usage, citations and etymology.

 

The Online Etymological Dictionary (OED?) is purely intended to give a summary of etymology.

[studiot]

 

Because it is not a dictionary in the same sense as the OED. The OED provides definitions, usage, citations and etymology.

 

The Online Etymological Dictionary (OED?) is purely intended to give a summary of etymology.

 

 

And yet your source does describe the use of shall and will as auxiliary verbs, but not go.

 

The OED is quite clear that shall & will are in the present tense (should & would in the past) when used as auxiliarly verbs. (p2802 and p 3687 in my copy)

Edited September 26, 2014 by studiot

[Strange]

And yet your source does decribe the use of shall and will as auxiliary verbs, but no go.

 

I guess that is because that is their main use in modern English. It does give a very brief modern meaning for each word as it is important for the discussion of etymology.