A verb that seems so safe — so forensic — fusty, old-fashioned, stolid, goodie-two-shoes — but yet so tantalisingly vague.
Vague in that “shall” can be an airily floated aspiration for the future — “I say,” said Jenkins, absent-mindedly knocking out his pipe on a passing child’s head, “I do believe I shall go to the theatre tonight!” — but just as easily can be a stentorian direction to an underling to carry out a binding duty: “You shall do the dishes, young lady, and you shall do them NOW”.
Lawyers like the latter formulation, a lot, and spray it around as if they're standing behind a Gatling gun loaded with shalls[1]. But here's the problem: conjugation. A wilful shall to me is a stentorian one to you, and vice versa[2]. You can’t just spray your shalls and wills around around willy-nilly[3].
Airily floated future aspiration
Stentorian command
I shall
You will
He she or it will
We shall
You will
They will
I will
You shall
He she or it shall
We will
You shall
They shall
If, in other words, you’re going to be a dick about it, then you have to be careful which you mean, especially if you are one of these new age folk who like to write contracts in the first and second person. There again, if you’re one of those, you’re not likely to be using any kind of shall in the first place, because “must” will do, and it won’t make you sound like quite such an egg.
References
↑Thank-you, ladies and gentlemen. There’s a hat going round.
