Is "obligatory should" actually "subjunctive shall"? 1. Should is the past form of shell 2. Past form is sometimes used to indicate subjunctive mood. Such as "It's time you went to bed". (meaning obligation, or etc) 3. I've never thought like this and always deemed shall and should are two different things even though I know the fact that should is the past tense of shall. 4. So I was wondering, is this the true train of logic between the two words by any chance?
Jun 11, 2019 7:40 AM
Answers · 2
I really don't think this is the case. First of all, should as a past tense of shall seems like a pretty unhelpful simplification. It only acts that way under quite specific circumstances. In general, shall and should mean very different things. Should has some subjunctive uses, but they are very limited as well. Ex: A construction with the modal should is frequently used as an alternative to the simple present subjunctive, e.g., It is important that he should be cured. -Wikipedia It's definitely an interesting thought, but think that it's a massive oversimplification and I don't think it's helpful either. Probably better to just look at more sentences and learn specific uses. You can read more about English subjunctive here:
June 11, 2019
Still haven’t found your answers?
Write down your questions and let the native speakers help you!