Select the sentence with the correct grammar

who's the person that will choose whose shoes will/should (but shall doesn't sound right for some reason) be replaced?[/b]

That's a good point. For the most part, I have very good grammar, but there are some things that I am not certain about--such as this.

I believe that "shall" is accurate here, but I cannot explain why.

Can someone please tell me when it is proper to use will vs. shall?
(please give examples)

Originally posted by econundrum
That's a good point. For the most part, I have very good grammar, but there are some things that I am not certain about--such as this.

I believe that "shall" is accurate here, but I cannot explain why.

Can someone please tell me when it is proper to use will vs. shall?
(please give examples)

Traditionally the system has been as follows:

If the subject (shoes in this case) is 'I' or 'we', then 'shall' simply expresses the future, whereas 'will' is more emphatic, expressing a determination/obligation on the part of the speaker to make it so:

"I shall surely perish!" - I'm gonna die! 🙁
"I will surely perish!" - I've finally come up with a suicide method that's guaranteed to kill me 🙂

If the subject is anyone or anything else, 'will' is neutral, and 'shall' expresses a determination/obligation on somebody's part:

"Cinderella, you will go to the ball." - bland statement of fact
"Cinderella, you shall go to the ball!" - because I'm going to make sure you do, OR if you don't you're going to be in trouble

This leads to the story of the man who, upon falling in a river, cried "I shall drown, and no-one will save me," which caused pedantic passers-by to agree to his request by not saving him.

These days, though, these uses of 'shall' have largely fallen out of fashion (it doesn't help that 'I'll' can mean 'I will' or 'I shall'😉. This is more true in US English than in UK English, but nowadays even British people tend to use 'will' to mean 'shall' in these contexts; in fact, the traditional usage can sound pretentious or old-fashioned.

Shall can also be used in the first person in questions like "Shall I go?" or "Shall we buy tickets?" This usage is alive and well in US and UK English, so there's no problem here.

In summary, if you never use 'shall' except in asking if someone wants you to do something, you're on safe ground. However, using 'will' and 'shall' in the traditional manner allows you to place a different emphasis on the statement.

Originally posted by econundrum
That's a good point. For the most part, I have very good grammar, but there are some things that I am not certain about--such as this.

I believe that "shall" is accurate here, but I cannot explain why.

Can someone please tell ...[text shortened]... en it is proper to use will vs. shall?
(please give examples)

Depends. If the person who chooses will simply cause the shoes to be replaced (eg he does it himself), then I'd use 'will'. If, on the other hand, he causes there to be an obligation to replace the shoes (eg he's the boss, but others will replace the shoes), 'shall' is OK, but I'd replace it with 'are to' to make the meaning clearer.

Originally posted by Asher123
but that last one isn't quite right...

I may have taken liberties to include as many problem words as I could in that sentence.

I must admit that this thread is really a pet peeve thinly disguised as a set of questions.

What is it with all the poor grammar that is being sent throughout the Internet. 🙁

-Ray.

Originally posted by rgoudie
I may have taken liberties to include as many problem words as I could in that sentence.

I must admit that this thread is really a pet peeve thinly disguised as a set of questions.

What is it with all the poor grammar that is being sent throughout the Internet. 🙁

-Ray.

Perhaps because a lot of internet users are not native to the english language?

Originally posted by NicolaiS
Perhaps because a lot of internet users are not native to the english language?

I did not specify it, but I was referring to native speakers. I apologize if I offended any non-native English speakers.

I was referring to native speakers that should know otherwise. 😕

-Ray.

Originally posted by skilliau
Call me fick or summit! But when are you supposed to use 'who' and when are you supposed to use 'whom'? Answers on a postcard!🙄

You may be pleased to learn that this particular distinction is falling out of favour. According to various online English web sites that I have stumbled upon during the past few years, using "who" in either case is gaining favour.

-Ray.

Originally posted by rgoudie
I did not specify it, but I was referring to native speakers. I apologize if I offended any non-native English speakers.

I was referring to native speakers that should know otherwise. 😕

-Ray.

oh it's not a problem - I'm not native to the engloosh language 🙂

Originally posted by rgoudie
I may have taken liberties to include as many problem words as I could in that sentence.
I must admit that this thread is really a pet peeve thinly disguised as a set of questions.
What is it with all the poor grammar that is being sent throughout the Internet. 🙁

-Ray.

i agree.
some clarifications: "your" is the possessive of the pronoun "you" ("is this your chess clock?", and "is this set yours?"; "you're" is a contraction for "you are". incorrect forms: youre, your's, you's.
"there" denotes place, usually opposed to "here" and "there's" is a contraction for "there is"; "their" is the possessive of "they" ("their chess set"; "this board is theirs" ); and "they're" is a contraction for "they are". incorrect: they'r, thei'r, their's, theres.
"to" is used as a prepostion indicating direction ("move rook to a5" ) or as part of the infinitive form of verbs ("to move" ). "too" means "overly" or "also". "two" is a number.
"who's" is a contraction for "who is" or "who has" ("who's on first?" or "who's been eating my porridge?" ), while "whose" is the possessive of "who". the only incorrect form i have seen is "who'se"(!).
i have seen more idiotic usage cropping up also. such as omitting apostrophes in contractions ("ill", "im", and "wed" for "i'll" "i'm", and "we'd" ), and the converse, such as "it's" (= contraction for "it is" or "it has" ) when "its" (the possessive of the pronoun "it" ) is meant; and redundancies such as "atm machine" (the machine that manufactures automated teller machines?), "pin number" (might have significance in a bowling alley) "hiv virus" (the virus that attacks the human immunodeficiency virus?), and one i've been seeing more of lately, "faqs" or "faq's". the former would be okay if you had several lists of frequently asked questions, but the latter is ridiculous: "frequently asked questions's"!
here are more pet peeves of mine:
him and i went to the chess tournament.
this chess set is for you and i and is a gift from my brother.
how come you wasn't at the meeting?
i went to the grocery store and bought peas, carrots, beans, and etc. [or, even worse, ect.].
please rsvp.
these last two show ignorance of foreign abbreviations. "etc." is latin for "et cetera, meaning "and so on". "and etc." is thus redundant, and "ect." is simply wrong.
"rsvp" is french for "repondez s'il vous plai[circumflex]t" and is translated as 'please reply" though the literal meaning is "reply if it pleases you". "please rsvp" is thus "please please reply" which sounds like a beg.
by the way, if you see any misusages in my writing (except for placement of quotation marks at the end of sentences or before commas, which is a personal preference), they are typos--i miss a number of them.
darn-a quote followed by right paren is a smiley! i had to go back and put spaces in each place i did that!
i just wish you hadn't had to use an example involving footwear. *g*

Originally posted by BarefootChessPlayer
by the way, if you see any misusages in my writing ...

Is the complete lack of any capitalization a misuse? 😉

-Ray.