Geek Weekend: You Shall Not Pass

When I was a kid, our English teacher told us that "shall" was no longer used as an alternative for "will" in the first person to express future. Imagine my surprise, when twenty years later my student showed me her homework where "Future Simple" (boy, how I hate it when people make up tenses) was, "I shall, we shall". The following year, though, she reported that her new teacher told them that "shall" was no longer used. I really dislike it when teachers dumb it down for the kids and tell them a ham-fisted truth. For three years, all my attempts to convince a child that "shall" is alive and well, crashed under, "But our teacher told us that is not used anymore!" We had to drill modal verbs (not just shall) for three months, kid you not, for the truth to settle down.

Myths about modal verbs.

1. "Must" is just like "have to" but stronger. (There are different sets of rules, refer to a grammar book.)
2. "Could" is a past of "can".  ("Can" and "could" are related but they are two different modal verbs.  Just like "will" and "would", "shall" and "should" they are used in the present for different situations. "Could" and "would" can be used for the past actions but that doesn't mean they are past simple of "can" and "will" respectively. Modal verbs don't change.)
3. "Shall" is "will" for "Future Simple" but it's not used anymore. (Future Simple is a figment of someone's imagination; shall is a totally different modal verb that has absolutely different rules and is alive and kicking.)

So, when do we use "shall" in the twenty-first century?

In questions, asking for suggestions or opinions, and in offers (note the first person).

• Shall we go? 
• What shall we do? 
• Shall I close the door?

In assertive sentences to express determination or obligation. (Note any person you like.)

• They shall win the game tonight. 
• You shall not pass!

One remark on teaching children. Often, teachers tell students something because they don't think children can understand the whole truth. However, children tend to remember nonsense. In my experience, if you tell them how it is the first around, they might actually understand it. In any case, you will have a far better outcome than trying to amend your original statement several years later. 

One of the results of poor teaching is the way Russians use the verb "have". Originally, they are taught that the verb for possession is "have got" as in "I have got a brother" and "I have not got a pony". Then, they are told that "got" could be dropped. Hence they say, "I have a brother" (good!) and "I have not a pony" (not so much). Another inconvenience for the "have got" learners is the past tense. Look up the table of the irregular verbs, "have - had - had", fantastic, "I have got a hamster" turns into "I had got a hamster" (which is wrong, in case you're wondering, and not just because the hamster is probably dead). Why not start with learning "have" and many years later introduce an alternative "have got" instead of creating problems for years to come?