SHOULD jako przeszla forma od SHALL

Temat przeniesiony do archwium
Uprzejmie prosze o pomoc:

Quirk et al. pisza:

'Although should cannot normally be regarded as a past form of shall, there are occasions when it is appropriately interpreted as such. in [3] below, should is a past tense equivalent of shall in indirect speech, and in [4], it appears to be a tentative past tense equivalent of shall in offers:
[3] I felt sure that we should meet again.
[4] Should I type these letters for you?
The use of should illustrated in [3] can have a flavour of preciosity.'


Czy w 4 chodzi o to, ze mozna to przetlumaczyc dwojako:
Should I type ... = Czy powinienem - czyli 'should' jest tutaj czasownikiem modalnym;
Should I type ... = Do you want me ... - czyli 'should' jest tutaj 'past tense of shall'? bo:

'in questions containing shall I/we, shall consults the wishes of the addressee, and thus moves from a volitional toward an obligational meaning. It is suitable for making offers:'

i zamiast 'shall' uzywamy 'should' zgodnie z uzyciem czasu przeszlego do wyrazenia 'tentative offers/requests'.

Czy dobrze to rozumiem?
edytowany przez labtes: 08 sty 2014
equivalent, czyli to jest to samo
can/could i shall/should

 »

Pomoc językowa - Sprawdzenie