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