152
The Loom of Language
When used in the first person after / or wc^ the verb shall is equivalent
to a particle indicating the indefinite luture Otherwise it retains its old
Teutonic meaning akin to mw>t or have to (e g thou tiiah not commit
adultery) In the first person the related form should is used after the
statement of a condition, as in / should be glad if he came In expressions
involving the second or third person^ will and would are generally equi-
valent to shall or should involving the first Otherwise they revert to their
original Teutonic meaning illustrated by the adjective willing This
distinction is not as clear-cut or universal, as arm-chair grammarians
TEUTONIC HELPER VERBS I'RQJM SAME ROOTS
i-NGLISH
SWLPHH
DANISH
nurcn
GIRMAN
f I can \ I could
jag kan j«ig kunde
jcg kan jeg kunde
ikkan ik kon
ich kaan ich konnte
f I shall \ I should
jag skall jag skulle
jeg skal jcg skuldc
ik t&l ik zoudc
ich soil ich sollte
f I will \ I would
jag vill jag ville
JCg Vll
jeg vilde
ik wil ik wildc
ich will ich wolltc
I must
jag m&ste
ik meet
ich muss
I let
jag liter
jeg lader
ik laat
ich lasse
f I may \ I might
jag rnfi jag mitte
jeg maa jeg mantle
ik mag ik mocht
ich mag ich mOchtc
would lead us to suppose Few English-speaking people recognize
any difference between (a) I should do this, if he asked me, (&) I would
do this, if he asked me
Since can and must are the most reliable helpers, it is best to use their
equivalents whenever either shares the territory of another such as
shall, haw*, may. The use of can and mutt is not foolpioof, unless the
beginner is alert to one pitfall of translation from English into any
Romance or any other Teutonic language* Like oughty can and must
form peculiar combinations with have (could tef> must havey ought to
have] for which the literal equivalent in other languages is have could,,
ham must, have ought. The easiest to deal with is can* It is correct to use
the corresponding German (konrim) or French (poiwoir) verb in the
present or simple past where the English equivalent is either can-could
or is able towas Me toy eta5 but / could have does not mean the same
as I have "been Me to. It is equivalent to / should h<we been able to. To