Talk:should

Must

What is the difference between must and should?? — This unsigned comment was added by 201.245.2.45 (talk).

Must is a bit more forceful. Must means that the event absolutely has to occur, that it is certain, or something bad may happen if it does not occur. Hope this helps. – Andyluciano 19:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed the definition to show more clearly how should compares with must. Let me know if it's still unclear. Rodasmith 20:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In case of

Surely the "if" meaning of "should" is a conjunction? Yet it's under Verb... --OranginaMan 23:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC) I've changed my mind, now reckoning it to be something more sinister, perhaps a form of subjunctive-esque construction (think "Were I a boy, I would..."), though who knows... --OranginaMan 18:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I should hope not

Would a native speaker be kind enough to add details clarifying the use of "should" in this example? Is it my imagination or can "should" be substituted for "would" at some times? TIA. --Utsutsu 23:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Would" and "should" can often be more or less substituted only in phrases where the meaning is to indicate a conditional. "Should" adds more emphasis than "would". "If I went to Paris, I would visit the Louvre." "If I went to Paris, I should visit the Louvre."

"Should" is more commonly used for advice. "If YOU went to Paris, YOU should visit the Louvre." which is why it is less neutral than "would" in a conditional sentence. So, a phrase such as "I should hope not" is an emphatic form of "I would hope not".
Other uses of "would" and "should" are not normally interchangeable. One day I hope to have a brief appendix written about usage of English modal verbs. (One day.) -- ALGRIF talk 15:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should ask

What meaning is used in Funny you should ask? --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like the subjunctive to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

/ʃt/

Longman Pronunciation Dictionary adds weak /ʃt/ (!), yet for shoulda weak /ʃtə/ --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

(auxiliary, formal, literary) A variant of would with first person subjects

Of what meaning(s) of would exactly is it a variant? --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Should have

Should have is the direct past tense of should. However, must/might/could have show probability. Thus, to show the past tense of must for obligation/advice, we have to either use had to or should have. Must have means that the only possible explanation is that it happened. Might/could have means that it is possible that it happened.
Obligation	Present: You must finish your essay by Friday. Past: You should have finished your essay by Friday.
Probability	(The only possible explanation is that he is/was) Present: He must be telling the truth.  Past: He must have been telling the truth. 
Source 

--Backinstadiums (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I should say so!

Which definition does I should say so! fit under?

A: Did you have a good day at the racetrack?
B: I should say so! I got a payout of fifty to one!

It doesn't particularly look conditional, because the outcome is already completely obvious to the speaker.

Contrasting with I would say so! I got a payout of fifty to one!, the only conditionality I can imagine is along the lines "If anyone were to ask me, then I ..."

So is it just a weird idiom indicating "I ought to say that, because..."?

Contrasting with I should say "yes"! I got a payout of fifty to one!, this strikes me as highly unnatural. It seems almost like, "Well, the obvious answer is "yes", but I'm prevented from saying so directly."

—DIV (1.145.20.105 13:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC))

Sense 5. "(auxiliary) An alternative to would with first person subjects". Yes, it's idiomatic and unusual. Equinox ◑ 13:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Which sense of would?

In the current example, perhaps something related to "Could naturally have been expected to (given the tendencies of someone's character etc.)."???

I had a look through the three alternative 'sub-definitions' under Sense 5, and none of them seemed like a great fit for the above idiom.

And more generally, in the Sense 5 definition of should, is that allowing every sense of would? If not, perhaps the definition here should specify "modal senses of would" or "past tense senses of would", or whatever.

—DIV (1.145.32.243 10:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC))

Usage note: vs ought to

It is often asserted that ought to implies a sense of duty rather than pure obligation or advice. This distinction may stem from the fact that ought is an old past participle form of the verb owe and we "owe a duty".

https://www.eltconcourse.com/training/inservice/modality/central_modal_verbs.html JMGN (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)