Ok grammar nazis, is there anytime it's ok to use "should" instead of "would" like:
"I should like to tell you..."
"I should think so."
etc.
Or is it just pretentious?
Use it when it makes sense. "I would think so" implies the speaker would think affirmatively if he were smart, where "I should think so" implies the speaker should think affirmatively because he IS smart.
>>8116374
how am I not surprised that trap is from tumblr?
use "should" for conceived obligations
use "could" for mere opportunities
Can't really tell if that's a boy or a girl.
Would not stop me.
Should not stop me.
>>8116389
they're still cute
Only use "should of" instead of "would of". Too many times have I seen people on 4chan mocked for using "would of".
It is unfortunate that the idiomatic use, while it comes by nature to southern Englishmen (who will find most of this section superfluous), is so complicated that those who are not to the manner born can hardly acquire it; and for them the section is in danger of being useless. In apology for the length of these remarks it must be said that the short and simple directions often given are worse than useless. The observant reader soon loses faith in them from their constant failure to take him right; and the unobservant is the victim of false security.
Roughly speaking, should follows the same rules as shall, and would as will; in what follows, Sh. may be taken as an abbreviation for shall, should, and should have, and W. for will, would, and would have.
In our usage of the Sh. and W. forms, as seen in principal sentences, there are elements belonging to three systems. The first of these, in which each form retains its full original meaning, and the two are not used to give different persons of the same tense, we shall call the pure system: the other two, both hybrids, will be called, one the coloured-future, the other the plain-future system. In Old English there was no separate future; present and future were one. Shall and will were the presents of two verbs, to which belong also the pasts should and would, the conditionals should and would, and the past conditionals should have and would have. Shall had the meaning of command or obligation, and will of wish. But as commands and wishes are concerned mainly with the future, it was natural that a future tense auxiliary should be developed out of these two verbs. The coloured future results from the application to future time of those forms that were practically useful in the pure system; they consequently retain in the coloured future, with some modifications, the ideas of command and wish proper to the original verbs. The plain future results from the taking of those forms that were practically out of work in the pure system to make what had not before existed, a simple future tense; these have accordingly not retained the ideas of command and wish. Which were the practically useful and which the superfluous forms in the pure system must now be explained.
Thou shalt not steal is the type of shall in the pure system. We do not ordinarily issue commands to ourselves; consequently I shall is hardly required; but we often ask for orders, and therefore shall I? is required. The form of the shall present in the pure system is accordingly:
Shall I? You shall. He shall. Shall we? They shall.
As to the past tense, orders cannot be given, but may be asked about, so that, for instance, What should I do? (i.e., What was I to do?) can be done all through interrogatively.
[part 1]
>>8116374
terrible trap, look at that fucking mouth
2/10
>>8116374
they mean two different things.
should implies some level of obligation, often followed by "if" to establish a preferred outcome.
would refers to probability, often followed up with an "if" to establish criteria to highten said probability.
you should dress how you want to dress if it makes you happy.
you would dress how you wanted to dress if you didn't feel pressured not to.
In the conditionals, both statement and question can be done all through. I can give orders to my imaginary, though not to my actual self. I cannot say (as a command) I shall do it; but I can say, as a conditional command, I should do it.
I shall and we shall are accordingly the superfluous forms of the present shall in the pure system.
Again, with will, I will meaning it is my will, it is obvious that we can generally state this only of ourselves; we do not know the inside of other people's minds, but we can ask about it. The present runs, then,
I will. Will you? Will he? We will. Will they?
The past tense can here be done all through, both positively and interrogatively. For though we cannot tell other people's present will, we can often infer their past will from their actions. So (I was asked, but) I would not, and Why would I do it? all through. And similarly in the conditionals, I would not (if I could), &c.
The spare forms supplied by the present will, then, are you will, he will, they will; and these, with I shall, we shall, are ready, when the simple future is required, to construct it out of. We can now give...
[ RULES 1 TO 7 FOLLOW ] http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html
>>8116410
>[part 1]
>>8116415
better a terrible trap than a terrible man of which you are.
>>8116415
how it's a trap? i don't see any girl clothes or something
>>8116415
That mouth is fucking adorable, broseph.
>>8116465
every time I read your posts I can never tell if your a child or a stupid person
The verb shall has gradually been replaced by will for a few centuries now. Using should in those contexts is archaic, though not incorrect- not yet anyway.
The only standard use of should is
as a synonym for ought, "have a need to".
>I should get off of 4chan and go to sleep
As a side note, publicly available plans produced by local governments in the U.S. will often use the word shall, because it legally implies a desire to bring the plan to fruition rather than a promise.
>>8116389
Should you be?
>>8116399
This shitpost genuinely helped me understand the difference of implication
thanks faggot
>>8116374
I really want to befriend a trap. They seem to be geniunely smarter and more intresting than your average person. Not even attracted to them, they just seem to be cool - I had this phase with asian people.
>>8116511
Nah you're thinking of lesbians. Lesbians are cool and smart (don't let the small amount of sjw/feminist types fool you).
Traps on the other hand are almost always just your typical, obnoxious, overly-offended gay dudes. Don't get me wrong. Some of them are sexy as all fuck, but, besides that, they're not interesting.
>>8116533
We don't have SJW where I live because marxism really fell out of favor, and I've met a number of lesbians - they seemed fun, but not really that different than the general populace. Being a trap takes a lot of effort, I think, that's why they seem cool to me: it takes a lot of dedication to act without break. But I'll try to talk to lesbians more, thanks for the advice!
>>8116374
WOULD FUCK
>>8116557
>We don't have SJW where I live because marxism really fell out of favor
>>8116511
Transexuals disgust me. I have felt this way since I was young when I would see one and my neck would hurt (I think it was something about Adam's apples, I thought they shaved them off). Now I just think it's at least mildly degenerate and unaesthetic. We don't have the technology to make them look legitimate. Really even if you felt like a woman, would you transition if you would just end up looking like an ugly manly girl? I don't think we should tolerate ugliness so much. Sure it exists but let's not pretend it isn't less than ideal
>>8116606
Should Fuck?
>>8116614
I wasn't trying to, sorry.
>>8116623
Women to men transexuals just seem like effeminate manlets most of the time, on the other hand
>>8116506
You're welcome.
>>8116623
Exactly the fact that there is no way for them to look completely woman-like is so appealing to me. Remember the frogposter NEET who claimed to be writing a 6-part memoir? Well, that was obviously fake, but I wish for such people to exist - doomed to fail, conscious of that, and yet struggling to do their thing despite everything. When technology arrives and changing gender is easy, I'll instantly lose my appreciation. Even now, I don't feel anything towards rich transitioners, for whom it there exists no make-believe to hopelessly impose on the outside world. Low-fi traps are first and foremost dreamers and I adore that.
>>8116623
Don't listen to this asshole, OP. The 'silent majority' is not against you here.
On the other hand, the literary relevance of this thread is questionable....
>>8116648
You might like The Bill by Laszlo Krasznahorkai.
>>8116623
I'm not OP, but fuck you.
>>8116664
W O U L D F U C K
O
U
L
D
F
U
C
K
>>8116660
Short and very engaging, judging from description - thanks a lot for recommendation; I just hope that it is not a gimmick, but the author seems too respectable for it to be so - thanks again!
>>8116674
Nah he's a genius. It became really difficult for me to read anything else after reading him. His sentences and ideas are so fucking gorgeous.
>>8116477
> d - duck face looks good g - guys!
>>8116374
quack quack i'd fuck a duck
>>8116374
I'm more concerned over people saying "should OF" instead of "should HAVE." Pisses me off.
>>8116488
You limit yourself to one?
where the fuck is the tumblr link
>>8116399
Are people like you serious because its kind of obvious in most cases. just look at his body shape/arms/face shape, there is no way he can pass off as a girl
>>8116788
fooled me
feminine enough to trigger my degeneracy
Hello, mods?
Why are they micro-deleting specific posts in a Nietzsche thread while flagrantly illiterate porn threads like this exist?
>>8116664
>>8116759
fucking disgusting desu
>>8116806
Hey, someone here recommended me a really good book(so far), it is all not useless! Plus, non-lit discussion birthes li discussion much more organically if the book is forced upon you. Shame!
But I agree, the gifs of that man in a girl's attire swinging his penis and masturbating and also pleasuring himself with a dildo are excessive. Those should be pruned; would they, though.
>>8116785
mikisha-transgirl
>>8116822
>tfw the guy who recommended you The Bill and the guy posting traps are one and the same.
>>8116832
I wouldn't guess so, heh. It fits, though!
>>8116827
thanks mate
>>8116408
>of
ooooh now i am fucking triggered
