Auxiliary verb 'should' in second conditionals.

Question

In this sentence, can 'should' be used in the blank?

"If I knew her phone number, I --------- call her and ask her out"

Plus, In my opinion, 'should' can not be used in this sentence for the following reasons.
1. Unlike could, would, might, 'should' can't bear any tense, therefore 'should' can't be the answer.
2 'Should' has meaning including little bit of duty or forced work or things like that, so I have learned that 'should' is rarely used with the subject 'I' in a second conditional sentence. Because it makes strange meaning. For example, if I change the sentence into a sentence like this, 'As I don't know her phone number, I should not call her and ask her out' , it clearly doesn't makes sense.
However I know that 'should' can be used with other subjects in a second conditionals such as 'If he were punished for this, he should bring in a lawsuit'

But one of my students made an objection about my teaching. He brought a dictionary and showed me the sentence in it.

"If I were you, I should be in bed"

He claimes that 'should' should be allowed to be used in the blank.
What he is trying to say is like this.
1. Should is used as a past form of shall.
2. Should is used as a weak form of 'would' in England.

We are at war right now, and none of us is retreating, not even for a step. So please, if you have any knowlege to share about this grammar thing, share with me.

Thank you so much.

Fivejedjon · Accepted Answer

Jane NamIn this sentence, can 'should' be used in the blank?"If I knew her phone number, I --------- call her and ask her out"

Yes it can, though few people except some older speakers of BrE use it. I do - but I am 67, and went to a rather formal school.

Jane Nam1. Unlike could, would, might, 'should' can't bear any tense, therefore 'should' can't be the answer.

.For my generation of speakers of BrE, shall/should are the first person equivalent of will/would in some contexts

Jane NamWhat he is trying to say is like this.1. Should is used as a past form of shall.

It is.

Jane Nam2. Should is used as a weak form of 'would' in England.

It is not.

Jane NamWe are at war right now, and none of us is retreating,

... neither of us is retreating.

Cool Breeze · Answer

fivejedjon has given you a good answer. I'll just add a few bits of additional information. In Old English or Anglo-Saxon, which are terms used to refer to the English spoken and written up to about the year 1050, there were only two tenses, the present and the preterite (past). As the language evolved, the need for more varied expression was felt and will and shall (not spelled like that in those days) began to be used to indicate future time.

As will used to mean 'to want' and shall used to mean 'must', it was felt to be more polite to use will in the second and third persons just to give the impression that the person was doing something voluntarily, not because he had to do it. There were no such restraints with regard to shall used in the first persons, of course, and consequently shall began to be used in the first persons. As will was used in more persons than shall, it has simply almost supplanted shall, especially in American English.

Mind you, etymological equivalents of these auxiliaries are used in other Germanic languages as well. For example, in modern Swedish vill is the most common verb in the sense 'to want': Vi vill komma idag. (We want to come today.) Note that the grammar is the same as in English: no particle before the infinitive.

Would and should are forms of will and shall, and it stands to reason that their usage originally followed that of will and shall. Should was commonly used in the first persons instead of would:

I should/would buy it if I had enough money.
We should/would buy it if we had enough money.

CB

Jane Nam · Answer

Thank you for your reply. It was very helpful, and I do understand that 'should' can be a past form of 'shall' and the kid got his point. But I asked to many Americans and British about the sentence, and they all said that 'If I knew her phone number, I should call her and ask her out' is wrong, and they wouldn't say like that. My point is, although 'should' can be used in a second conditional sentence with the subject 'I' in often cases, is it also possible to use 'should' in my sentence, too?

I may be being very stubbon right now. I understand....
But things got really big and complicated, and I just.... want to prove that I'm not wrong....

well, thank you so much for your reply, and I hope you answer for this question, too.

Thank you.

Cool Breeze · Answer

Jane Nam But I asked to many Americans and British about the sentence, and they all said that 'If I knew her phone number, I should call her and ask her out' is wrong, and they wouldn't say like that.

The sentence is correct English but should isn't often used instead of would in sentences like yours nowadays.

CB

Jane Nam · Answer

Thank you very much for your answer. I appreciate you. ^_^

Auxiliary verb 'should' in second conditionals.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions