Say/2nd opinion

Question

How come "say waht you will" means something like "no matter what you're going to say"? Is it some sort of ellipsis?

MrPedantic · Accepted Answer

Hello Taka

My interpretation of this phrase is non-elliptical:

1. 'Say whatever you like.'
2. 'Say that which you want (to say).'

say = imperative
will = intend, desire (older sense of will)

Against this, someone might argue that since 'will' here is the 2nd person, it can only be an auxiliary verb, i.e. expressing future time. (This is because of the traditional distinction between 'will' in the first person, which expresses intent, and 'will' in the 2nd and 3rd person, which only expresses future time.)

In that case, it would mean, elliptically:

3. 'Say whatever you are about to say'.

I incline towards #1 and #2, though, because of a hunch that the phrase dates from the time before the 'traditional distinction' took effect.

But it is only a hunch, and someone with a copy of the OED to hand could prove me wrong in an instant. In which case, shame would fall on my family to the ninth generation and I would eat the bitter dust of humiliation.

Or maybe just go to bed.

MrP

Just the truth · Answer

Against this, someone might argue that since 'will' here is the 2nd person, it can only be an auxiliary verb, i.e. expressing future time. (This is because of the traditional distinction between 'will' in the first person, which expresses intent, and 'will' in the 2nd and 3rd person, which only expresses future time.)

Mr P,

If this distinction ever had any factual basis, I doubt that it did, that time has long since passed.

M-W online:

usage From the reams of pronouncements written about the distinction between shall and will-~~dating back as far as the 17th century~~-it is clear that the rules laid down have never very accurately reflected actual usage. The nationalistic statements of 18th and 19th century British grammarians, who commonly cited the misuses of the Irish, the Scots, and occasionally the Americans, suggest that the traditional rules may have come closest to the usage of southern England. Some modern commentators believe that English usage is still the closest to the traditionally prescribed norms. Most modern commentators allow that will is more common in nearly all uses. The entries for shall and will in this dictionary show current usage.

Just the truth · Answer

How come "say what you will" means something like "no matter what you're going to say"? Is it some sort of ellipsis?

I guess you could say that there is a sort of ellipsis, Taka, but the context likely has already been stated and this idiom simply means that it doesn't matter what you could possible say,

my mind is made up

my decision is final

there isn't a snowball's chance in **** of anything else happening than what I now want.

{who's running this site, Gerry Falwell? It has a bleeper reminiscent of 1950s TV censors]

MrPedantic · Answer

From the reams of pronouncements written about the distinction between shall and will-~~dating back as far as the 17th century~~-it is clear that the rules laid down have never very accurately reflected actual usage.

If they date back that far, the 'rules' will undoubtedly have affected usage. It's called feedback.

MrP

Mike in Japan · Answer

Very clever software! The snowballs get auto-inserted in ****! <img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/31.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/31.gif' alt='Emotion: computer'/>

Just the truth · Answer

If they date back that far, the 'rules' will undoubtedly have affected usage. It's called feedback.

That's what you're missing, Mr P. These prescriptions have such a tiny affect on usage because they aren't real rules. These are the 'rules' that make prescriptive grammar teachers apoplectic because their students just aren't getting it, when in point of fact, it's the teachers who aren't getting it.

These three paragraphs pretty well sum it up.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html

Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make no sense on any level. They are bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since. For as long as they have existed, speakers have flouted them, spawning identical plaints about the imminent decline of the language century after century. All the best writers in English have been among the flagrant flouters.

The scandal of the language mavens began in the 18th Century. The London dialect had become an important world language, and scholars began to criticize it as they would any institution, in part to question the authority of the aristocracy. Latin was considered the language of enlightenment and learning and it was offered as an ideal of precision and logic to which English should aspire. The period also saw unprecedented social mobility, and anyone who wanted to distinguish himself as cultivated had to master the best version of English. These trends created a demand for handbooks and style manuals, which were soon shaped by market forces: the manuals tried to outdo one another by including greater numbers of increasingly fastidious rules that no refined person could afford to ignore. Most of the hobgoblins of contemporary prescriptive grammar (don't split infinitives, don't end a sentence with a preposition) can be traced back to these 18th Century fads.

But once introduced, a prescriptive rule is very hard to eradicate, no matter how ridiculous. Inside the educational and writing establishments, the rules survive by the same dynamic that perpetuates ritual genital mutilations and college fraternity hazing: I had to go through it and am none the worse, so why should you have it any easier? Anyone daring to overturn a rule by example must always worry that readers will think he or she is ignorant of the rule, rather than challenging it. Perhaps most importantly, since prescriptive rules are so psychologically unnatural that only those with access to the right schooling can abide by them, they serve as shibboleths, differentiating the elite from the rabble.

MrPedantic · Answer

JTT:

These prescriptions have such a tiny affect on usage because they aren't real rules.

Pinker:

These trends created a demand for handbooks and style manuals, which were soon shaped by market forces: the manuals tried to outdo one another by including greater numbers of increasingly fastidious rules that no refined person could afford to ignore.

I think your argument is with another Mr P., JT.

MrP

Taka · Answer

Ah...well...thank you, people.

MrPedantic · Answer

Hello Taka

Sorry we went a little off-piste.

I think that JTT and I agree that there isn't an ellipsis here, if that's any help!

MrP

Say/2nd opinion

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions