Should

Question

You should go to school.Can that sentence point to the past as well?I used this form:can (present) : could (past)shall (present) : should (past)

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

KhoshtipManYou should go to school.Can that sentence point to the past as well?

No.

AlpheccaStars · Answer

You should go to school. (Recommendation)
You should have gone to school. (Past, hypothetical)
You shall go to school. (Future, or present formal demand)

KhoshtipMan · Answer

AlpheccaStarsYou should go to school. (Recommendation)You should have gone to school. (Past, hypothetical)You shall go to school. (Future, or present formal demand)

Thank you AS.
I think these sentences display the issue more transparently.

1-a) You can go to school.
1-b) You could go to school.
1-c) You could have gone to school.

Now using shall/should

2-a) You shall/should go to school.
2-b)?
3-b) You should have gone to school.

What do you input in 2-b) please?

Fivejedjon · Answer

The pattern with shall/should is:

2a, shall
2b should
2c, should have.

Unfortunately there is no precise correlation between the forms and the times any of these forms refers to. Just because a time-relationship can be established in some contexts with can/could (have) does not mean that a similar time relationship can be established with shall/should (have).

KhoshtipMan · Answer

What do you mean by this?

fivejedjonshouls

If should, well, I used could in above as a verb referring to past. And if 2-b) is should, so it, too, is referring to past. So why MM said no?

CalifJim · Answer

KhoshtipMan1-a) You can go to school.

You have the ability, power, or permission to go to school now or in the future.

KhoshtipMan1-b) You could go to school.

1) You have the choice of going to school if you want to. It's a possibility for you now or in the future.
2) At some time in the past, you had the ability, power, or permission to go to school.

KhoshtipMan1-c) You could have gone to school.

At some time in the past, you had the ability, power, or permission to go to school, but you did not exercise this ability, so you did not go to school.
_________________

"shall / should" does NOT parallel "can / could".

KhoshtipMan2-a) You shall go to school.

You will go to school. This is an emphatic 'will', almost a 'must'. 'shall' is very rarely used.

KhoshtipMan2-b) You should go to school.

It [is / would be] a good idea for you to go to school now or in the future. / It is your duty to go to school. / You ought to go to school.

KhoshtipMan2-c) You should have gone to school.

It was your duty to go to school, but you did not.

CJ

KhoshtipMan · Answer

Thanks CJ. Good answer.
So there isn't such a form for obligatory words. (2-b)

AlpheccaStars · Answer

KhoshtipManSo there isn't such a form for obligatory words. (2-b)

This is suggestion, not obligation.
Present: You ought to go to school. You should go to school.
Past: You ought to have gone to school. You should have gone to school. (... but you didn't.)

This is demand, obligation:
You must go to school. You will go to school.

It makes no sense to demand that someone do an action in the past. They cannot travel back to the past and do it. You can only demand that they do something now, or in the future.

KhoshtipMan · Answer

No AS. I didn't want to demand for some task to be done in the past; no one does. It was to mean something was a duty and it had to be done. Like this:

CalifJimIt was your duty to go to school, but you did not.

Anyway, I got the matter. You seem to by no way put should on the list of obligatory words!
I've heard they are in different levels (E.g., words like, need to, should, ought to, have to , must)

CalifJim · Answer

KhoshtipManthe list of obligatory words

I've never heard this called a list of obligatory words. It's a ranking of modals (and semi-modals) by how demanding they are in placing an obligation (requirement) on someone else (less often on oneself).

need and want probably go together in a different list, but should and ought to go together and are almost exactly the same. should is used more often than ought to, but both have the sense of "it would be wise to ...", "it would be a good idea to ...". This is a much weaker demand, almost more like a suggestion, than 'have to' or 'must', but it is still related to obligations. (A duty is an obligation.)

Similarly, 'have to' and 'must' are almost exactly the same, and these are stronger in placing an obligation or requirement. In the U.S. 'must' is not used as much as 'have to', and it is reserved mostly for official signage (Right lane must exit).

Because of these meanings, you can say, You should put this money in a safe place, but you don't have to, but never You have to put this money is a safe place, but you should not.

CJ

Should

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions