5 ms·

Let's take a look. Oxford says "should" implies "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness"[0]. That sure does not sound like "aren't required to" to m

Let's take a look. Oxford says "should" implies "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness"[0]. That sure does not sound like "aren't required to" to me. Sure enough, if you look into "must" [1] you see that it is defined as "be obliged to; should". Maybe you shouldn't be chiding people implying how simple English is when you're not so solid on it yourself, especially when you've given a whole treatise in your previous paragraph about how language is full of ambiguities and words can have multiple meanings and such. [0] http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/should http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/should [1] http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/must http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/must Edit: Am I wrong? Am I ruder than the parent? Awaiting comments. Edit2: Okay, so it looks like I'm wrong about "should". I really don't know why the heck "should" is listed as a definition for "must", then. I'd still like to point out that even the dictionary seems confused and maintain my point that it's not as simple and clear as portrayed.

chc 14y ago
Trotting out brief dictionary definitions is rarely useful for precisely nailing down the common meaning of words, as it is hard to express nuance in such a small space. Fortunately, though, Oxford actually does go out of its way to make it clear. Unfortunately, you omitted those extra details. Let's look at the bullet points clarifying the meaning: "indicating a desirable or expected state" "used to give … advice or suggestions" One of the examples it gives is, "by now pupils should be able to read with a large degree of independence." Few native English-speakers would read that sentence as saying that there is no option but for students to read with a large degree of independence. What it means is that such a level of reading is desirable or expected, but not required. In common usage, should is much weaker than must. Another good example: "I should exercise tonight" vs. "I must exercise tonight." The former almost sounds like the speaker knows it won't happen and feels guilty, whereas the latter sounds like the speaker is bound and determined to exercise. Don't you think?
saurik 14y ago
The way words are used in native languages and the connotations they bring up is not easily and fully explained by a 7 word blip in a dictionary... even then, this dictionary claims that must is "should (expressing necessity)": that parenthetical is key to the strength of "must". In fact, looking at it, you dropped half of the definition you pulled for "should" ("typically when criticizing someone's actions") and I will claim are mischaracterizing what an "obligation" is (just because I am obligated to do something, doesn't mean it is a necessity for me to do it). Putting this into practice, if you tell someone that they /should/ stop at the kiosk before parking in the lot, normal speakers of English will treat that drastically differently than if you instead say that they /must/ stop at the kiosk before parking in the lot; the former feels subjective while the latter feels objective. For a rather clear example of this: "you /must/ open the drawer before you [can] take things out of it" would go unquestioned, while "you /should/ open the drawer before you take things out of it" will cause many people to wonder what the alternative to opening the drawer could be. (edit: I see that chc made a similar complaint about your comment to me 10 minutes earlier, but I didn't see that comment as I was working on mine; I think mine has some value still with the examples, and a slightly different focus, so I will leave it in the thread as a reply.)
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jerf 14y ago
There relevant definition of these words does not come from the dictionary. Most RFCs say which RFC they pull from, for instance, RFC2119: http://pretty-rfc.herokuapp.com/RFC2119 http://pretty-rfc.herokuapp.com/RFC2119 It's right there in the first couple of sections, usually.

chc 14y ago

Trotting out brief dictionary definitions is rarely useful for precisely nailing down the common meaning of words, as it is hard to express nuance in such a small space. Fortunately, though, Oxford actually does go out of its way to make it clear. Unfortunately, you omitted those extra details. Let's look at the bullet points clarifying the meaning: "indicating a desirable or expected state" "used to give … advice or suggestions" One of the examples it gives is, "by now pupils should be able to read with a large degree of independence." Few native English-speakers would read that sentence as saying that there is no option but for students to read with a large degree of independence. What it means is that such a level of reading is desirable or expected, but not required. In common usage, should is much weaker than must. Another good example: "I should exercise tonight" vs. "I must exercise tonight." The former almost sounds like the speaker knows it won't happen and feels guilty, whereas the latter sounds like the speaker is bound and determined to exercise. Don't you think?

saurik 14y ago

The way words are used in native languages and the connotations they bring up is not easily and fully explained by a 7 word blip in a dictionary... even then, this dictionary claims that must is "should (expressing necessity)": that parenthetical is key to the strength of "must". In fact, looking at it, you dropped half of the definition you pulled for "should" ("typically when criticizing someone's actions") and I will claim are mischaracterizing what an "obligation" is (just because I am obligated to do something, doesn't mean it is a necessity for me to do it). Putting this into practice, if you tell someone that they /should/ stop at the kiosk before parking in the lot, normal speakers of English will treat that drastically differently than if you instead say that they /must/ stop at the kiosk before parking in the lot; the former feels subjective while the latter feels objective. For a rather clear example of this: "you /must/ open the drawer before you [can] take things out of it" would go unquestioned, while "you /should/ open the drawer before you take things out of it" will cause many people to wonder what the alternative to opening the drawer could be. (edit: I see that chc made a similar complaint about your comment to me 10 minutes earlier, but I didn't see that comment as I was working on mine; I think mine has some value still with the examples, and a slightly different focus, so I will leave it in the thread as a reply.)

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jerf 14y ago

There relevant definition of these words does not come from the dictionary. Most RFCs say which RFC they pull from, for instance, RFC2119: http://pretty-rfc.herokuapp.com/RFC2119 http://pretty-rfc.herokuapp.com/RFC2119 It's right there in the first couple of sections, usually.