should appreciably influence

< Previous | Next >

mersault

Member
italian
"The employment of an additional unit of resources in any industry may, it appears, so modify the general organisation of the industry as to make each of the units of resources employed in it yield a different net product from what it otherwise would have done; but since, under pure competition, the individual who has made the extra investment experiences only a very small part of the effects of this indirect impact upon general organisation, it is not to be expected that the probable nature and total magnitude of these effects should appreciably influence his actions".

good morning. i would ask you for a suggestion. i would like to know if the meaning of the last part of the citation would not change by substituting "should ... influence" with "will ... influence". it is BE.

thank you. alberto.
 
  • Thomas Tompion

    Senior Member
    English - England
    Hello Alberto,

    It's terribly turgid writing.

    Is there a difference between these two?:

    It is not to be expected that the nature of these effects should influence his actions.
    It is not to be expected that the nature of these effects will influence his actions.

    I think one could write both in BE, and I can't see much difference in meaning. The second with its will influence is slightly more emphatic and direct.

    I'd wonder, of course, why the person didn't write:

    We don't expect the nature of these effects to influence his actions.
     

    jpyvr

    Senior Member
    English - Canadian
    "Should" indicates probability, whereas "will" indicates certainty about future events. As the sentence includes "not to be expected" and "probable nature", I'd suggest that "should" is better here, as it makes a prediction about what will happen, but does not state that it will definitely happen.
     

    Thomas Tompion

    Senior Member
    English - England
    "Should" indicates probability, whereas "will" indicates certainty about future events. As the sentence includes "not to be expected" and "probable nature", I'd suggest that "should" is better here, as it makes a prediction about what will happen, but does not state that it will definitely happen.
    I think someone brought up in a romance language which uses subjunctives might well think this. As my previous post suggested, I don't think it's true in BE. You aren't really making a prediction as you've just said that the outcome is not to be expected.
     

    jpyvr

    Senior Member
    English - Canadian
    I think someone brought up in a romance language which uses subjunctives might well think this. As my previous post suggested, I don't think it's true in BE. You aren't really making a prediction as you've just said that the outcome is not to be expected.
    Perhaps someone brought up in a Romance language that uses subjunctives might agree with my previous post, but I wouldn't know that, having been brought up speaking English. Whether one is talking about positive or negative results in the future, I still hold that "should" indicates possibility and "will" certainty.

    By the way, I certainly concur that it's terribly turgid writing.
     

    Thomas Tompion

    Senior Member
    English - England
    Perhaps someone brought up in a Romance language that uses subjunctives might agree with my previous post, but I wouldn't know that, having been brought up speaking English. Whether one is talking about positive or negative results in the future, I still hold that "should" indicates possibility and "will" certainty.
    [...]
    The trouble is that we are dealing here with a clause governed by a negative statement. I'd agree with some of this, Jpyvr, if the main verb was affirmative:

    In I think he will come, his coming is more probable (though still not certain, of course) than in I think he should come (as a prediction, not in the deontic sense).
     

    Cagey

    post mod (English Only / Latin)
    English - US
    This article has been preserved and made public by Project Gutenberg.

    In 1930 the author added this footnote, in which he appears to apologize for the style, but not to repent of it:
    "The reader is begged to remember that this 26-year-old article belongs to the pre-Sraffa, pre-Chamberlin age. In gratefully giving my consent to its reprint, I must not be thought to be offering any defense either of its style or of its content. In particular, I have long since acquiesced in the concept of a true or 'hypothetical' long period falling supply curve, provided it is used with the caution which Marshall enjoins; and I would agree that in any attempt to distil such a curve from recorded facts, it would be proper to attempt to eliminate the effect of major inventions which were clearly not dependent on the size of the industry.
    D.H Robertson "Those Empty Boxes" The Economic Journal, Vol. XXXIV (1924), pp. 16-30.​
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top