English Language & Usage Asked by Kestrel on July 27, 2021
As I travel around England, Southern Wales, and Southern Scotland, I hear the rural and working-class people in some areas use "should" (and never "ought"), in other areas "ought" alone (without "to") and in others again "ought to".
In modern use, both are modal (except that "ought to" is semi-modal – we don’t say "can to", "would to", etc.).
(The Germanic origins indicate that these words aren’t Viking, but are Anglo-Saxon – not merely blandly "Old English".)
In literary works and legal situations, "ought" seems to be preferred – a matter of tradition, rather than meaning: perhaps originally because (for some reason) it was considered more prestigious.
The many dictionaries, "English as a second language guides", websites etc. that consider "should versus ought" decree "same meaning but…" for diverse "but"s – most commonly "ought is stronger", and "ought is more formal". That’s not what I hear in the streets and villages of England.
So finally, the question, in two forms:
That might enable us to determine groups of Anglo/Saxon/Jute/other settlers who brought which word, before Nobles, Lawyers, Scholars and others who travelled around perhaps confused the issue?
Get help from others!
Recent Questions
Recent Answers
© 2024 TransWikia.com. All rights reserved. Sites we Love: PCI Database, UKBizDB, Menu Kuliner, Sharing RPP