What I find particularly aggravating is the use of ‘will’ and ‘shall’ interchangeably. It is bad enough when ‘will’ appears where ‘shall’ belongs, but they are not synonymous. As I believe I may have mentioned in an earlier e-mail, the grammarian who falls overboard is unlikely to call out “I will be drowned and no-one shall save me!” rather than “I shall be drowned and no-one will save me!”

If we are going to be ungrammatical, let us at least be consistent

With respect to S’s post, I don’t believe that Garner advocates unequivocally against the use “shall,” which some drafters carelessly use in the same document to mean “must,” “may,” or “will”. I believe his position, which is based on the potential problems that this poor technique can cause in any subsequent litigation, is more properly characterized as a recommendation against its use. If it is used, he suggests that its use be restricted only to mean “has a duty to” in order to maintain consistency throughout the document. As Ken’s Manual details in several sections, the word “shall” does have value. But, its utility is too often abused and, frankly, as exceedingly tiresome as it is to read sentence after sentence of “shalls”, it is exceeding annoying to read sentence after sentence of “shalls” that jump all over the place in meaning.