Posted on 12/14/2015 7:37:50 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Paris-The proposed accord was just hours from a final vote when the glitch was spotted. Someone had changed a single word in the draft text—from a "should" to a "shall"-and suddenly the entire climate deal appeared at risk of faltering.
Secretary of State John F. Kerry phoned his old friend, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius,in exasperation over a tiny revision that implied huge new legal and financial obligations.
"We cannot do this," Kerry warned.
Less than four hours later,the accord was approved with the bang of a gavel. A bit of diplomatic finesse had excised the troublesome word and helped clinch a historic agreement.
[SNIP]
"Unlike[earlier]Kyoto or Copenhagen talks, the Paris agreement is built to last," Bledsoe said, "because it includes detailed emissions pledges by all major nations and clear rules to monitor those emissions."
Yet,early Saturday afternoon, as U.S. officials huddled to pore over what they believed was the final draft, they discovered the tiny revision that threatened to derail the negotiations in the talks' waning hours. The substitution of "shall" for "should" in a section that spelled out financial obligations was a potential deal-breaker. Had someone slipped in the language in an attempt to sabotage the deal?
"We made it crystal-clear that every text up until this particular one had a different wording," Kerry said... His message to Fabius:"Either it changes, or President Obama and the United States will not be able to support this agreement,"..
More hours passed as the Kerry team tried to investigate how the wording had been changed and whether they could fix the text without a risky reopening of the proposal for further debate.
After the call to Fabius, U.S. and French officials decided together that the word change had been accidental. As such, it could be handled as an ordinary typographical error and erased at the discretion of the conference leader..."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The basic difference between "shall" and "should" is that "should" is the past tense of "shall." But when we use these words or modals, the usage is not as simple as using "should" in place of "shall" in the past tense.
"Should" is not used in the past tense independently; it has either present or future reference when it predicates a main clause. "Should" is the conditional form used for "shall." Occasionally it is used as a past tense of "shall." To understand the difference, we need to first understand what "modals" are and how they are used.
Should
"Should" is used as deontic modal as well as epistemic modal. Modals are helping verbs. They are also called modal auxiliary. They have varied meanings and are used to convey these varied meanings. "Should" is specifically used to express advisability.
Other uses of modals are: ability, possibility, probability, permission, necessity, and requesting assistance, making conclusions, giving instructions and making suggestions, showing preference, making offers, making promises or predictions.
Deontic modals are verbs which are used to give permission and, hence, affect a particular situation. For example, You should go only after you finish the work. Here, permission is being given by the speaker.
Epistemic modals are verbs which show the opinion of the one who is speaking. For example, He should be here any moment now. Here the speaker is not sure but is expressing his opinion.
Meanings and usages
"Should" expresses that some action is correct for someone. For example, You should get more sleep. It expresses probability. For example, You should have reached the office by now.
It expresses consequences and conditions. For example, Should he have any problems, I will be there to help. It is used in place of "would," used mainly with "we" and "I." For example, I should like to meet her parents. Expressing somebody's views from the past about the future. For example, It was decided from the start that the school should be used to educate underprivileged students.
It is used to make harsh words more polite. For example, I should expect you to apologize now.
Shall
Shall has slightly different usages and meanings.
Meanings and usages
"Shall" means something that is intended to take place in the future. For example, He shall be the CEO of the company by next year.
It expresses determination. For example, I shall overcome all the hindrances in my way.
It expresses certain laws and rules. For example, The government shall declare an emergency.
For formal writing, "shall" is used to express the future tense.
Summary:
1."Shall" and "should" are both auxiliary verbs but have different usages and meanings.
2."Should" in general English is used as a past tense of "shall" but the usage is occasional. Independently, "should" is not used in the past tense.
3."Shall" is used more in formal writing than "should."
From a legal point of view (which is what we're talking about here), the difference between "Should" and "Shall" is enormous.
"Should" is simply a recommendation - "Shall" is mandatory.
That's it in a nutshell. Somebody tried to sneak this one through. The question is WHO.
Three guesses, first two don't count.
Someone wanted to write that the USA “shall” pay money and Kerry wanted it to say that the USA “should” pay some money. Shall would have meant taking it to the House and getting their approval. Should doesn’t bind us to anything.
This means that Obama can do what he wants without asking Congress. The thing only says “should” and we are just being good neighbors, don’t you know?
Don’t tell anyone but there was No Deal . They just wasted Million of tax payer dollars
You have obscured the issue through overly complex analysis. It is really quite simple. ‘Should’ is aspirational. It conveys a moral obligation. ‘Shall’ is mandatory.
Your appeal should be to legal, not grammar.
Yes.
Exactly.
Climate Change will remain a political battering ram for the Left and their Crony Capitalism buddies can now slink back into the woodwork after signing the praises of Climate Change dictates (Valerie Jarrett grabbed them by the short hairs and made them pony up for the cause) knowing that they will not be too heavily “fined” for their offense of capitalism (until the next push).
Shall versus may.
The shocker is that Kerry derailed it.
I added that definition info (from the Internet) so people could pick through it.
It reminds me of the saying (my Mother used this often), "Figures don't lie but liars can figure."
Words have meaning.
Fraud?
Fake?
Evil?
While tey were arguing, the average temperature of the planet went up .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 degress C.
Yes.
Yes.
"Lysenkoism" is also used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.
Weather-Hysteria Bookmark
“It depends on what the meaning of the word is is”.
Yes, they do. And that is why you should start with a law dictionary rather than Websters when parsing legal documents such as this one.
He had to. “SHALL” involves Congress. “Should” means Obama can do whatever the RINO cowards will allow. No one is on the hook with “SHOULD” except you and me. Do not underestimate the Regimes capacity to commit your money to everyone in the world.
Thank you.
I live in a “Shall” issue state, Montana, for CCW. Without shall in the law I might not have my license ... it would be up to the whims of the local Sheriff. Shall forces him to issue, as it should be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.