152 The Loom of Language When used in the first person after / or wc^ the verb shall is equivalent to a particle indicating the indefinite luture Otherwise it retains its old Teutonic meaning akin to mw>t or have to (e g thou tiiah not commit adultery) In the first person the related form should is used after the statement of a condition, as in / should be glad if he came In expressions involving the second or third person^ will and would are generally equi- valent to shall or should involving the first Otherwise they revert to their original Teutonic meaning illustrated by the adjective willing This distinction is not as clear-cut or universal, as arm-chair grammarians TEUTONIC HELPER VERBS I'RQJM SAME ROOTS i-NGLISH SWLPHH DANISH nurcn GIRMAN f I can \ I could jag kan j«ig kunde jcg kan jeg kunde ikkan ik kon ich kaan ich konnte f I shall \ I should jag skall jag skulle jeg skal jcg skuldc ik t&l ik zoudc ich soil ich sollte f I will \ I would jag vill jag ville JCg Vll jeg vilde ik wil ik wildc ich will ich wolltc I must jag m&ste ik meet ich muss I let jag liter jeg lader ik laat ich lasse f I may \ I might jag rnfi jag mitte jeg maa jeg mantle ik mag ik mocht ich mag ich mOchtc would lead us to suppose Few English-speaking people recognize any difference between (a) I should do this, if he asked me, (&) I would do this, if he asked me Since can and must are the most reliable helpers, it is best to use their equivalents whenever either shares the territory of another such as shall, haw*, may. The use of can and mutt is not foolpioof, unless the beginner is alert to one pitfall of translation from English into any Romance or any other Teutonic language* Like oughty can and must form peculiar combinations with have (could tef> must havey ought to have] for which the literal equivalent in other languages is have could,, ham must, have ought. The easiest to deal with is can* It is correct to use the corresponding German (konrim) or French (poiwoir) verb in the present or simple past where the English equivalent is either can-could or is able to—was Me toy eta5 but / could have does not mean the same as I have "been Me to. It is equivalent to / should h