Ought and Should

[Visla Eraclaire]

I have been mocked because essentially the word "ought" has fallen into disfavor in the modern lexicon. I love it, though, and use it frequently.

Should has largely replaced the word in common parlance and if anything most people view the words as interchangeable, with ought being a slightly more haughty or archaic word.

In my view, ought has a moral force to it. Should is a pragmatic word of suggestion or obligation. "You should work on that," i.e. it would be wise to work on it, a good idea, or otherwise advisable to do so. "You ought to work on that," i.e. you have some kind of moral duty to do so. You ought to work on your moral failings. You should work on your term papers.

Thoughts?

[Godhand]

You oughtn't have made this thread.

[Visla Eraclaire]

You oughtn't have made this thread.

Aha, perhaps I shouldn't have. But there's no moral force to making this thread or not.

[Godhand]

I think we all have a moral imperative not to make shitty threads.

[Slavegirl]

Godhand, you ought to stop being a prick.

[Visla Eraclaire]

Godhand, you ought to stop being a prick.

Perfect example. He ought to stop. If he's going to continue, he should at least do a better job of mocking me. He ought to know by now that I am not easily shaken.

Ought there because we're friends. If we weren't, it would be should, because it's simply obvious and he should realize it.

[Christoph]

I've never put too much thought into it before, but I would use 'ought' in the sense of morality and duty/obligations. "You ought to do thus and so because it's your responsibility." As opposed to, "You should do thus and so because it would be a smart idea." So, in short, I agree with Visla in the most part. It's a step toward molding the language, so long as you stay consistent.

[Sighter Tnailog]

In most of my textbooks on philosophical ethics, should is used in the same sense of moral obligation as ought. You can apply the connotation of ethical obligation to ought alone if you wish, but there are no grounds to force others to feel the distinction as deeply as you do. If it happens, it does; if it doesn't, that's language for you. It rarely does what you wish of it.

[Duffy]

Ought is not as out of favour as you might think. Granted, it's only really used by those who use language more...expressively, but academically and in more adult/lecturing language it's still pretty common.

Maybe it's a 'other side of the pond' language difference though, certainly don't stop using it because some people thing lolcatz and slang is the bee's knees.

[Visla Eraclaire]

Maybe it's a 'other side of the pond' language difference though

I'm fairly sure it is.

And Sighter, all one needs to do to change language is start using a convention and have it catch on. Whether there's a 'basis' as you say is irrelevant. The ought/should distinction already has some support in the popular mind from a brief search I did. Even if I only manage to make it a convention among acquaintances, I think I will have improved the language by adding a useful nuance between two otherwise interchangeable words.

[Sighter Tnailog]

I'm not opposed to people trying to argue for conventions they like.

But this issue prompted me to do something I do on occasion, and consult the derivation as outlined in the Oxford English Dictionary. Interestingly enough, "should" comes to us through "shall," as its past-tense and one of its second-person singular forms.

The OED also provides among the definitions of "shall" the following:

"2. In general statements of what is right or becoming: = ‘ought’. Obs. (Superseded by the pa. subjunctive should: see sense 18.)."

And sense 18:

"18. a. In statements of duty, obligation, or propriety (originally, as applicable to hypothetical conditions not regarded as real). Also, in statements of expectation, likelihood, prediction, etc.

"This conditional form of expression was from an early period substituted for the unconditional shall in sense 2, and in mod.Eng. the pres. tense in this use is obs., and should = ought to."

And it provides the earliest known example of this word used in this sense in English attestation, from Beowulf:

"Swylc sceolde secg wesan, {th}e{asg}n æt {edh}earfe. (c. CE 897)"

All this is to say that the ought/should distinction, while one I think might have some value, does not seem to obtain as merely a "modern" loss of an old distinction, but rather a lack of distinction that has existed within the language from some of its earliest extant textual traditions.

By all means, continue making the argument and using the words as you wish. I can see the value of differential connotations accruing to otherwise interchangeable words. But the history of the word indicates that the interchangeable use is actually quite an old aspect of the English language.

[Christoph]

Well, I don't really care about changing the literary paradigm regarding 'ought' and 'should'. Authors can use whatever they want. I would merely posit that such a distinction could be used as a subtle but effective literary device, and that's something I might not have thought to do if not for this thread. (So this thread does have some value to me at least, if nobody else.)

[Slavegirl]

From part of what Sighter posted, something that strikes me is that "should" is referring to something that is likely or possible, such as "It should rain today," or "She should be here at seven." Whereas "ought" is something that is recommended or morally imperative, as in "You ought to say grace before you eat," or "She ought to wear a longer skirt."

Just my opinion.

[Duffy]

I use it when asked a question.

Friend: "Should I go to the lecture?"

Me: "Well you ought to."

It's more of an implied should, a bit more on the side of 'if you want to' then 'you should do.'

It's a fairly common word, s'pose it's another kinky little insight into variations between British and American english.

[Visla Eraclaire]

If I were having that conversation, I would think that my friend was telling me I am obliged to go, but whether it is wise is up to me.

Should I go? I dunno, but you ought to because it's the right thing to do.

[Duffy]

Yes, that explained it much better, lol.

You can tell I scraped through a 2:1 in my sociolinguistics module *shifty look.*

Either way, don't change your speech because others think it's uncool/unwise. Better to be well spoken and correct, than sound like you're from the Bronx.

[Sighter Tnailog]

I think part of the reason why ought seems to bear this connotation is because we simply use it less, so when it's said it seems somehow more...peculiar. And therefore more easily directed into an instrumental use, as its employment indicates to the hearer that something in the statement is of greater value or requires more of their attention. But that comes about more from a casual overapplication of should more than from any definitional sense of the words in play.

[Cyrus the virus]

You oughtn't have made this thread.

oughtn't've*

[Duffy]

oughtn't've*

Grammatical Smackdown ftw?

[Cyrus the virus]

WoRd SoRcErY!!!