sudanglo: Then no difference between What time will we arrive and What time shall we arrive!

To this American... no significant difference. I would use either of those sentences interchangeably, although I'm more likely to use will than shall.

sudanglo:Oh really! Then no difference between What time will we arrive and What time shall we arrive!

Not to my knoweldege, no, except in emphasis, they both mean the same thing (except in specific technical environments where artificial definitions are given). How would you understand the difference between those two sentences? The distinction about only using shall in the first-person comes from the use of Latin in the Middle Ages and isn't especially applicable to modern English, at least in my opinion, but is still nice if you want to follow it.

See here for example.

And you're right that many aspects of natural language grammar are based on habit or unconscious rules. That's kind of what I meant by convention, but you're right to correct me. And yes, it's definitely an interesting question whether that kind of thing has emerged amongst experienced and advanced Esperanto speakers; as Rugxdoma says, I suspect that there isn't a large enough, erm, Sprachraum.

michaleo:

Rugxdoma:I suppose that is why Noam Chomsky has been unwilling to consider Esperanto a real language. He means it has not yet had the time to settle down enough to let those unconscious rules, attended by experienced speakers, dominate over the rules that Zamanhof was aware of and managed to put in writing. It seems as if Chomsky only considers the unconscious rules really worthy of the linguists' attention.

Aside from the fact that Noam Chomsky is an ignoramus who speaks on the subject about which he does not have basic knowledge, his theories have not been proven so far.

I have issues with Chomsky's generative grammar too. (Though I find him interesting as a man, and have read a lot of his political books.) But I think why linguists prefer to document language in action, rather than to write about linguistic prescriptions, is because like all social scientists they have 'science envy' -- they want to be empirical and to follow the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, conclusion, which requires there to be a significant number of natural speakers out there in the world who can be observed. Without that, you're liable to be called unscientific.

In the English that is spoken in my area (southeastern Florida) where many people speak it as a second language, the word "shall" is hardly used at all. For me, "shall" has a connotation of strictness and British speech. I am not saying that British speech is strict but in the American experience it was the language used by imperial England to administer rules to the colonies (I spent my early teens near Boston). "Shall" can also denote "definitely will" as in: Indeed, I shall! But it would be used in American English more for dramatic emphasis. "Gonna" is the most common form of the future though it only exists in written language as "going to". In spoken language it is a common auxiliary verb that is not equal to "going to" as in "I am going to Miami tomorrow" (* I'm gonna Miami tomorrow). Of course, our speech is heavily influenced by Spanish (yo voy a ir a Miami manana) in which the verb "ir" is used in casual speech to denote future action. Also the auxiliary "ought" has all but disappeared. It seems that other English speakers use the past perfect (I have been in Miami) when we use the simple past (I was in Miami) (e.g. Non-local: "Have you been to Miami?" Local: "Yeah, I was in Miami.") We also use the continuous more often (Wow, this food is tasting great!) and the expression "needs + past participle" (e.g. these cookies need baked). The simple past form of verbs is taking over the past participle of some irregular verbs, e.g. (as recently reported in the local daily newspaper) "The two men has swam three hours before being saved."
Among local speakers of Esperanto, I seem to be the only one who tends to use compound forms such as "mi estis preparanta ankoraŭ la manĝaĵojn kiam la unuaj gastoj alvenis". I don't believe that we should try to base Esperanto usage on the usage of verbs in any other language other than Esperanto itself because then we run into a lot of disagreement. However, I think that we should try to understand other speakers when they use Esperanto based on their L1s (first languages). For example, Turkish E-speakers might say "Mi komprenis" for "Mi komprenas" since in normal daily speech they tend to use the past tense for "I understand".

RiotNrrd:

sudanglo: Then no difference between What time will we arrive and What time shall we arrive!

To this American... no significant difference. I would use either of those sentences interchangeably, although I'm more likely to use will than shall.

The only time I ever say "shall" is when I say "shall I?" meaning, "Do you want me to......?"

robbkvasnak:Among local speakers of Esperanto, I seem to be the only one who tends to use compound forms such as "mi estis preparanta ankoraŭ la manĝaĵojn kiam la unuaj gastoj alvenis". I don't believe that we should try to base Esperanto usage on the usage of verbs in any other language other than Esperanto itself because then we run into a lot of disagreement. However, I think that we should try to understand other speakers when they use Esperanto based on their L1s (first languages). For example, Turkish E-speakers might say "Mi komprenis" for "Mi komprenas" since in normal daily speech they tend to use the past tense for "I understand".

Right, we should base Esperanto verbs on Esperanto.

Experienced Esperanto speakers from any linguistic background don't use verbs significantly differently from one another. This means that pretty much no experienced Esperanto speaker regularly uses compound verbs like "mi estis preparanta"; these forms are usually reserved for those few cases where the exact timing of the action matters greatly. I don't know a lot of Turkish Esperanto speakers, but the Italian experession for "I understand" also translates to "I understood". However, Italians speak Esperanto like everyone else, and experienced Italian speakers definitely say "mi komprenas", and not "mi komprenis".

Esperanto verb usage among experienced speakers follows Esperanto norms, not norms of other languages. It's usually only beginners and perhaps intermediate speakers who are so strongly influenced by their native languages that they feel the need to translate so literally the verb forms that they use in their native language (like "mi komprenis" or "Mi estis ankoraux preparanta kiam la gastoj estis alvenantaj" )

RiotNrrd:

sudanglo: Then no difference between What time will we arrive and What time shall we arrive!

To this American... no significant difference. I would use either of those sentences interchangeably, although I'm more likely to use will than shall.

There is a big difference. 'What time will we arrive' implies that you don't know and you are asking for that information. 'What time shall we arrive' implies that it is a decision that still needs to be made. In this case, shall is synonymous with 'should' rather than 'will'.

You're right, of course.

Where I live, however, the use of shall is essentially nonexistent, and so knowledge of how it is to be used is also being lost. In some cases the difference is clear, and the proper word is used. But where you find it, shall is often being used interchangeably with will. Whether, when it's used, it's used "correctly" might be another matter, but overall there appears to be a clear shift away from shall altogether.

I'm not a linguist or language historian, but my guess is it's because, in my own dialect at least, when will and when shall are both contracted in pronunciation to when'll (with other forms like where'll, why'll, who'll, etc.), which is heard in both cases, and that is possibly causing the meanings to merge as well. However, that's just an uneducated guess on my part, and is more than likely actual nonsense.

It seems as if Chomsky only considers the unconscious rules really worthy of the linguists' attention.

This is a very interesting point, which perhaps can be made generally not just in relation to Chomsky.

Obviously when all native speakers of Language A can correctly articulate the difference in what is being expressed in the usage of form A and form B in that language, then there is no mystery, no sense of wonder, no puzzle. The linguist's theory then is no more than everybody knows. The Emperor is truly revealed as having no clothes.

It may well be that part of the reason that Esperanto is sometimes not highly regarded by language professionals is that it is thought that everything in the language is explicit. There is nothing to explain. Thus having a theory about Esperanto would be like having a theory about, say, the rules of Monopoly.

One thing I think is probable. If there are indeed unconscious rules which are systematically followed by experienced speakers then you would expect false theories, or rules with fairly plentiful exceptions, such as are produced concerning usage of the English verb - even by teachers of English and authors of grammar books.

Edit: the link you gave Smithy takes us to a classical example of a false theory and in no way explains correctly why we don't say Shut the window, shall you

I think that some linguists and the public in general feel that since most of us learn Esperanto consciously using learning materials and then they compare the same activity with trying to acquire an ethnic language they simply feel that it MUST be artificial since nobody ever masters a language this way. This is indeed not my opinion but I am trying to imagine how those who have not experienced Esperanto must think about it. They "took" two or three years of Spanish in high school and they still have a problem pronouncing the names of the dishes at Taco Bell (well, I am being a bit sarcastic - and for those of you who don't have the joy of having Taco Bell in your country, it is a cheap chain of faux-Mexican fast-food restaurants with take-out dishes like "gorditas"). Then they think that if Spanish is a "real language" and they spent three boring years practicing the difference between 'estar' and 'ser' (which seems totally useless for English speakers) then Esperanto must be a phony 'cause anyone with sense knows that you can't get by with high-school Spanish.

when will and when shall are both contracted in pronunciation to when'll

Riot isn't the weak form of shall ʃəl ? It is in my English. Since it is unlikely that shall has two weak forms ʃəl and 'll, I reckon 'll stands for will.

The difference between what time will and what time shall stands out clearly in Esperanto translation.

Je kiu horo ni alvenos; je kiu horo ni alvenu