On the local educational(?) tv channel

"I'll" is a contraction of "I will" really. I say "shall" but more interrogatively--"Shall I do that now or later?" Saying "I shall do it..." for example is rarely used anymore in the US, more archaic.

Could, would, and should are all conditionals--whatever action they introduce are contingent upon something else being the case. At least in their purest sense.

Could is the conditional form of can. You could do X if Y can be a factor in the act, even if Y is only understood. Would is not necessarily more formal as it is more polite and implies willingness on the part of the listener.

Example: (If you can, ) could you pick me up at 4:00?
Example: (If you're willing,) would you pick me up at 4:00?

These are such subtleties of the language. They go right over the heads of most native speakers. But I use them b/c I had them pounded into my head in Catholic school.

You know, I think it may be the word FORMAL that's the problem here because you're thinking about royalty and butlers and fancy politeness schtuff when you hear it...

In languages like French, Spanish and most others actually (probably the intended student's) there is much more distinction between "formal" and "informal" language than there is in English. I.e. The word 'You' is tu in informal and usted in formal Spanish (tu/vous in French, Du/Sie in German)... so the terms informal/formal is often used to distinguish between what you'd say to a kid or your family and good friends on one hand and to a complete stranger, a superior or elderly person on the other hand. This is insanely difficult for foreigners because the line where you shift from one to the other is culturally determined - so you can't use your own language as a template for it.
- And, although you don't have the clear distinctions in the word you, there are these unbelievably subtle differences in how you say the same thing to an old lady you just met or your neighbor's kids.

minor correction: thee is objective.

Yes! Language MATTERS.

"Men don't like being asked Could they do something because it implies the possibility that they can't. But women use could because they're more willing to help if they can--willingness is understood! Men like willingness to be voluntary."

I love this stuff. I was an anthropology major, and one of things we had to study as part of good Boasian four-field anthropology was linguistics. Unfortunately I had a horrible prof in undergrad who completely turned me off of linguistics. It wasn't until a graduate course in social linguistics (how language is used by a particular culture and how it shapes and is shaped by cultural meanings) that I really enjoyed it. One of the most interesting and eye-opening anthro books I have ever read was "English with an Accent" by Rosina Lippi-Green...and that is saying a lot coming from an archaeologist!! Highly recommended...she shows how discrimination based on accents and language use in the US is pervasive not only in the media, but classrooms, the law system, and business, and how this promotes and maintains social inequality.

Oh, good, I don't feel so totally pedantic then?!? I'll go on with Laurie's comment...

Shall is a great umbrella term which covers higher territory than it's alternatives. Consider this: You and your boss have discussed a project and there's some confusion on your part about what the next step is. This is how I see the choices:

1. Shall I draft it now or wait? - All things have been considered by both parties. What does the situation demand? Judgment call for the boss. Makes boss feel good, you feel participatory.

2. Do you want me to draft it now or wait? - All things have been considered. Conciliatory and passive sounding.

3. Should I draft it now or wait? All things have been considered. Asking for guidance from boss, which is ok, but sounds indecisive on your part.

So, so subtle. But people understand what they hear, not always what you're saying. Communication is a creative challenge under the best of circumstances.