3

I'm a native speaker from the UK, but after living for more than 10 years in a foreign country, I'm beginning to notice how my English is getting much worse.

The other day, I came across a phrase that I hadn't used in a long time - would sooner have. And I began to think about its past tense. I asked a neighbour who is an English teacher (it is however her second language) and she told me that have should go after sooner e.g I would sooner have done something. I then thought, why wouldn't it be also correct to say I would have sooner done something (well she told me this one was wrong). So what's the reason behind this word order?

KillingTime
  • 6,206
user435473
  • 39

2 Answers2

2

The explanation is that "would sooner" is an idiom. This is found in a note to § 3.45 of "A comprehensive grammar of the English language". According to the analysis in this grammar the construction "would sooner" can be reckoned with as a modal idiom alongside other idioms of the same type. The additional idioms are joined to the list shown below.

3.45 CoGEL Modal idioms: had better, etc

This category contains the following four multi-word verbs, as well as some less common verbal constructions:
             had better     would rather    HAVE got to     BE to
They all begin with an auxiliary verb, and are followed by an infinitive (sometimes preceded by to):
We had better leave soon. Yes, we had. [1]
We'd better leave soon. Yes, we'd better. [1]
I'd rather not say anything. [2]
They've got to leave immediately. [3]
The conference is to take place in Athens. [4]

Note
[a] In addition to the four modal idioms illustrated above, the following sentences illustrate less common idioms which might be placed in the same category:
      I would sooner leave the decision to you.
      I would (just) as soon eat at home.
      We may/might (just) as well pay at once.
      You had best forget this incident.

LPH
  • 20,841
  • The idiom is: would sooner x than y. Sometimes implied. – Lambie Oct 06 '21 at 19:17
  • @Lambie I don't believe so; you may add the "than" part, but there is no necessity of doing so, and whether you do or not the meaning remains the same. Let's say that there is one more idiomatic turn built around another such turn, and the pattern is not generalized to "had best", and "may just as well" (incorrect). – LPH Oct 06 '21 at 19:25
  • 1
    I'm not sure the OP was really asking about the idiomatic part of the construction so much as the question of splitting up the past participle. I think the question could be recast with "I would have rather died" vs "I would rather have died": The OP's friend seems to be suggesting that it's wrong to insert "rather" between "have" and "died." I've kept quiet on this one because I'm not sure of the right answer, but the quotes in Michael's comment make it clear that the split-up usage is common enough. – Andy Bonner Oct 06 '21 at 19:37
  • 1
    @AndyBonner One thing is certain and that is that in comparison the order "sooner before 'have'" is largely adhered to, and justifies to a point treating the corresponding locution as the idiom, the other one being a variant. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=would+sooner+have%2Cwould+have+sooner&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cwould%20sooner%20have%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwould%20have%20sooner%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cwould%20sooner%20have%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwould%20have%20sooner%3B%2Cc0. (1/2) – LPH Oct 06 '21 at 19:46
  • 1
    @AndyBonner This difference in frequency is even more important for "would rather have": https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=would+rather+have%2Cwould+have+rather&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cwould%20rather%20have%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwould%20have%20rather%3B%2Cc0. It is possible that some prescriptive point of view is the cause of considering the minority forms as being "not as idiomatic" as the dominant forms.(2/2) – LPH Oct 06 '21 at 19:52
  • I can assure you that "[subject] would sooner x " always involves another term, express or implied. Ask any native English speaker who knows grammar, etc. They will tell you. Your sentence: I would sooner leave the decision to you [than decide it myself]. That's the whole point. – Lambie Oct 06 '21 at 19:56
  • 1
    My gut hunch, which I've kept quiet about because it's just that, is that there's some minor proscription against "splitting a participle." I'm not aware of such a one, though. ("I would boldy have gone where no man would have gone before...") – Andy Bonner Oct 06 '21 at 19:56
  • 1
    @AndyBonner - I only bothered commenting because I, a southern English 69 year old educated RP speaker, would normally split the participle, e.g. I would have sooner put out my eyes than vote Leave in the referendum. It seemed rather sweeping to call it an 'idiom'. – Michael Harvey Oct 06 '21 at 20:01
  • My uncle Toby was a man patient of injuries;--not from want of courage,--I have told you in a former chapter, 'that he was a man of courage:'--And will add here, that where just occasions presented, or called it forth,--I know no man under whose arm I would have sooner taken shelter - Tristram Shandy, Lawrence Sterne, 1759 – Michael Harvey Oct 06 '21 at 21:54
  • @MichaelHarvey Usage has swerved again and again along the ages and what was acceptable in days gone by might not be today ; we have an example of this fact in this very passage from Tristram Shandy: "a man patient of injuries" (arch. or poet.) means little today and is a perfect candidate for ELU inquiry. – LPH Oct 07 '21 at 04:02
  • I agree that they are modal idioms, but note that "would sooner", "would rather" and "had better" are not 'multi-word verbs'. Only "would" and "had" are verbs; "sooner", "rather" and "better" are adverbs. – BillJ Oct 07 '21 at 07:24
  • @BillJ Since the combination is modal, and that without the adverb there is no modality, no modal verb, then it is sensible to reason that the adverb contributes to modality, thereby losing its usual adverb status in this combination that has become unanalyzable. The very fact that the adverb is part of an idiom precludes any possible justification of its use in that idiom as any given type of adjunct; in other words, the adverb is an adverb in name only. – LPH Oct 07 '21 at 11:24
  • The idiom is analysed as `verb+adverb, not verb+verb. The point I'm making is that "would sooner" is not a multi-word verb, since that implies that both elements are verbs which is untrue. In, for example, "I would sooner [stay at home]", the adverb "sooner" modifies "would". Note that they are not inseparable, cf. "Would you sooner stay at home?" I would call it a 'two-word verbal idiom'. – BillJ Oct 07 '21 at 11:44
  • @BillJ Are the so called phrasal verbs (idioms) considered verbs without their particles, which are not verbs? No, they are not, and they are even called, sometimes, multi-word verbs. The analysis of those two problems is the same. If we insist on two ways of considering those questions we introduce much inconsistency. Note that the elements in "give up sth" are not inseparable either: "I gave it up", "I gave up smoking". – LPH Oct 07 '21 at 11:53
  • There's no inconsistency as far as I'm concerned. The term 'phrasal verb' is misleading. Consider the example: "They fell out"; here it is not the whole expression "fall out" that is a verb; it's just the lexeme "fall". The correct term for such expressions is 'verbal idiom'. "Fell out" is not a constituent at word level: it’s a VP. Verb is a word category, like noun, adjective, etc., and it’s "fell" that is a verb: this is the word that takes verbal inflections. So we have "They had fallen out", but not "*They had fall outed". Now do you understand? – BillJ Oct 07 '21 at 12:44
  • @BillJ I do agree with the idea of trying to keep as near as possible to the basic notions; however, this new approach,which means chaos in established grammar, does not resolve one question, and that is "How are you to justify those added elements that give the primary verbal element its meaning or rather that take on a special meaning in the combination? They do not have their usual functions. – LPH Oct 07 '21 at 13:05
  • "chaos in established grammar" God forbid! – Michael Harvey Oct 07 '21 at 14:34
0

As @LPH pointed out, be to and have got to (aka gotta) are indeed modal idioms, but they are unique conflations that include their own to complementizers as enclitics, whereas the other constructions in CGEL's list of Modal Idioms fall into a different semantic category. They're all involved with comparison, and what they're comparing is relative desires (of the speaker, usually).

All are followed by infinitives without to, which are licensed in every case (except had better) by the presence of an actual modal auxiliary in the construction.

  1. The first three are comparatives (note the -er suffix):
    • would sooner
    • had better
    • would rather
  2. the next two are equatives (the as...as construction):
    • would (just) as soon
    • may/might (just) as well
  3. and the last one is a superlative (with the characteristic -st suffix):
    • had best

Note that the equative phrases are all used to indicate a preference, not a lack of preference, between two verbs (normally, between doing something or not doing it, or between doing it one way instead of another).

As far as screwing around with the word order is concerned, idioms are tricky. By definition and in practice, they vary in how loose their constructions are. An idiom is like a TinkerToy wooden construction that's been left out in the rain. Mostly they won't come apart, except there's a slot where you can fit some kinds of things but not others. In had better/best, nothing comes apart.

  • *You didn't have better/best done that
  • *You hadn't better/best have done that

With modals and comparatives, you can get some things moved. I've heard both

  • I wouldn't sooner V

as well as the much more common version

  • I would sooner not V

... but I'd rather not vouch for any more constructions.

John Lawler
  • 107,887