would rather

[hela]

Dear teachers,

1) If "would rather" is used with a single pronoun, is the form of the verb that follows it a bare infinitive or a present subjunctive ?

e.g. He would rather BE alone.

2) If "would rather" is used with 2 pronouns, should the form of the verb that follows it be in the present subjunctive or the past subjunctive ?

e.g. I'd rather you LEAVE / LEFT now.
She'd rather they STAY / STAYED.
We'd rather they LIVE / LIVED close by.
What would you rather I DO / DID ?

Thanks a lot,
Hela

[danmahaffey]

Dear teachers,

1) If "would rather" is used with a single pronoun, is the form of the verb that follows it a bare infinitive or a present subjunctive ?

e.g. He would rather BE alone.

2) If "would rather" is used with 2 pronouns, should the form of the verb that follows it be in the present subjunctive or the past subjunctive ?

e.g. I'd rather you LEAVE / LEFT now.
She'd rather they STAY / STAYED.
We'd rather they LIVE / LIVED close by.
What would you rather I DO / DID ? Hela, I sympathize. Rather can be bothersome, especially since we ask it to do so much. The solution to your problem has nothing to do with the number of pronouns but, instead, rather's part of speech.

Rather means preferably, and as an adverb, it tempers the predicate by indicating that it's a preferable state. In your sentence, "He would rather be alone," you are stating that, "he would be alone, preferably." You are using rather in a syntactically correct way. In all your other sentences, you stretch the meaning of rather to include the meaning, prefer, which is a verb. That's what makes those sentences so awkward to form. Rather is not a verb.

If you will actually use the word prefer, you would see the sentences take on new life. "She'd prefer they'd stay." Or, "What would you prefer (that) I do?"

Don't ask rather to do so much work. It has enough of a job being a decent adverb. Don't make it be a verb, too.

Good luck.

[Rusty]

Hello Hela: In addition to Dan's information you may benefit from an answer to a similar question at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv107.shtml

This quote seems to apply to your #2 question.
"Would rather (but not would prefer to) is also followed by a past tense when we want to involve other people in the action, even though it has a present or future meaning."

[danmahaffey]

Hello Hela: In addition to Dan's information you may benefit from an answer to a similar question at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv107.shtml

This quote seems to apply to your #2 question.
"Would rather (but not would prefer to) is also followed by a past tense when we want to involve other people in the action, even though it has a present or future meaning."Thanks, Rusty, for leaving the door open for me to come back in. Hela, I agree with Rusty that would rather, when referring to actions by others, requires past tense.

Here is where I jumped the track. In the sentence "She'd rather they stayed," my error was in assuming that such a sentence uses rather as a verb. It doesn't. The verb is would, not rather. The sentence is a use of subjunctive that has fallen from use except in constructions such as these, where nothing else will do. Rather is still an adverb meaning preferably.

The sentence without rather looks like this: "She would they stayed, preferably." This is the verb will, meaning intend, used subjunctively as the outcome is uncertain. Native speakers familiar with older English will recognize the form. Except me.

Again, thanks Rusty.

[plin]

I was kind of feeling dizzy about "rather" being used as a verb, until the the last part of your comment. Interesting analysis, Dan. Thanks.

[danmahaffey]

I was kind of feeling dizzy about "rather" being used as a verb, until the the last part of your comment. Interesting analysis, Dan. Thanks.An aside to plin, and everyone else should feel free to ignore this. I think we speakers unconsciously employ rather as a "pseudo-verb" (acts like a verb but isn't) meaning prefer to. Our language is full of double verbs: go to x, try to y, want to z, etc., like this: I'm going to eat. He tries to act brave. She wants Bob to stop smoking. Also, Ann prefers to walk. Is it possible that rather may mimic this enough that it is evolving into a verb?

In the sentence, Ann would rather walk, if rather is a pseudo-verb, that would make would rather a conditional mode form of rather, instead of subjunctive of will. I believe such a form would come naturally to everyday conversation.

If rather does "cross over," it will have good company with the likes of better, the adverb, which folks have been using as a verb for a long time, as in, I better get off the phone, now. Or, he better save some cake for the rest of us.

PS-In the course of my reading to improve my thinking on this topic, I reread the origin of rather, and saw that in Old English the word was rathe, meaning soon, quick or early. So rather of course means sooner, quicker or earlier. I think if I mentally substitute one of these words for rather before I utter or write a sentence with rather, it will sharpen my diction.

[plin]

>>If rather does "cross over," it will have good company with the likes of better, the adverb, which folks have been using as a verb for a long time, as in, I better get off the phone, now. Or, he better save some cake for the rest of us.


"I better get off the phone, now."

Did you mean "I'd better get off the phone, now"?



He's working long hours to better his financial situation.


I understand the usage of better as a verb in my sentence above. But
I thought the usage of "better" in your sentence was still adverbial or some other form. In my sentence I can easily replace "better" with "improve," which is another verb. But since you say that in your sentence it is being used as a verb as well, what other verbs with equal meaning could take its place? Thanks, Dan.

[danmahaffey]

>>If rather does "cross over," it will have good company with the likes of better, the adverb, which folks have been using as a verb for a long time, as in, I better get off the phone, now. Or, he better save some cake for the rest of us.


"I better get off the phone, now."

Did you mean "I'd better get off the phone, now"?



He's working long hours to better his financial situation.


I understand the usage of better as a verb in my sentence above. But
I thought the usage of "better" in your sentence was still adverbial or some other form. In my sentence I can easily replace "better" with "improve," which is another verb. But since you say that in your sentence it is being used as a verb as well, what other verbs with equal meaning could take its place? Thanks, Dan.The use of better as I cited is, obviously, a sloppy one. But it is common in everyday speech. Yes, when used correctly, the sentence needs "had," as in "I had better get off the phone, now." As I used it in my example, better could be defined as "ought to." "I ought to get off the phone, now."

English evolves, and one century's bad grammar becomes another century's debate topic (like this), and then another century's standard usage. Most Euorpean languages have changed so much in 1,500 years that today's versions and the oldest versions are now mutually unintelligible.

The meaning of better, to improve, is not in question.

[plin]

>>As I used it in my example, better could be defined as "ought to." "I ought to get off the phone, now."

The meaning of "ought to" in practice belongs to "had better," but because we are here making a sloppy use of had better, we have given its meaning to "better," which in turn, has taken a completely different meaning than the one normally assigned to it, Correct?

[danmahaffey]

>>As I used it in my example, better could be defined as "ought to." "I ought to get off the phone, now."

The meaning of "ought to" in practice belongs to "had better," but because we are here making a sloppy use of had better, we have given its meaning to "better," which in turn, has taken a completely different meaning than the one normally assigned to it, Correct?Yes. That's it.***************"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole of them!"

—Lewis Carroll. Through the Looking Glass.
Lewis Carroll has Humpty Dumpty say that the question is whether we are the master of words, or they, us. Of course, too much of our mastery produces jibberish. If you haven't read Through the Looking Glass, please do. Especially read "Jabberwocky" for a poem of words that mean just what Humpty Dumpty wants them to mean.

[plin]

Thanks, once again, for all the help and suggestions, Dan.


Plin