Re: V2 (plus Géarthnuns serendipity)

From: "Nik Taylor"

> DOUGLAS KOLLER wrote:
> > Well, call me a purist, a prescriptivist, a traditionalist, an old
fogey,
> > but I'm not into this interpretation at all.
> In usage it's pretty similar to auxilliaries.  It's more-or-less a
> synonym of "ought", and "not" follows it like auxilliaries.  Of course,
> it can't be used in questions, *"better you do that?" is hopelessly
> ungramatical, but if it were to evolve a bit further, so that it could
> be used in exactly the same way as other auxiliaries, I'd certainly call
> it an auxiliary.  Right now, I don't know what you'd call it.  It's not
> an adverb, as it is always followed by the base form, it's "He better
> go", not *"He better goes".  Usage-wise, it's perhaps a restricted kind
> of auxiliary.
I've understood where you were going with this, and the usage you cite may
well be going this way, but my idiolect is as yet unwilling (though I use
the forms you're talking about in informal speech) to concede that this is
nothing more than the original contracted auxiliary ("had" going to "'d"
going to 0)  being obliterated in casual speech (to say nothing of
grammatically correct usage). For me, the parallel structure is "rather".

I'd better go (from "I had better go")  --> I better go.
I'd rather go (from "I would/should rather go) --> I'd rather go. (no
change) *I rather go.
(and "rather" normally plunks before verbs, doesn't it? -- He rather likes
it.)
Negative works like your description of "better" -- I'd rather _not_ go.

Why the former permits the aux. to be dropped while the latter doesn't, I
have no idea. Perhaps it will one day. I wouldn't be at all surprised if
certain native speakers were unable to identify what the "'d" stood for in
either of these expressions, much as what the contraction "let's" stands for
is becoming increasingly abstruse to many people.

At any rate, I see your point, but I just can't go there yet, girlfriend. ;)

Kou