Of course, idioms don't have to make sense logically to be coherent to the people who use them regularly. In my experience, though, people who use the wording "sooner than later" don't intend it to mean "right away" or "as soon as possible." They intend it to mean simply "soon," with perhaps some further suggestion that the person being asked to perform the task probably has some leeway to expedite the request if he or she chooses to. It's true that "soon" implies that you've placed the request in a higher position in your queue of tasks than would seem likely if you had used the modifier "later" and for that reason, if you wait until hell freezes over to get started, you will have abused the notion of "soon." But the crucial point with regard to the phrase "sooner than later" is that "soon" is a species of "later" and it follows (from a strictly logical parsing of the phrase) that "sooner than later"-like "sooner than soon"-implies "now." The wording could mean "in a minute, after I finish what I'm working on right now" or it could mean "when hell freezes over"-or anything in between.īut if in response to the same question, you say that you'll "get started on it soon," you still aren't saying anything more definite than that you won't get started on it immediately. How long a wait "later" implies is not at all clear. If someone asks you to do something and you say that you'll "get started on it later," you aren't really saying anything more definite than that you won't get started on it immediately. To me, the logical problem with "sooner than later" is that the only "sooner than later" that isn't itself some form of "later" is "now." But if the question is about meaning, the answer is clear to me.Īnd I hope everyone else comes around sooner rather than later :) Of course, I concede all the previous statements about economy of words or an idiom being adopted in just the way that people like it best, which could be the more "catchy" phrasing. Further, this interpretation does not use "sooner" and "later" in a comparative sense, though the full and apparently older phrase (with the use of "rather") does. I don't quite buy the arguments that defend this, per John Lawler et al, because this seems like a completely pointless sentiment. The only possible way sooner than later makes any sense at all to me is in the very convoluted way I initially describe, which in this new paradigm would be a truncation of: Thus: "We should get to this rather than. I think that sooner rather than later becomes actually meaningful in the way if you consider that the implied time reference could actually be something such as: Many have brought up that some loose time reference is a necessary condition for the comparative words "sooner" and "later". I fear I might have put my brain in some alternate English reality in order to make the defense I did. I'd love to hear what you folks here have to say on the matter and see if anyone can make a compelling and definitive argument. Secondly, I can conceive in some convoluted way that "sooner than later" can be used to communicate exactly what it denotes: a point (or range of points) in time preceding the point (or range of points) described by 'later.' I know it's screwy, but it kind of makes sense. "I'd rather finish sooner than (finish) later." "I'd rather walk faster than (walk) slower." "I'd like to walk faster rather than slower." Below are two caveats to the excellent response by Julian Stewart, and the caveat to my caveats is that you will not find me saying "sooner than later." I came across this thread considering the same question myself. I agree with him, but was also able to twist my brain around to give the phrase some kind of meaning and actually found myself suggesting ways it could be semi-correct. I want this done quickly rather than slowly. by 7pm), but sooner than (another comparative adjective) in my mind doesn't work. Sooner than a specific time might work (adding in e.g. The fact that the adjectives are comparatives and the construction uses "than" is what makes it tempting to remove the rather. There are two choices: one can do it sooner(A) or one can do it later(B). I think it should be "sooner rather than later". One poster gave a very reasonable explanation why "sooner than later" is incorrect: I found this Word Reference Forum thread on the subject. I have always understood the expression to only make sense as "sooner rather than later." I have heard a lot of people say at work that we should do something "sooner than later." This grates against my native ear, but it seems fairly commonplace.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |