|
by Tom Gally | |
Around five in the evening a few days
ago, I had just gotten off a train in Shibuya, Tokyo, when an older
woman came up and spoke to me in Japanese. She had seen me reading a
book in Japanese on the train, and she asked if I was a native speaker
of English and could answer a language question. After a slight
hesitation--in general I am not enthusiastic about being asked by
strangers for free language lessons, though fortunately it happens to
me only rarely--I said okay.Her question turned out to be interesting. She showed me an NHK language text that contained a dialogue with a sentence like the following: (1) I'd just as soon we go home now.She then turned to an earlier page that had a sentence like this: (2) He would just as soon quit his job.Her question was: In (1), why isn't there a verb after "soon"? From (2) and perhaps from her previous knowledge, she had assumed that the sentence pattern was would (just) as soon + Verb, and (1) seemed to violate that pattern because "soon" was followed by a pronoun. I came up with the explanation that the sentence pattern is in fact would (just) as soon + Sentence and that the subject of the subordinate clause is deleted if it is identical to the subject of the main clause. (Later, I realized that the syntax is a bit more complex, as "that" can appear optionally before the subordinate clause, in which case the identical subject is not deleted.) The next day, I checked several dictionaries to see if any of them would have answered her question. All but one gave examples only like (2), in which the subordinate subject has been deleted: I would just as soon stay at home (as go). (行くよりも)むしろ家にいたい. (新英和中辞典)The one exception was Cobuild, which gave the following four examples: (3) These people could afford to retire to Florida but they'd just as soon stay put.Cobuild explains the construction of (5) with the marginal abbreviation "MODAL that"; I guess the reader is expected to understand that the "that" has been omitted from (5). Other dictionaries would do well to note this construction; it should also be possible to explain it more clearly than Cobuild does. (July 20, 2003)
|