MODE AND TENSE FORMS.
COMPOUND FORMS—ANALYSIS.
The +compound+, or +periphrastic, forms+ of the verb consisting of two words may each be resolved into an +asserting word and a participle+ or an +infinitive+.
If we look at the original meaning of the forms +I do write, I shall write, I will write+, we shall find that the so-called auxiliary is the real verb, and that write is an infinitive used as object complement. +I do write = I do+ or +perform+ the action (to) write. +I shall write = I owe+ (to) +write. I will write = I determine+ (to) +write+.
+May write, can write, must write, might write, could write, would write+, and +should write+ may each be resolved into an asserting word and an infinitive.
The forms +is writing, was written+, etc. consist each of an asserting word (the verb be), and a participle used as attribute complement.
The forms +have written+ and +had written+ are so far removed from their original meaning that their analysis cannot be made to correspond with their history. They originated from such expressions as I have a letter written, in which have ( = possess) is a transitive verb taking letter for its object complement, and written is a passive participle modifying letter. The idea of possession has faded out of have, and the participle has lost its passive meaning. The use of this form has been extended to intransitive verbs—Spring has come, Birds have flown, etc. being now regularly used instead of the more logical perfect tense forms, Spring is come, Birds are flown. (Is come, are flown, etc. must not be mistaken for transitive verbs in the passive voice.) [Footnote: A peculiar use of had is found in the expressions had rather go and had better go, condemned by many grammarians who suppose had to be here used incorrectly for would or should. Of these expressions the "Standard Dictionary," an authority worthy of our attention, says:—
"Forms disputed by certain grammatical critics from the days of Samuel Johnson, the critics insisting upon the substitution of would or should, as the case may demand, for had; but had rather and had better are thoroughly established English, idioms having the almost universal popular and literary sanction of centuries. 'I would rather not go' is undoubtedly correct when the purpose is to emphasize the element of choice, or will, in the matter; but in all ordinary cases 'I had rather not go' has the merit of being idiomatic and easily and universally understood.
"If for 'You had better stay at home' we substitute 'You should better stay at home,' an entirely different meaning is expressed, the idea of expediency giving place to that of obligation."
In the analysis of "I had rather go," had is the predicate verb, the infinitive go is the object complement, and the adjective rather completes had and belongs to go, i.e., is objective complement. Had (= should hold or regard) is treated as a past subjunctive. Rather is the comparative of the old adjective rathe = early, from which comes the idea of preference. The expression means, "I should hold going preferable."