# Would you rather .... now, or later? (eat)



## Gabriel

Ok, so I found that question in an on-line test. It was a multiple choice test and I was hoping to find "eat" as one option, but it wasn't there:

_Would you rather ..... now, or later?

us to eat
we'll eat
we'd eat
we ate_

Given the lack of the expected choice, I defaulted to the first one "us to eat" because it was the only one where the verb was not in what looked to me as odd tenses for this construction. It was wrong and the right one was the last choice: "we ate".

So I have three questions:
Would "eat" have been correct, if there was that choice?
Why is "we ate correct"? What is the surrounding structure or rule?
Is there another way to phrase it with "rather" and that conveys that I am not offering YOU to eat now, but that WE eat now?

Since the three questions refer to the same original doubt or question, I hope I'm within the rules of the forum. If not please tell me and I will split it.


----------



## chileno

You are just considering "you" as the only possible choice...


----------



## Cleotis

In my opinion, the test is wrong. I don't see how can you fit "we ate" in that sentence.


----------



## kalamazoo

"eat" would be correct. "we ate"is fine, but I can't really tell you the reason. It is the most idiomatic way to say something like this and the only one of the choices that is correct.


----------



## Forero

"We ate" is the only correct choice here: _Would you rather _(_that_)_ we ate now, or later?_

Would you rather ..... now, or later?

_us to eat_ (_Would_ no es transitivo sino auxiliar.)
_we'll eat_ (Tiempo presente no cabe.)
_we'd eat_ (Posible pero raro: ¿Preferirías que quisiéramos/queramos comer ahora?)
_we ate_ (Subjuntivo del pasado, "irrealis".)


----------



## kalamazoo

I THINK you can also use "would rather" with the present subjunctive in some cases.  FOr example,"Would you rather he leave now?" or "Would you rather he left now" both seem okay to me.


----------



## Wandering JJ

It's pretty much in line with the Spanish:

-¿Preferirías que *comiéramos* ahora?


----------



## loudspeaker

'We ate'

'Would rather' can be used with different subjects before and after it, to say that one person would prefer another to do something. We generally use a past tense with a present or future meaning.

I'd rather you went home now.
Shall I open a window? I'd rather you didn't.


----------



## SevenDays

..*we ate*...

Es el subjuntivo, no en forma, pero en _significado._ La forma (ate) es el pasado simple del indicativo. La pregunta _would you rather we ate now or later?_ expresa un _deseo/incertidumbre/duda_, todo en la modalidad interrogativa marcada con el signo de interrogación, de ahí el uso del past simple con su valor de subjuntivo referido al presente/futuro. Es lo más natural, y me imagino lo que busca el examen.   

Ahora bien, lo que la prueba no considera, quizás para no complicar las cosas, es que, como "ate" no es la forma subjuntiva _flexiva,_ se puede usar el presente "eat" para indicar algún significado _fuera del ámbito del subjuntivo_, por ejemplo _preferencia _(would you rather we eat now or later?) o _sorpresa, incredulidad, disgusto_, etc. (que en lo oral lo indicaríamos con un tono más alto de voz y en lo escrito con ? o !?).
 Cheers


----------



## Archilochus

"Would you rather us to eat now or later."

This is idiomatic, at least where I'm from.


----------



## kalamazoo

In most cases in English, you can't tell whether a verb is subjunctive or not because the forms are identical. So I think "ate" is subjunctive.  As to the "rather us to eat"-  I agree this is idiomatic but only in very colloquial spoken English.  I don't think you can use this in writing.


----------



## Forero

El verbo _be_, el único que cambia de forma para el subjuntivo del pasado, se usa así como:

_I would rather he were here now._


----------



## Gabriel

Thank all you very much for all the answers.
I find them very interesting and informative.
I don't remember having came across a case of the type "Someone would rather someone else do/did something" before.
I'll try to summarize what I think I got by now, and you guys let me know if you agree, ok?

*Would you rather eat now, or later?*
It's ok and asking about a preference. It's directed only to YOU, not to what WE shall do.

*Would you rather us to eat now, or later?*
It's idiomatic in informal spoken English. Not a good choice for a test answer.

*Would you rather we ate now, or later?*
Ok. "Ate" there has a subjunctive meaning. That would be like "¿Preferirías que comiéramos ahora o más tarde?".
I suspected it, but then the subjunctive meaning can be also applied in present: "¿Preferirías que comamos ahora o más tarde?" (I'm not 100% sure that this option is right in Spanish, maybe it should be "¿Prefieres que comamos..."), which takes us to...

*Would your rather we eat now, or later?*
Also Ok. Here "eat" has a subjunctive meaning too. It conveys about the same meaning that the previous case with the subjunctive in the past (and I'm saying "about the same meaning" to leave the possibility that there is any difference in meaning between the two cases, that I cannot find neither in Spanish nor in English)


----------



## kalamazoo

I agree, but would add that "would you rather us to eat now" is EXTREMELY colloquial and informal and not conventional spoken English at all. Don't use this construction in a business meeting!  English learners should avoid it completely.   Informal spoken English would also use "would you rather we ate now or later."  This is a common and straightforward way of saying this.


----------



## chileno

What about "Would you rather us eating now or later? 

Still bad?


----------



## Tochka

I agree, the test question is a poor one and multiple answers are possible.


kalamazoo said:


> As to the "rather us to eat"-  I agree this is idiomatic but only in very colloquial spoken English.  I don't think you can use this in writing.


Like Archilochus, I don't find this expression to be that unusual but while I'll allow that its continued use may be regional now, I don't think it counts as particularly regional in origin or even as idiomatic.  Rather it falls under the same category as the standard construction "I'd like him to go" with the form [verb]+[object]+[infinitive], wherein the object of the verb serves (in meaning) as a subject of sorts to the infinitive (I forget any grammatical terms for this I may have once known).  If recollection serves, this form is common in Latin and has a long-standing history of use in English as well.  It may be falling out of favor, but I wouldn't rush to judge it as totally unacceptable in formal writing. 
 I'd be curious to learn what our British English colleagues have to say on this.

-----
See, e.g. http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/Infinitives.pdf which explains this form in respect to Latin.  But the same form applies in English.


> The infinitive is most widely used in Latin in Indirect Speech (Oratio Obliqua), which combines an accusative subject with an infinitive in subordinate clauses after a verbs of saying, thinking, and perceiving.
> Puto eum sapientem esse = I think that he is wise.


 or, in Latin or English, "I think him to be wise."


----------



## kalamazoo

I would say "would you rather us eating now or later" is worse!


----------



## lospazio

Forero said:


> "We ate" is the only correct choice here: _Would you rather _(_that_)_ we ate now, or later?_



I agree with Gabriel that none of the possible answers to the exercise was what I would have expected. But I think the reason is that those who learn English (including myself) are very much used to think of _will_ and_ would_ as auxiliary verbs, but in this case _would_ is not auxiliary, is it?


----------



## Chasint

In British English we could say 
_
1. Would you rather eat now, or later? _(This is asking the other person what they would prefer)

_2. Would you rather we ate now, or later? _ (This is asking when both parties should eat, the speaker and the listener)

None of the other versions is possible.


----------



## gengo

Gabriel said:


> *Would you rather us to eat now, or later?*
> It's idiomatic in informal spoken English.



Despite what a couple of posters have said, I find this downright horrible.  I have never heard any American use an object pronoun after "rather," and I have heard a lot of dialects.  I guess I'm missing one.  We use a subject pronoun after "rather."  And I agree with whoever said that both the present and the past are used.

Would you rather that I left/leave now? 
Would you rather me to leave now?


----------



## Forero

lospazio said:


> I agree with Gabriel that none of the possible answers to the exercise was what I would have expected. But I think the reason is that those who learn English (including myself) are very much used to think of _will_ and_ would_ as auxiliary verbs, but in this case _would_ is not auxiliary, is it?


I call it an auxiliary verb because of the structures "I would rather eat now than later" and "Wouldn't you rather we ate now than later?", but I could also think of it as a transitive verb like _prefer_, but with special rules about what kind of direct objects it can have.

I am not sure what the rules are though:

_He would rather you moved than to have you putting nails in the wall._
_He would rather you'd move._
_I would rather a piece of flint and a piece of steel than a match._
_I would rather you than me._


----------



## pmaka06

I hear both the simple past and present used in this construction and neither sounds strange at all.  Maybe the past is the technically correst option but it is the construction itself or the context that give the sentence its subjunctive sense.

Would you rather we ate/eat now or later?


----------



## kalamazoo

Tochka said he/she didn't find the construction 'would you rather us ate now or later' "idiomatic" but "idiomatic" means that it is something a native speaker would say, it doesn't mean that it's an idiom. So this is an idiomatic thing to say because at least some native speakers would say this. It might be a regionalism though.


----------



## lospazio

Forero said:


> I call it an auxiliary verb because of the structures "I would rather eat now than later" and "Wouldn't you rather we ate now than later?", but I could also think of it as a transitive verb like _prefer_, but with special rules about what kind of direct objects it can have.
> 
> I am not sure what the rules are though:
> 
> _He would rather you moved than to have you putting nails in the wall._
> _He would rather you'd move._
> _I would rather a piece of flint and a piece of steel than a match._
> _I would rather you than me._



I find your second interpretation more convincing. And I think that the third example that you give, that can be rephrased as _I would rather this than that_ highlights Gabriel's doubt, which initiated this thread. In this example it is clear that the verb is _will_. I think that Gabriel was waiting for the main verb after _rather_.


----------



## Gabriel

I think that the better I understand how to use "rather", the less I understand the underlying structures and rules.

Let's see. How is that "would" is not an auxiliary or modal verb?

Until today, the only way I knew that "would" could be used was as an auxiliary or modal verb followed ALWAYS by another verb in infinitive, be it the main verb or the auxiliary verb "have":_ I would go / I would have gone_.

In constructions like "I would rather go now" I understood that "would" was the auxiliary verb of the main verb "go", to form something that in Spanish would be "Preferiría irme ahora" but if I had to try and emulate the structure would be "Preferentemente me iría ahora", where the adverb "preferentemente" is the adverb "rather" and "iría" is of course "would go".

But in a structure like:
_I would rather you went now_

I could only imagine it working if "rather" was a verb like "prefer", and the "would" was the modal affecting "rather":
Preferiría que te fueras ahora: "Would rather" = "preferiría", and "you went", "que te fueras".

The problem with that is that, as far as I know, "rather" is NOT a verb.

So Ok, I've already bought that this is the right way to say it.
But what are the grammatical functions of "would", "rather" and "went" in the above sentence?
I don't understand.



			
				lospazio said:
			
		

> I think that Gabriel was waiting for the main verb after rather.


Rather, I was (and I still am) waiting for a main verb in infinitive accompanying the "would"


----------



## loudspeaker

Gabriel said:


> Rather, I was (and I still am) waiting for a main verb in infinitive accompanying the "would"



Would you rather stay here or go home?
I'd rather trust a countryman than a townman.


----------



## lospazio

Gabriel said:


> I think that the better I understand how to use "rather", the less I understand the underlying structures and rules.
> 
> Let's see. How is that "would" is not an auxiliary or modal verb?
> 
> Until today, the only way I knew that "would" could be used was as an auxiliary or modal verb followed ALWAYS by another verb in infinitive, be it the main verb or the auxiliary verb "have":_ I would go / I would have gone_.



_Will_ is sometimes used as a verb in its own, with no infinitive following, meaning _desire _or_ wish_. The following is extracted from _Oxford Dictionaries on line_:

*verb*

_[with object]_ 

1chiefly _formal_ _literary_ intend, desire, or wish (something) to happen: _he was doing what the saint willed_ 

_[with clause]:__ marijuana, dope, grass—call it what you will_


----------



## kalamazoo

I am a native speaker and so I don't really know much about the rules that apply here. But personally I would suggest that you are better off just thinking of this as two completely separate constructions and not trying to find some rule explains both.  "I would rather" is almost like its own separate verb.


----------



## Gabriel

loudspeaker said:


> Would you rather stay here or go home?
> I'd rather trust a countryman than a townman.


I'm afraid I don't understand what you are trying to explain here.


----------



## loudspeaker

Gabriel said:


> I'm afraid I don't understand what you are trying to explain here.




Then....What's your point exactly?

'Would rather' is followed by the infinitive without to, and means 'would prefer to'.
'How about a drink?' -- 'I'd rather have something to eat.

Use the simple past when you say that one person would prefer another to do something.

My wife would rather we didn't see each other again.

A present tense is also possible but *very unusual*...
I'd rather you go home now....


----------



## Gabriel

Thanks Loudspeaker. I understood that already in the sense that I understand this is the way to use it.
What disorientates me is the "would" not working as an auxiliary of a main verb in infinitive. I didn't think it was possible before this thread.

That's why "Would you rather eat now?" sounds quite natural to me (it's like any other construction with "would" and an adverb: _Would you simply/quietly/joyfully eat now?_) but "Would you rather we ate now" sounds extremely odd. Now I accept it (as if I had a choice  ), but it will take some time until I get used to it and  feel it natural. And I don't understand the underlying structure (What is "would"? An auxiliary? Of what verb? What is "rather"? An adverb? Of what verb?) other than it's a specific structure for this specific case, so better not to try to understand it, just to accept it.


----------



## Archilochus

Gabriel said:


> But in a structure like:
> _I would rather you went now_
> 
> I could only imagine it working if "rather" was a verb like "prefer", and the "would" was the modal affecting "rather":
> Preferiría que te fueras ahora: "Would rather" = "preferiría", and "you went", "que te fueras".
> 
> The problem with that is that, as far as I know, "rather" is NOT a verb.



But haven't you solved your problem right there? In constructions like, "I would rather you went now", the word 'rather' is_ functioning_ like the word 'prefer', it is _used_ like the word 'prefer'.

 It would be far, far easier for all of us if language followed strict rules. It doesn't, and sometimes we just have to say, OK, that's how it is. As you just said.


----------



## SevenDays

I simply call "would rather" a *modal idiom*.  "Idiom" in the sense that it is a fixed expression suggesting_ modality_ (_possibility_, _likelihood,_ _necessity,_ etc.)); "modal" because in some cases "would rather" behaves syntactically just like a modal verb (_may,_ _might,_ _will_, etc.), but not in all cases, which is why I don't call "would rather" a "modal auxiliary" (or just "auxiliary" because all modal verbs are a subclass of auxiliary verbs).

"Would rather" behaves like modal verbs in that it takes a bare infinitive complement:
_I would rather go
__I might go
__I may go_
_I can go_

But "would rather" also takes finite clauses as complements, something that modal auxiliaries can't do:
_I *would rather* you go/went home now_
_I *may *you go/went home now_ 

Because "would rather" is an* idiom*, it is pointless to try to figure out what "would" and "rather" mean separately or to what grammatical category they belong; "would" and "rather" acquire meaning (_possibility_, _necessity_, _obligation_, etc.) when they are considered _together_.  

Cheers


----------



## kalamazoo

I suspect that somehow the "would" is not modal in a sentence like "would you rather he eat now" but is actually a form of the verb "will" (also not a modal) as in "he willed her into existence."  Yes, there is a verb "will."


----------



## Gabriel

kalamazoo said:


> I suspect that somehow the "would" is not modal in a sentence like "would you rather he eat now" but is actually a form of the verb "will" (also not a modal) as in "he willed her into existence."  Yes, there is a verb "will."



Except that, as far as I know, "will" as a main verb is a regular verb, hence its past and participle forms are "willed", not "would". But this is a completely different can of worms altogether.


----------



## gengo

Everyone is making this more complicated than necessary.  Remember that one meaning of "rather" is "instead," as in "I like this one rather than that one" = "I like this one instead of that one."  So we can think of this construction as a variation on a normal conditional sentence, with an implied hypothetical (subjunctive) clause.

Ex.
I would rather go to the Chinese restaurant. =
{If someone asked me,} I would, instead, go to the Chinese restaurant.

To me it is obvious how this idea of "instead" leads naturally to the idea of preference.  And this is confirmed by the fact that we *only* use "would rather" in cases when there is a stated or implied alternative.  That is, we prefer A over B, A instead of B.

The dictionary has an interesting note about the etymology of this use of rather:
In expressions of preference rather is commonly preceded by would: We would rather rent the house than buy it outright. In formal style, should is sometimes used: I should rather my daughter attended a public school. Sometimes _had_ appears in these constructions, although this use of _had_ seems to be growing less frequent:  _I had rather work with William than work for him. _ This usage was once widely criticized as a mistake, the result of a misanalysis of the contraction in sentences such as _I'd rather stay_.  But it is in fact a survival of the subjunctive form _had_ that appears in constructions like _had better_ and _had best_, as in _We had better leave now_.  This use of had goes back to Middle English and is perfectly acceptable.


----------



## Gabriel

gengo said:
			
		

> Everyone is making this more complicated than necessary. Remember that one meaning of "rather" is "instead," as in "I like this one rather than that one" = "I like this one instead of that one." So we can think of this construction as a variation on a normal conditional sentence, with an implied hypothetical (subjunctive) clause.
> 
> Ex.
> I would rather go to the Chinese restaurant. =
> {If someone asked me,} I would, instead, go to the Chinese restaurant.
> 
> To me it is obvious how this idea of "instead" leads naturally to the idea of preference. And this is confirmed by the fact that we only use "would rather" in cases when there is a stated or implied alternative. That is, we prefer A over B, A instead of B.



Gengo, what you says work perfectly for cases like "I would rather do this (than that)" / "I would, insteed, do this".

But what about:
"I would rather you did that"?

It's Ok, I've already accepted it "de facto". But anyone trying a rational grammatical explanation please aim to this latter form, that is the one that raised doubts and triggered this thread.


----------



## gengo

Gabriel said:


> But what about:
> "I would rather you did that"?



This goes back to the verb "will" being used as a verb of volition.  In older English it was commonly used (and is still used today in movies set in earlier times, to give an old-time feel to the setting).

Ex.
I would that you loved me as I love you. = I wish that...

From there, we merely add the idea of "rather/instead," and voila!


----------



## Forero

Gabriel said:


> Thanks Loudspeaker. I understood that already in the sense that I understand this is the way to use it.
> What disorientates me is the "would" not working as an auxiliary of a main verb in infinitive. I didn't think it was possible before this thread.
> 
> That's why "Would you rather eat now?" sounds quite natural to me (it's like any other construction with "would" and an adverb: _Would you simply/quietly/joyfully eat now?_) but "Would you rather we ate now" sounds extremely odd. Now I accept it (as if I had a choice  ), but it will take some time until I get used to it and  feel it natural. And I don't understand the underlying structure (What is "would"? An auxiliary? Of what verb? What is "rather"? An adverb? Of what verb?) other than it's a specific structure for this specific case, so better not to try to understand it, just to accept it.


I agree with Gengo, but here is the (long winded) explanation I have been typing, in case it might be of use:

Originally _will_ meant something very close to "want" or "want to", and _would_ derives from both the past indicative and past subjunctive of _will_. It was the past subjunctive that became the conditional (much like German _will_/_wolte_/_wölte_).

An example of _would_ without _rather_:

_I would that we should not have to wait so long._ (Old fashioned language for "I wish we did not have to wait so long.")

_Rather_ is generally a comparative modifier that suggests a choice, usually between two things. You can see the same _-ther_ suffix at work in _other_ and _either_. _Sooner_ is another comparative modifier than fits after _would_ the same way _rather_ does:

_I would sooner leave now than to be forced to put up with another hour of your complaining._

To me, the meaning of this last sentence is something like "There is a high probability that I would choose leaving now over being forced to put up with another hour of your complaining." The idea of "sooner" becomes the idea of what we should expect first/sooner were we to experiment with repeated trials based on the current situation, which is the idea behind the science of probability.

I take the _would_ in "would rather"/"would sooner" to be the conditional form of _will_ in the old fashioned "wish" or "wish to" sense, and the _rather_ to indicate a choice. A _than_ clause follows when the rejected choice is not clear from the context. So the literal meaning is something like "Querría más bien", and _preferiría_ is a good synonym.

Note that the two choices in my first example cannot be reversed:

1a. _He would rather you moved than to have you putting nails in the wall._
1b. _He would rather to have you putting nails in the wall than you moved._

The main reason for this is that it uses the subjunctive construction in parallel with infinitive construction. In 1a, _would_ acts like "would wish" and the _to_ is needed after _than_ to keep _have_ from being read (temporarily) as "you have". But with the infinitive first, _would_ "prefers" to act as a modal, meaning "would wish to", so _to_ does not belong in 1b and the _than_ clause does not fit because the first bare infinitive elicits another bare infinitive after the _than_.

My second example illustrates another use of _would_:

_He would rather you'd move._

"You wouldn't move" means you refused to move, so "you would move" means you did not refuse to move (que estuviste dispuesto a mudarte), so "he would rather you'd move" means something like "he would rather you gave in and moved."


----------



## Gabriel

gengo said:


> This goes back to the verb "will" being used as a verb of volition.  In older English it was commonly used (and is still used today in movies set in earlier times, to give an old-time feel to the setting).
> 
> Ex.
> I would that you loved me as I love you. = I wish that...
> 
> From there, we merely add the idea of "rather/instead," and voila!


Now this gets interesting.
Please excuse the disorganization and possible mistakes in following questions. If I am no expert in English, even less am I one in older English.

I know that will, other than auxiliary verb, can be a main verb too (a transitive one):
I will that you love me.

I understand that, as such, will can take all the usual tenses:
I *was willing* that you loved me, but now it seems that it will never happen.
When you're done with me, I*'ll will* that I had never loved you.

"Would" is the past of "will" as an auxiliary verb: I will do it tomorrow / I would do it the next day
But, while I've never seen it in use, the dictionary says that, as a main verb, will is a regular one, and hence the past and participle are "willed". So I guess that something like this is possible:
I have always willed that you loved me.
I once willed that you loved me, but then I found out who you really were.

Given all that, and assuming it's right, it looks as though
"I would that you loved me"
should in fact be
"I would will that you loved me",
where "would" is the past of the auxiliary "will" and "will" is the main verb.


----------



## kalamazoo

Actually most of your examples with "will" don't seem right to me at all.  "will" doesn't exactly mean "wish" to me, it means more that by force of your desire you made something happen.  He willed x into existence.  Maybe "I willed her to love me." ( not so sure about this.)


----------



## Gabriel

Forero,

You've said one thing that certainly called my attention:

_"[Would] was the past subjunctive [of will] that became the conditional"_

So "would" is the conditional of "will" (as a min verb), that would be equivalent to "would will" if it was acceptable, except that it isn't acceptable.
Very much like "could" is the conditional of "can" and "would can" is not acceptable: "I could do it if I had the right tools" (= "I would be able to do it if...")

Let's see:

I would that we ate now.
I would rather we ate now.

Are those two sentences correct and more or less equivalent, except that the first one express a general wish while the second one faces that wish against an implicit alternative (like "and not later")?


----------



## gengo

Gabriel said:


> I know that will, other than auxiliary verb, can be a main verb too (a transitive one):
> I will that you love me.



I don't think "will" was ever used that way, though I could be wrong.  It is used in the sense of to induce by force of will.

In older English (and perhaps still in British English), a distinction was made between will and shall, with the former meaning to want something to happen in the future.

I will go to college.  (= I am determined to go)
I shall go to college.  (simple future tense)

In modern (American) English we don't make this distinction anymore, and "will" has become a simple future-tense auxiliary verb.


----------



## gengo

Gabriel said:


> So "would" is the conditional of "will" (as a min verb), that would be equivalent to "would will" if it was acceptable, except that it isn't acceptable.
> Very much like "could" is the conditional of "can" and "would can" is not acceptable: "I could do it if I had the right tools" (= "I would be able to do it if...")
> 
> Let's see:
> 
> I would that we ate now.
> I would rather we ate now.
> 
> Are those two sentences correct and more or less equivalent, except that the first one express a general wish while the second one faces that wish against an implicit alternative (like "and not later")?



Both sentences are correct, and more or less equivalent, except that the first one is archaic and the second modern.


----------



## Gabriel

kalamazoo said:


> Actually most of your examples with "will" don't seem right to me at all.  "will" doesn't exactly mean "wish" to me, it means more that by force of your desire you made something happen.  He willed x into existence.  Maybe "I willed her to love me." ( not so sure about this.)



If it doesn't sound right to you, then it probably isn't.

I was trying to follow the structure "I would that you loved me as I love you" used by gengo, except with "will" instead of "would".

Regarding "I willed her to love me", it looks very similar to this example in the WR dictionary:

*will*    verbo transitivo (past & past p willed)
 (urge, try to cause): *I was ~ing her to get the answer right* estaba deseando con todas mis fuerzas _or_ con toda mi voluntad que diera la respuesta correcta


----------



## Forero

Gabriel said:


> Forero,
> 
> You've said one thing that certainly called my attention:
> 
> _"[Would] was the past subjunctive [of will] that became the conditional"_
> 
> So "would" is the conditional of "will" (as a min verb), that would be equivalent to "would will" if it was acceptable, except that it isn't acceptable.
> Very much like "could" is the conditional of "can" and "would can" is not acceptable: "I could do it if I had the right tools" (= "I would be able to do it if...")
> 
> Let's see:
> 
> I would that we ate now.
> I would rather we ate now.
> 
> Are those two sentences correct and more or less equivalent, except that the first one express a general wish while the second one faces that wish against an implicit alternative (like "and not later")?



Yes, they are correct and equivalent except for the idea of an alternative. However, the version with _rather_ is everyday English and the other version is very old fashioned, or poetic.

You are also correct about the defectiveness of _will_/_would_. Note that we are not talking about the regular verb _will_ ("urge", "cause to happen", "ordain", "bequeath", etc.), or the adjective _willing_ ("dispuesto").


----------



## Gabriel

Thank you all. I made you work hard this time.
From my side, I call it a day.


----------



## gengo

Gabriel said:


> Regarding "I willed her to love me", it looks very similar to this example in the WR dictionary:
> 
> *will*    verbo transitivo (past & past p willed)
> (urge, try to cause): *I was ~ing her to get the answer right* estaba deseando con todas mis fuerzas _or_ con toda mi voluntad que diera la respuesta correcta



That example is correct, because it conveys the idea that the speaker was trying to use mental power to force the other person to get the answer right.  It is similar to the idea of mental telepathy.  Not exactly the same as merely wanting.


----------



## kalamazoo

It's pretty bizarre that they had this on a test!  However, since "would rather" is perfectly normal in everyday English, I guess it is worth knowing how to use it correctly.


----------

