# He sensed rather than saw



## Peter Thompson

Hi! I've seen these sentences from yourdictionary : https://sentence.yourdictionary.com/rather-than

*1. He sensed rather than saw that someone was in it, watching them.

2. His eyes glinted rather than flashed, his copper skin tight across perfect, chiseled features.

3. Jule's shaking had stopped, and he looked pale rather than flushed from a fever.*

I would like to ask.
In all of those examples, we have the second verb forms of the verbs. And I'm confused because I usually use "rather than" with either a bare infinitive or a gerund. But in these sentences, they use the second verb forms and not gerunds or bare infinitives.

Could anyone explain ?
I'm super confused here.

Many Thanks!


----------



## cidertree

Do you understand the sentences?


----------



## Uncle Jack

"Rather than" joins two parts of a sentence which are usually parallel. This is sometimes hidden because the beginning and/or end of the sentence is usually shared by both parts.

Two of your examples use past tense verbs; the third one uses adjectives, but these are far from being the only possibilities. I have put the matching parts in bold:

He 
*sensed *​rather than 
*saw *​that someone was in it, watching them.

His eyes 
*glinted *​rather than 
*flashed*,​his copper skin tight across perfect, chiseled features.

Jule's shaking had stopped, and he looked
*pale *​rather than 
*flushed from a fever*.​


----------



## Peter Thompson

Uncle Jack said:


> "Rather than" joins two parts of a sentence which are usually parallel. This is sometimes hidden because the beginning and/or end of the sentence is usually shared by both parts.
> 
> Two of your examples use past tense verbs; the third one uses adjectives, but these are far from being the only possibilities. I have put the matching parts in bold:
> 
> He
> *sensed *​rather than
> *saw *​that someone was in it, watching them.
> 
> His eyes
> *glinted *​rather than
> *flashed*,​his copper skin tight across perfect, chiseled features.
> 
> Jule's shaking had stopped, and he looked
> *pale *​rather than
> *flushed from a fever*.​


In this case, is "rather than" a conjunction or a preposition ?

And also, how could I know whether
It's possible to use past tense verbs or not ? Do you have any tips for this ? Because many people do also say something like this and it seems parallel :
*"He walked away rather than continue to argue."*

Here the sentence doesn't use a past tense verb, but it uses a bare infinitive.
I'm wondering if i change "continue" to "continued" there, will i still keep the same meaning and will I be grammatically correct ?


----------



## lentulax

Peter Thompson said:


> Do you have any tips for this ? Because many people do also say something like this and it seems parallel :
> *"He walked away rather than continue to argue."*


Not really parallel, since the meaning of 'rather than' differs; In 'He sensed rather than saw' the preference expressed by 'rather than' is the speaker's, not that of the person decribed ('he') : 'he' did not prefer to 'sense' rather than 'see'; rather, the speaker chooses 'sense' as a more precise term than 'saw'. In the sentence quoted above, the preference is that of 'he', not of the speaker : 'he' chose to walk away rather than continue to argue. Choose your own grammatical terminology.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Peter Thompson said:


> In this case, is "rather than" a conjunction or a preposition ?


"Than" is a conjunction. I am not sure that I care to analyse "rather than" as either, although Merriam-Webster ('Rather Than': Is It a Conjunction or Preposition?) is very clear in stating that in these parallel constructions "rather than" is a conjunction. 

M-W says nothing about the type of sentence in post #4 though, which, as lentalux says, is different. This is a far harder sentence to analyse, and in many ways is less satisfactory. Nevertheless, it is a part of the English language, and is the sort of thing loved by creative writers.

There is a rather nice piece that discusses the various uses of "rather than" here: The Grammarphobia Blog: “Rather than” is rather confusing. The writer quotes a similar example to your post #4 sentence from _The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language_: "They obeyed the order rather than suffer torture or death." The writer then goes on to comment:
In general, as Robert W. Burchfield says in _Fowler’s Modern English Usage_ (rev. 3rd ed.), “matching forms are best” in “rather than” constructions.​​“The only snag,” adds Burchfield, “is that many kinds of English, including literary English, are more complex, and call for greater subtlety.”​


----------



## Peter Thompson

lentulax said:


> Not really parallel, since the meaning of 'rather than' differs; In 'He sensed rather than saw' the preference expressed by 'rather than' is the speaker's, not that of the person decribed ('he') : 'he' did not prefer to 'sense' rather than 'see'; rather, the speaker chooses 'sense' as a more precise term than 'saw'. In the sentence quoted above, the preference is that of 'he', not of the speaker : 'he' chose to walk away rather than continue to argue. Choose your own grammatical terminology.


Thank you so much!
But what if the one that comes after "rather than" is an adjective ? What should I say to let the listener know that it is my preference when talking about someone else ? 
*1. "He was beautiful rather than be smart"
2. "The food had been sent to the others when he arrived rather than had been eaten by him"*


Are those correct sentences to let the listener know that it is my preference ?


----------



## Uncle Jack

Peter Thompson said:


> Thank you so much!
> But what if the one that comes after "rather than" is an adjective ? What should I say to let the listener know that it is my preference when talking about someone else ?
> *1. "He was beautiful rather than be smart"
> 2. "The food had been sent to the others when he arrived rather than had been eaten by him"*
> 
> 
> Are those correct sentences to let the listener know that it is my preference ?


What do you mean by "my preference"? 

Sentence (1) without "be" is fine grammatically, but it makes little sense without context. Why should being smart be contrasted with being beautiful? What are you trying to say beyond "He was beautiful"?

I cannot make any sense out of sentence (2). I cannot work out the time sequence. It appears to say that the sending of the food to the others and the not eating the food by him happened before he arrived, but if he had the food then it could not have been sent to the others, and if he didn't have the food then why bother mentioning his not eating it?


----------



## Peter Thompson

Uncle Jack said:


> What do you mean by "my preference"?


In post #5 lentulax explains that if the second form of a verb comes after "rather than" , it means that the preference is of the speaker's , and not of the person being described, as in *"He sensed rather than saw"* <- it means that the speaker prefers 'he' to see, so it's not the preference of the person being described.
And If we would like to say that it is the preference of the person being described, we use a bare infinitive and not the second verb form of a verb.


Uncle Jack said:


> Sentence (1) without "be" is fine grammatically, but it makes little sense without context. Why should being smart be contrasted with being beautiful? What are you trying to say beyond "He was beautiful"?


Is using "rather than be" in *"She was beautiful rather than be smart" *grammartically fine ? 




Uncle Jack said:


> I cannot make any sense out of sentence (2). I cannot work out the time sequence. It appears to say that the sending of the food to the others and the not eating the food by him happened before he arrived, but if he had the food then it could not have been sent to the others, and if he didn't have the food then why bother mentioning his not eating it?


I'm sorry, I would like to ask the grammatical structure here. If we have a perfect tense, which in this case is *"The food had been sent". *, do we need "had been" after "rather than" , too ?
As in *"The food had been sent to the others when he arrived rather than had been eaten by him"

 *What do I need after "rather than" in this case ?


----------



## Uncle Jack

Peter Thompson said:


> Is using "rather than be" in *"She was beautiful rather than be smart" *grammartically fine ?


No.



Peter Thompson said:


> I'm sorry, I would like to ask the grammatical structure here. If we have a perfect tense, which in this case is *"The food had been sent". *, do we need "had been" after "rather than" , too ?
> As in *"The food had been sent to the others when he arrived rather than had been eaten by him"*


First of all, explain what you want the sentence to mean. Your sentence does not make sense to me, and this is the most important rule in English: a sentence has to make sense. Without knowing the meaning, it is impossible to analyse the grammar.


----------



## Peter Thompson

Uncle Jack said:


> Fist of all, explain what you want the sentence to mean. Your sentence does not make sense to me, and this is the most important rule in English: a sentence has to make sense. Without knowing the meaning, it is impossible to analyse the grammar.


I will change the sentence to a different one that hopefully makes more sense.
I will use the past perfect for this case.
*"When you tried to call your sister and your brother last night, your sister had been left rather than had been helped by your brother."*

Here, I'm saying this sentence to a friend who has a brother and a sister. I'm explaining to him that the sister had been left and her brother had not helped her.

My question : is "had been" correct to use after "rather than" in that sentence ?


----------



## Uncle Jack

It still makes no sense. However, I think I can see the type of thing you are trying to ask about. If you want an example of the past perfect, I suggest you use a subordinate clause (a "that-clause") rather than "when", so that the time relationship is clear:
It was clear that the man had been hindered rather than helped by the priest's intervention.​"Had been" is not repeated.


----------



## Peter Thompson

Uncle Jack said:


> It still makes no sense. However, I think I can see the type of thing you are trying to ask about. If you want an example of the past perfect, I suggest you use a subordinate clause (a "that-clause") rather than "when", so that the time relationship is clear:
> It was clear that the man had been hindered rather than helped by the priest's intervention.​"Had been" is not repeated.


Thank you!

But what about this sentence :
_"*The dilemma had deepened rather than been resolved." *_

Here, we don't have "been" in "had deepened" but we have "been" in "rather than" to make a passive.
Is this the situation in which we use "been" after "rather than" ? Because it starts with "had deepened" , and after "rather than" we are making a passive and in making a passive we need "been".
Therefore , do we add "been" to "rather than" in this situation ?


----------



## Uncle Jack

Peter Thompson said:


> But what about this sentence :
> _"*The dilemma had deepened rather than been resolved." *_


Interesting. Personally, I would probably avoid using "rather than". Like many native speakers, I avoid constructions that I am not sure about or which sound awkward. However, if forced to choose, I think I would use an infinitive:
The dilemma had deepened rather than be resolved.​However, if you put the clauses the other way round, a gerund seems better:
Rather than being resolved, the dilemma had deepened.​
I am not sure that "deepen" really works with "dilemma", but that is not really relevant to the grammatical point.


----------



## sound shift

Uncle Jack said:


> The dilemma had deepened rather than be resolved.


I could not say this, because it suggests to me that "The dilemma had not be resolved", which is of course ungrammatical.


----------



## Peter Thompson

sound shift said:


> I could not say this, because it suggests to me that "The dilemma had not be resolved", which is of course ungrammatical.


So , in that case, is adding "been" to "rather than" grammatically fine ?
*: "The dilemma had deepened rather than been resolved."

 *But if i don't add anything to "rather than", will it be the same in meaning and grammatically fine in this case ?
: *"The dilemma had deepened rather than resolved."


 *What do you think of those ?


----------



## lentulax

Peter Thompson said:


> But what if the one that comes after "rather than" is an adjective ? What should I say to let the listener know that it is my preference when talking about someone else ?
> *1. "He was beautiful rather than be smart"*


Context and common sense do the job - you don't have to tell the reader what you intend. In this case. the sentence should read 'He was beautiful rather than smart' - and we don't have to be told that people don't choose whether to be beautiful or smart, so obviously it is the writer choosing which word best describes his subject. (As Uncle Jack says, it still sounds a bit odd, since beauty and smartness are such disparate characteristics. If someone was both clever and short, you don't say 'He was clever rather than tall.')
EDIT - I wrote this reply, then omitted to click the 'Post' button. I now add an update -


Peter Thompson said:


> _"*The dilemma had deepened rather than been resolved." *_


That's ok. Same principle : the choice of verb to define the situation is the writer's; 'The dilemma had deepened rather than be resolved' (i.e. bare infinitive instead of past perfect) would suggest the choice between deepening and being resolved was made by the dilemma. The passive verb after 'after than' is rather like using an adjective,I suppose,  but the same is true if the verb is active : 'The England team collapsed rather than conceded' - the writer selects the first verb as the most accurate; 'The England team collapsed rather than concede' would mean that , rather than concede, the team preferred to collapse.

 Note that what comes before the 'rather than' balances what comes after : if the comparison is between adjectives,  adverbs, or verbs , then the second part is an adjective, an adverb or a finite verb to match the first : He VERBED rather than VERB (finite or bare infinitive, depending on meaning); He was ADJ rather than ADJ ; He verbed ADV rather than ADV . In both the latter cases, the finite verb in the first part is understood in the second.


----------



## Peter Thompson

lentulax said:


> Context and common sense do the job - you don't have to tell the reader what you intend. In this case. the sentence should read 'He was beautiful rather than smart' - and we don't have to be told that people don't choose whether to be beautiful or smart, so obviously it is the writer choosing which word best describes his subject. (As Uncle Jack says, it still sounds a bit odd, since beauty and smartness are such disparate characteristics. If someone was both clever and short, you don't say 'He was clever rather than tall.')
> EDIT - I wrote this reply, then omitted to click the 'Post' button. I now add an update -
> 
> That's ok. Same principle : the choice of verb to define the situation is the writer's; 'The dilemma had deepened rather than be resolved' (i.e. bare infinitive instead of past perfect) would suggest the choice between deepening and being resolved was made by the dilemma. The passive verb after 'after than' is rather like using an adjective,I suppose,  but the same is true if the verb is active : 'The England team collapsed rather than conceded' - the writer selects the first verb as the most accurate; 'The England team collapsed rather than concede' would mean that , rather than concede, the team preferred to collapse.
> 
> Note that what comes before the 'rather than' balances what comes after : if the comparison is between adjectives,  adverbs, or verbs , then the second part is an adjective, an adverb or a finite verb to match the first : He VERBED rather than VERB (finite or bare infinitive, depending on meaning); He was ADJ rather than ADJ ; He verbed ADV rather than ADV . In both the latter cases, the finite verb in the first part is understood in the second.


Thank you for your help!

But I still don't get it why adding "be" to "rather than" in *"The dilemma had deepened rather than be resolved."* is fine. Here we don't have a preceding expression that uses "be" , as in *"I wanted to be rich rather than be smart."*, here using "be" in "rather than" looks fine to me because it follows the previous expression = *"I wanted to be rich."
To be rich = rather than be smart ✓* (it matches).
And in my example sentence : *"The dilemma had deepened rather than be resolved."* There's no preceding expression that uses "be" , because it's the past perfect.

Could you explain ? The structure of rather than is tough for me.


----------



## lentulax

Peter Thompson said:


> But I still don't get it why adding "be" to "rather than" in *"The dilemma had deepened rather than be resolved."* is fine


It isn't - as I explained.



Peter Thompson said:


> *"I wanted to be rich rather than be smart."*, here using "be" in "rather than" looks fine to me because it follows the previous expression = *"I wanted to be rich."*


This might possily get by (see below*); most people would say 'I wanted to be *rich* rather than *smart*' (two adjectives, verb(+ adjuncts) understood from first part); you could say 'I wanted _to be_ *rich* rather than [wanted] _to be_ *smart*' (verb ('wanted' understood, but '_to be_' actually repeated; in your version, 'wanted to' is treated as the finite verb, and 'be ADJ' as a bare infinitive, so in the second part 'wanted to' is understood, and 'be' is repeated - this splitting of the to-infinitive is not normal, but the solecism might pass unnoticed. *Some grammar sites (this is a heading from one such : '_I wanted to (do something)_') do in fact suggest the verb is 'wanted to' followed by the bare infinitive ('do'); if this is the case, then (whatever terms grammarians use) there is no solecism; if not, it may help explain why people might not notice the error in your sentence.

Both sentences follow the guideline I explained earlier ; I restricted myself to mentioning VERBs, ADJectives, and ADVerbs sinply for the sake of simplicity and clarity; I should have added NOUNs ('He wanted to be a *popstar* rather than a *DJ*'; 'He opted for *cheese* rather than *tiramisu*); obviously, I could have listed noun equivalents, adjective equivalents, adverb equivalents, complements, infinitive extensions of the verb (by the numerous terms by which this structure is probably known to different people), etc., but that would only have obscured the basic principle which applies to all these.


----------



## Peter Thompson

lentulax said:


> It isn't - as I explained.


What should I say in that case ?
If I would like to indicate that the preference is of the thing/person described, should I add nothing ?
Like this : *"The dilemma had deepened rather than resolved."*

Should I use that construction ? Because you say it's grammartically incorrect to use "be" and "rather than" together in that sentence. 
And I suppose even though it's grammartically incorrect, the purpose of using "be" in that sentence is to make it clear that it's a passive



lentulax said:


> This might possily get by (see below*); most people would say 'I wanted to be *rich* rather than *smart*' (two adjectives, verb(+ adjuncts) understood from first part); you could say 'I wanted _to be_ *rich* rather than [wanted] _to be_ *smart*' (verb ('wanted' understood, but '_to be_' actually repeated; in your version, 'wanted to' is treated as the finite verb, and 'be ADJ' as a bare infinitive, so in the second part 'wanted to' is understood, and 'be' is repeated - this splitting of the to-infinitive is not normal, but the solecism might pass unnoticed. *Some grammar sites (this is a heading from one such : '_I wanted to (do something)_') do in fact suggest the verb is 'wanted to' followed by the bare infinitive ('do'); if this is the case, then (whatever terms grammarians use) there is no solecism; if not, it may help explain why people might not notice the error in your sentence.
> 
> Both sentences follow the guideline I explained earlier ; I restricted myself to mentioning VERBs, ADJectives, and ADVerbs sinply for the sake of simplicity and clarity; I should have added NOUNs ('He wanted to be a *popstar* rather than a *DJ*'; 'He opted for *cheese* rather than *tiramisu*); obviously, I could have listed noun equivalents, adjective equivalents, adverb equivalents, complements, infinitive extensions of the verb (by the numerous terms by which this structure is probably known to different people), etc., but that would only have obscured the basic principle which applies to all these.


Thank you so much!


----------



## lentulax

Peter Thompson said:


> What should I say in that case ?
> If I would like to indicate that the preference is of the thing/person described, should I add nothing ?
> Like this : *"The dilemma had deepened rather than resolved."*


As I said, I have specifically answered this question already - in #17.

'If I would like to indicate that the preference is of the thing/person described' - what exactly do you mean? The writer has chosen '[had been]resolved' as a more accurate description of what happened than 'had deepened'; no dilemma has ever thought, 'Well, if it's a choice between deepening and resolving, I'd better resolve' - nor would it be a coherent thought even if dilemmas were capable of choice (because, though 'resolve' *can* be an intransitive verb, none of the meanings it has as an intransitive verb would make sense here).


----------



## Peter Thompson

lentulax said:


> As I said, I have specifically answered this question already - in #17.


It says this in #17 : *The dilemma had deepened rather than be resolved' (i.e. bare infinitive instead of past perfect) would suggest the choice between deepening and being resolved was made by the dilemma. *

But when I ask why it's fine to use "be" after "rather than" in that sentence in #18, you say *"It isn't" *in #19 , it means that using "be" in that sentence is not fine according to you. Therefore I'm asking what to use after "rather than" to be grammatically fine with the meaning that the choice between deepening and being resolved was made by the dilemma



lentulax said:


> 'If I would like to indicate that the preference is of the thing/person described' - what exactly do you mean?


I think there's something I haven't explained that is confusing you. 
Consider these sentences :
*1. "He walked away rather than continue to argue."*
Here it means that the preference expressed by 'rather than' is of the person decribed ('he'). Because it uses the past tense after "rather than" which implies that it is the preference of the person described.

*2. "He walked away rather than continued to argue."*
Here it means that the preference expressed by 'rather than' is the speaker's, not that of the person decribed ('he'). It's indicated by using the bare infinitive.

And we're back to my question.
The sentence : *"The dilemma had deepened rather than be resolved."*
In this case, we have a passive meaning. What to use after "rather than" to be correct and fine with the meaning that the choice between deepening and being resolved was made by the dilemma. Because you say adding "be" to "rather than" in that context is not fine.

Many Thanks 🙏


----------



## lentulax

Peter Thompson said:


> Consider these sentences :
> *1. "He walked away rather than continue to argue."*
> Here it means that the preference expressed by 'rather than' is of the person decribed ('he'). Because it uses the past tense after "rather than" which implies that it is the preference of the person described.
> 
> *2. "He walked away rather than continued to argue."*
> Here it means that the preference expressed by 'rather than' is the speaker's, not that of the person decribed ('he'). It's indicated by using the bare infinitive.


I can't understand this. Sentence 1 does NOT use the past tense  after 'rather than' : 'continue' is not the past tense; it is the bare infinitive.  In sentence 2, 'continued' is NOT the bare infinitive; it's the past tense!


----------



## Peter Thompson

lentulax said:


> I can't understand this. Sentence 1 does NOT use the past tense  after 'rather than' : 'continue' is not the past tense; it is the bare infinitive.  In sentence 2, 'continued' is NOT the bare infinitive; it's the past tense!


I'm sorry for the typos. The example sentence of number 1 should be a bare infinitive and the example sentence of number 2 should be a past tense. But there's no typo in my question below number 2 but i will type it again :

1. *"He walked away rather than continued to argue."*
Here it means that the preference expressed by 'rather than' is of the person decribed ('he'). Because it uses the past tense after "rather than" which implies that it is the preference of the person described.

2. *"He walked away rather than continue to argue."*
Here it means that the preference expressed by 'rather than' is the speaker's, not that of the person decribed ('he'). It's indicated by using the bare infinitive.

And we're back to my question.
*The Question* :
The sentence : *"The dilemma had deepened rather than be resolved."*
In this case, we have a passive meaning. What to use after "rather than" to be correct and fine with the meaning that the choice between deepening and being resolved was made by the dilemma ?
Because you say adding "be" to "rather than" in that sentence is not fine.


----------



## lentulax

Peter Thompson said:


> And we're back to my question.
> The sentence : "The dilemma had deepened rather than be resolved."
> In this case, we have a passive meaning. What to use after "rather than" to be correct and fine with the meaning that the choice between deepening and being resolved was made by the dilemma. Because you say adding "be" to "rather than" in that context is not fine.


My answer remains the same, as in #17 : 'had  deepened ...[had] *been resolved*' (2nd 'had' understood). Two finite verbs in the past perfect tense. To suppose that the dilemma did the choosing is simply not sense; why ask about the 'correct' way of writing nonsense??


----------



## Peter Thompson

lentulax said:


> My answer remains the same, as in #17 : 'had  deepened ...[had] *been resolved*' (2nd 'had' understood). Two finite verbs in the past perfect tense. To suppose that the dilemma did the choosing is simply not sense; why ask about the 'correct' way of writing nonsense??


The sentence might be nonsense , but my point is on constructing a good sentence. 
I will try to find another sentence that hopefully makes sense to you.

*"He had told her to leave rather than [ what to add here ]  told to leave".*

Here , if we have a passive meaning after "rather than" = being told to leave, not telling someone to leave. 
If I use "been" in that sentence, whose preference will it be ?

And If I would like to say that it's his preference not the speaker's [he], what should I add after "rather than" ? Is it also "been" ? Or something else ?


----------



## lentulax

Peter Thompson said:


> The sentence might be nonsense , but my point is on constructing a good sentence


Well, I have to say that a good sentence that is nonsense is not a concept that I find easy to understand,
or useful.



Peter Thompson said:


> "He had told her to leave rather than [ what to add here ] told to leave".


The possibilities are :
1) He had told her to leave rather than *be told* to leave himself.
2) He had told her to leave rather than *been told *to leave himself.

In (i), the choice is made by '*he*'; in (2), *the writer* decides that 'he had told her to leave' is a more accurate version of what happened than 'he had been told to leave'. 

(The 'himself' would be added to make these unlikely sentences more readily comprehensible).


----------



## Peter Thompson

lentulax said:


> Well, I have to say that a good sentence that is nonsense is not a concept that I find easy to understand,
> or useful.


I'm sorry. I find it hard to find a good example that makes sense. I kept making sentences that didn't make sense. I'm sorry for that 🙏



lentulax said:


> The possibilities are :
> 1) He had told her to leave rather than *be told* to leave himself.
> 2) He had told her to leave rather than *been told *to leave himself.
> 
> In (i), the choice is made by '*he*'; in (2), *the writer* decides that 'he had told her to leave' is a more accurate version of what happened than 'he had been told to leave'.
> 
> (The 'himself' would be added to make these unlikely sentences more readily comprehensible).


In (1) the sentence uses "be" after "rather than", is this actually fine ? Because previously you said that it's not fine in #19. Is this "be" just to make it clear that it's passive despite it being incorrect to use in this case ? And I think using "been" looks fine to me because it follows the preceding expression that uses the past perfect.


In (2) using "been" means that the writer decides that 'he had told her to leave' is a more accurate version of what happened than 'he had been told to leave'. But can we still use "been" to mean the same as (1) ? Although it would need additional words to make the meaning clear but is it actually possible ?
Because I'm trying to analyze by looking at how they are formed.
For example : We could add "be" after "rather than" if the preceding expression uses "be" as in *"He wanted to be bad rather than be good"*, here "be" is used after "rather than" because the preceding expression uses "wanted to be bad". And in this case it means that it was his choice.

And I apply that concept to the perfect tense.
*"He had been good rather than been bad."*
"Been" is used because the preceding expression uses "had been" so after "rather than" it makes sense that "been" comes. And in this sentence I'm conveying that it was his choice.

Am i correct that adding "been" in the example sentence above can mean 2 things ? The exact meaning will be told by additional words but in terms of grammar, adding "been" after "rather than" can mean :
1. it was the subject's preference [he]
2. the speaker decides that *"he had been good" *is a more accurate version of what happened in the past.

Is that correct ?
I would be happy to be corrected if there's anything mistaken.


----------



## lentulax

I think your problem, Peter, stems from a wrong approach : the structure you're talking about does not involve adding 'be' or 'been' or any other specific word to 'rather than'; the same word often has different functions in different sentences in English. The structure we're concerned with is the use of the bare infinitive after 'rather than', as opposed to the use of a finite verb.
'Rather than' is used to make a comparison between A (mentioned first) and B, denoting  preference for A over B.
1) He lacks* confidence (A*) rather than *ability (B)*.
2) He eats *quickly(A)* rather than *carelessly (B)*.
3) He* bores (A)*people rather than *upsets (B)* them.
If the balanced term (A) is the object, or subject, or complement etc. of a *verb* , then the verb and other adjuncts of the verb are *understood* in relation to (B) in the second part of the sentence :
He lacks *confidence* : [_he lacks_] *ability*;  he eats *quickly* - [_he eats_] *carelessly*; he *bores* people - [_he_] *upsets* people (the pronoun 'them' is used to avoid the repetition of the noun; you could avoid this by saying 'He bores rather than upsets people', where the object is held up until it can serve both verbs at once.)

4) He *walked* out (A) rather than *endure* (B) the jeering.
5) He *died* (A) rather than *betray* (B) his friends.
6) He *attended* (A) the wedding rather than *offend* his mother.
In these three sentences, you will notice that (a)the comparison is between verbs (together with their adjuncts), and (b) that unlike sentence 3 above ('he *bores* rather than *upsets'*) the opposed parts of the comparison do NOT exactly balance : *walked* - *endure* (NOT *endured*), *died* - *betray*; *attended* - *offend*. 'Endure', 'betray' and 'offend' are all bare infinitives. What difference does this use of the bare infinitive make ? the difference is in the perspective from which the comparison is made : in sentences 1-3, it is the writer who is deciding that A is better in some way than B; in sentences 4-6, it is the person written about ('He') who is expressing a preference for A over B (he chooses walking out over enduring, etc.).
This, then , is what distinguishes the use of the bare infinitive after 'rather than' from the use after 'rather than ' of a finite verb (which is in the same tense as the verb before 'rather than') - which was the question you asked about in #1.

Your subsequent example sentences introduce a variety of complications which confuse the issue; you ask how the meaning of the bare infinitive 'be' can be conveyed by the use of 'been' ; the answer is that it *cannot be* ; that is the whole point. You create sentences in which 'be' is NOT the bare infinitive, as I tried to point out.'Been' is the past participle of 'to be'; unlike the past participles of many verbs, it is not used as an adjective; it is used in some tenses of the verb 'to be', and therefore, since 'to be' is used as an auxiliary, it is found in the passive form of some tenses of most transitive verbs : 'I had been thirsty (past perfect of 'be'); I have been beaten (present perfect passive of 'to beat'). '*been x*' cannot exist unless it is preceded by words which complete it to form a recognisable verb form (though these words may be understood rather than (re) stated, as in the structure under discussion). There is, as I said, no question of adding 'been' to 'rather than' ; thinking of 'rather than been' as some kind of set structure does not correspond to any reality; if we find 'been' after 'rather than', it is always because 'had', or 'have', etc., are understood, having been used in the part of the sentence preceding 'rather than'; in practice, if both sides of the 'rather than' are, say past perfect tenses, then you wouldn't normally repeat the 'been' - i.e. 'He had been an acquaintance rather than a friend' (though perhaps theoretically possible no-one would ever say 'He has been an acquaintance rather than been a friend'). 'Been' may be used to form the passive of a verb'; in the A and B sides of the sentence, where the verbs are balanced, the *tenses* have to be the same, but  A may be active and B passive in form , in which case the 'been' may be necessary to convey the passive form : '*He had imagined insults rather than been insulted*'  ( A he had imagined -  B [he had] been insulted : both past perfect, A active and B passive; the 'been' can't be understood from anywhere, and is necessary to the meaning; the 'had' is used in A and can be understood in B.
I hope this clarifies things!


----------



## Peter Thompson

lentulax said:


> I think your problem, Peter, stems from a wrong approach : the structure you're talking about does not involve adding 'be' or 'been' or any other specific word to 'rather than'; the same word often has different functions in different sentences in English. The structure we're concerned with is the use of the bare infinitive after 'rather than', as opposed to the use of a finite verb.
> 'Rather than' is used to make a comparison between A (mentioned first) and B, denoting  preference for A over B.
> 1) He lacks* confidence (A*) rather than *ability (B)*.
> 2) He eats *quickly(A)* rather than *carelessly (B)*.
> 3) He* bores (A)*people rather than *upsets (B)* them.
> If the balanced term (A) is the object, or subject, or complement etc. of a *verb* , then the verb and other adjuncts of the verb are *understood* in relation to (B) in the second part of the sentence :
> He lacks *confidence* : [_he lacks_] *ability*;  he eats *quickly* - [_he eats_] *carelessly*; he *bores* people - [_he_] *upsets* people (the pronoun 'them' is used to avoid the repetition of the noun; you could avoid this by saying 'He bores rather than upsets people', where the object is held up until it can serve both verbs at once.)
> 
> 4) He *walked* out (A) rather than *endure* (B) the jeering.
> 5) He *died* (A) rather than *betray* (B) his friends.
> 6) He *attended* (A) the wedding rather than *offend* his mother.
> In these three sentences, you will notice that (a)the comparison is between verbs (together with their adjuncts), and (b) that unlike sentence 3 above ('he *bores* rather than *upsets'*) the opposed parts of the comparison do NOT exactly balance : *walked* - *endure* (NOT *endured*), *died* - *betray*; *attended* - *offend*. 'Endure', 'betray' and 'offend' are all bare infinitives. What difference does this use of the bare infinitive make ? the difference is in the perspective from which the comparison is made : in sentences 1-3, it is the writer who is deciding that A is better in some way than B; in sentences 4-6, it is the person written about ('He') who is expressing a preference for A over B (he chooses walking out over enduring, etc.).
> This, then , is what distinguishes the use of the bare infinitive after 'rather than' from the use after 'rather than ' of a finite verb (which is in the same tense as the verb before 'rather than') - which was the question you asked about in #1.
> 
> Your subsequent example sentences introduce a variety of complications which confuse the issue; you ask how the meaning of the bare infinitive 'be' can be conveyed by the use of 'been' ; the answer is that it *cannot be* ; that is the whole point. You create sentences in which 'be' is NOT the bare infinitive, as I tried to point out.'Been' is the past participle of 'to be'; unlike the past participles of many verbs, it is not used as an adjective; it is used in some tenses of the verb 'to be', and therefore, since 'to be' is used as an auxiliary, it is found in the passive form of some tenses of most transitive verbs : 'I had been thirsty (past perfect of 'be'); I have been beaten (present perfect passive of 'to beat'). '*been x*' cannot exist unless it is preceded by words which complete it to form a recognisable verb form (though these words may be understood rather than (re) stated, as in the structure under discussion). There is, as I said, no question of adding 'been' to 'rather than' ; thinking of 'rather than been' as some kind of set structure does not correspond to any reality; if we find 'been' after 'rather than', it is always because 'had', or 'have', etc., are understood, having been used in the part of the sentence preceding 'rather than'; in practice, if both sides of the 'rather than' are, say past perfect tenses, then you wouldn't normally repeat the 'been' - i.e. 'He had been an acquaintance rather than a friend' (though perhaps theoretically possible no-one would ever say 'He has been an acquaintance rather than been a friend'). 'Been' may be used to form the passive of a verb'; in the A and B sides of the sentence, where the verbs are balanced, the *tenses* have to be the same, but  A may be active and B passive in form , in which case the 'been' may be necessary to convey the passive form : '*He had imagined insults rather than been insulted*'  ( A he had imagined -  B [he had] been insulted : both past perfect, A active and B passive; the 'been' can't be understood from anywhere, and is necessary to the meaning; the 'had' is used in A and can be understood in B.
> I hope this clarifies things!


Thank you for trying to help me! It's getting a lot clearer now.
I understand now the reasons why the past tense is used and "been" is used. And I have one more question regarding the grammartical structure.
: 
The most important part of my question that I ask is what to add after "rather than" *to be* grammatically fine when we're using the perfect tense ? Because you say adding "be" is not grammartically fine in post #19 of this thread.
The situation in which "been" is necessary to be added because the preceding expression uses an active verb.
*"He had imagined insults rather than been insulted."*
My question is : Can we say that sentence to mean that it was the preference of the subject [he] ? Because you say in the previous post that adding "been" means that it was the writer's preference and not the subject's.

And also, why do you use "rather than be" over "rather than been" to mean that it was the subject's preference but at the same time you say it's not fine to use it and I think "been" here fits more because the preceding expression uses the past perfect.
In short, can't I use "been" after "rather than" to mean that it was the subject's preference ? Because "been" is only a helping verb here.

I'm trying to learn the structures to speak accurately. Thank you!


----------



## Uncle Jack

"Be" is needed for the passive voice and for adjectives. Nothing else. It is not added, as such, but if the second clause is in the passive voice and the first clause is not, then the second clause needs "be".

Most of the time, and quite honestly, the only time I would think of using "rather than" myself, the two clauses have a parallel structure.
A. He sensed rather than saw that someone was in it, watching them.​
Where both clauses are in the passive voice, "be" appears only in the first clause. The second verb just has the main verb in the same form it was in in the first clause:
B. He was left alone rather than beaten up.​I would never include "be" in the second clause, but grammatically it is acceptable:
C. He was left alone rather than was beaten up.  ​
I cannot think of a good example of a parallel structure using the passive voice only in the second clause. There does not appear to be an example in this thread, but I could have missed it.

When the comparison is between adjectives rather than verbs, "be" is usually only included in the first clause
D. He is tired rather than upset.​E. He wanted to be bad rather than good.​Where "be" is conjugated in the first clause, including it in the second clause sounds horrible:
F. He is tired rather than is upset. ​However, it does not sound bad when the first clauses uses the infinitive:
G: He wanted to be bad rather than be good.​
None of the above should present you with any problems. Even with G being something of an oddity, the rules are simple, and in any case you can simply ignore G and use E instead, which is what most native speakers would do.


However, "rather than" also has a non-parallel usage, where it is followed by either a bare infinitive or a gerund. Quite honestly, these are structures that I would instinctively avoid, particularly the infinitive form (which even experts in the English language don't like):


Uncle Jack said:


> In general, as Robert W. Burchfield says in _Fowler’s Modern English Usage_ (rev. 3rd ed.), “matching forms are best” in “rather than” constructions.



If you are following "rather than" with a bare infinitive, and if the second clause is in the passive voice (where the first clause was not), then the second clause will need "be". Quite honestly, this is such an unlikely situation, and one which most native speakers would avoid anyway, that I am surprised that so much time has been spent discussing it. As far as I am aware, we have not yet been presented with a real-world example in this thread. If you find such a sentence in a piece of text so we can see the context, not just a sentence in isolation, I am sure we can discuss it more fully.


----------



## Peter Thompson

Thank you for your help!



Uncle Jack said:


> B. He was left alone rather than beaten up.
> I would never include "be" in the second clause, but grammatically it is acceptable.


Here, you say that it's possible to use "be" after "rather than" even if the preceding expression doesn't use "be", as in "want to be". Instead the preceding expression uses "was".
But in the previous post, in #10,  you say that it's incorrect to use "be" after "rather than" in *"She was beautiful rather than be smart" *is not fine g grammatically. But *"She was beautiful rather than be smart" *and *"He was left alone rather than beaten up"* are the same, there's no "be" in the preceding expressions. Both of the preceding expressions use "was" and not "be".
Why do you say it's fine grammatically now ? But in the previous post you say it's not fine ? 
I'm confused


----------



## Packard

For me, “rather than” means that you are given two options, and one option is better suited to the meaning.

* He sensed rather than saw […]*

First choice:  He sensed something
Second choice:  He saw something.

While he could have sensed something or he could have seen something, in this case he sensed it.

[First choice] rather than [second choice] = the first choice is the one that works.


----------



## lentulax

Peter Thompson said:


> The situation in which "been" is necessary to be added because the preceding expression uses an active verb.
> *"He had imagined insults rather than been insulted."*
> My question is : Can we say that sentence to mean that it was the preference of the subject [he] ? Because you say in the previous post that adding "been" means that it was the writer's preference and not the subject's.


OK. I am spending time on this because I appreciate that you have a problem, and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it.
I think you're still persisting in thinking in a way which I have tried to explain is wrong. I do *not* say that 'adding been' means anything. You don't create any meaning by adding 'been' instead of 'be' or vice-versa- you often create nonsense. I have tried to explain the circumstances in which 'been' might correctly appear immediately after 'rather than' - in all these cases it is part of a finite verb , other parts of which (together with adjuncts such as subject), or sometimes only the subject, are stated in the first part of the sentence and understood in the second (post-'rather than') part. I start from observing usage - in this case the fact that the part of a sentence after 'rather than' sometimes starts with a bare infinitive, such as 'be', and sometimes with a finite verb (and 'been' can only make sense as part of a finite verb of which other parts or adjuncts are understood (e.g. [_Bill had_] *been*... ); we choose which to use on the basis of the meaning we wish to convey; we cannot (as you appear to believe) create the meaning by choosing one or the other, particularly when this means (as in some of your sentences) using 'been' in circumstances in which it has no meaning at all). It is in fact difficult to create a sentence in which substituing 'be' for' been, or vice versa, produces two meaningful sentences (I had a go in #27); even in sentences where this would be grammatically possible (i.e. the use of 'been' could be justified as part of a finite verb with various elements understood), usually one of the two possible usages would simply be nonsense : for example, 'He had imagined insults rather than be insulted' is nonsense- in what situation might one have the option of simply imagining insults or actually being insulted??

In short, I think your focus should be on understanding English as it is used, not on employing a given usage as a template for sentences which are simply nonsense - which no English speaker has ever said or will ever say. There is no *rule* about using the bare infinitive after 'rather than' sentences to convey a given meaning'. There is the observation that if we want to convey a given meaning, we use the bare infinitive. The starting point is the notion that language is a means of communication.


----------



## Peter Thompson

lentulax said:


> OK. I am spending time on this because I appreciate that you have a problem, and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it.
> I think you're still persisting in thinking in a way which I have tried to explain is wrong. I do *not* say that 'adding been' means anything. You don't create any meaning by adding 'been' instead of 'be' or vice-versa- you often create nonsense. I have tried to explain the circumstances in which 'been' might correctly appear immediately after 'rather than' - in all these cases it is part of a finite verb , other parts of which (together with adjuncts such as subject), or sometimes only the subject, are stated in the first part of the sentence and understood in the second (post-'rather than') part. I start from observing usage - in this case the fact that the part of a sentence after 'rather than' sometimes starts with a bare infinitive, such as 'be', and sometimes with a finite verb (and 'been' can only make sense as part of a finite verb of which other parts or adjuncts are understood (e.g. [_Bill had_] *been*... ); we choose which to use on the basis of the meaning we wish to convey; we cannot (as you appear to believe) create the meaning by choosing one or the other, particularly when this means (as in some of your sentences) using 'been' in circumstances in which it has no meaning at all). It is in fact difficult to create a sentence in which substituing 'be' for' been, or vice versa, produces two meaningful sentences (I had a go in #27); even in sentences where this would be grammatically possible (i.e. the use of 'been' could be justified as part of a finite verb with various elements understood), usually one of the two possible usages would simply be nonsense : for example, 'He had imagined insults rather than be insulted' is nonsense- in what situation might one have the option of simply imagining insults or actually being insulted??
> 
> In short, I think your focus should be on understanding English as it is used, not on employing a given usage as a template for sentences which are simply nonsense - which no English speaker has ever said or will ever say. There is no *rule* about using the bare infinitive after 'rather than' sentences to convey a given meaning'. There is the observation that if we want to convey a given meaning, we use the bare infinitive. The starting point is the notion that language is a means of communication.


Let me clarify step by step. The reason why I keep asking the question is because I would like to know how different words to use change the meaning of a sentence. Because using the past tense after "rather than" is different in meaning from using a bare infinitive after "rather than".
You started giving this idea in post #5, in post #5 you tell the meaning of :
*"He sensed rather than saw"*
Here it means that it was not the subject's choice to sense [he] because the sentence uses "saw" and not "see".
And you also tell that if we have an infinitive after "rather than", as in :
*"He walked away rather than continue to argue"*
That means that the preference was of the subject [he].

And we can see that the different words to use after "rather than" change the meanings of the sentences.

It's easy to understand in this context because the tip is that when talking about the past, if we would like to talk about the preference of the subject that we are talking about, we use the base form of a verb or a gerund. And if we would like to decide that something is a more accurate version of what happened, we use the past tense after "rather than". It's easy for this situation.

And this is the question I ask :
It's important to note that I'm not talking about the difference between "been" and "be" in general. I'm only talking about the difference between them when they're used in "rather than" in terms of the choice being made by the writer or the subject, as in :

1. * "He had kicked the people out of the group rather than been kicked out"*

2.  *"He had kicked the people out of the group rather than be kicked out" *

I'm talking the difference between these. Not between the use of "been" and "be" in general.

When it comes to *"He had kicked the people out of the WhatsApp group rather than been kicked out" *, it's really confusing because the preceding expression uses an active verb and what comes after "rather than" is passive.

In #27 and #29,  are you trying to say that using "been" means the writer is deciding x is better in some way and using "be" means it was the preference of the subject ?
As in :
*"He had kicked the people out of the WhatsApp group rather than been kicked out"*
Here it means that the writer is deciding that "he had kicked the people out" is better in some way than "he had been kicked out"

*"He had kicked the people out of the WhatsApp group rather than be kicked out"*
It means that it was the preference of the subject [he].

But my biggest question is = Is* "He had kicked the people out of the WhatsApp group rather than be kicked out" *actually grammartically fine ? It's "be" that comes after "rather than" in that sentence.
If not, why do you use "be" after "rather than" in *"He had told her to leave rather than be told to leave himself" *in post #27 ?

I appreciate your help to try to get rid of my doubts and confusion.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Uncle Jack said:


> I would never include "be" in the second clause, but grammatically it is acceptable:
> C. He was left alone rather than was beaten up.





Peter Thompson said:


> Here, you say that it's possible to use "be" after "rather than" even if the preceding expression doesn't use "be", as in "want to be". Instead the preceding expression uses "was".


"Was" is a form of the verb "be". When "rather than" is used with two clauses in the passive voice, I would never include any form of the verb "be" in the second clause.



Peter Thompson said:


> But in the previous post, in #10, you say that it's incorrect to use "be" after "rather than" in *"She was beautiful rather than be smart" *is not fine g grammatically.


It is grammatically wrong. This sentence uses adjectives rather than verbs in the passive voice:

"She was beautiful rather than be smart" is wrong.
"She was beautiful rather than was smart" is probably grammatical but it sounds horrible. This is the equivalent of sentence F in post #31.
"She was beautiful rather than smart" is fine (assuming the two adjectives are comparable in the context). This is the equivalent of sentence D in post #31.



Peter Thompson said:


> But *"She was beautiful rather than be smart" *and *"He was left alone rather than beaten up"* are the same


They are most emphatically not the same. The first sentence compares adjectives ("beautiful" and "smart"). The second sentence compares verbs ("leave alone" and "beat up"). Although in this particular case it makes little difference, you will become horribly confused if you cannot tell the difference between a verb and an adjective when probing language issues as detailed as the discussion in this thread.



Peter Thompson said:


> there's no "be" in the preceding expressions.


Of course there is. What do you think "was" is?


----------



## Peter Thompson

Uncle Jack said:


> It is grammatically wrong.


If *"She was beautiful rather than be smart"* is grammatically wrong, then why do you use "be" after "rather than" in *"The dilemma had deepened rather than be resolved"* in post #14 ? Isn't it grammartically wrong, too ?


----------



## Uncle Jack

Pay attention to verbs and adjectives. When comparing adjectives ("beautiful", "smart"), I think the structure has to be parallel.

When comparing verbs ("had deepened" can only be a verb form), or perhaps I should say clauses ("the dilemma had deepened"; "the dilemma had not been resolved"), there are situations where the clause following "rather than" can be in the form of an infinitive or gerund rather than a finite verb with parallel structure to the first clause. Quite whether "The dilemma had deepened rather than be resolved" fits into this, I cannot quite tell, although I think it is possible. As I said in post #14:


Uncle Jack said:


> Personally, I would probably avoid using "rather than". Like many native speakers, I avoid constructions that I am not sure about or which sound awkward.


----------



## Packard

Uncle Jack said:


> Interesting. Personally, I would probably avoid using "rather than". Like many native speakers, I avoid constructions that I am not sure about or which sound awkward. […]


I don’t_* avoid*_ a problem construction or word, I *write around* that problem construction or word.

(Semantics, I know.  But it makes me feel better than “avoid”.)

Very often writing around a problem means restructuring the sentence.  And very often it makes for a more effective bit of communication, the ”problem” having made me think on the subject in greater length.  

(I thought I was the only one who cheated like this.)


----------



## lentulax

Peter Thompson said:


> But my biggest question is = Is* "He had kicked the people out of the WhatsApp group rather than be kicked out" *actually grammartically fine ? It's "be" that comes after "rather than" in that sentence.


[My last contribution on this, and I'll keep it brief] So far so good : I don't know how WhatsApp works , but if 'he' really had two options (A) kick people out or (B) be kicked out himself, and chose the first, then this sentence is ok.
Note that all I've said about 'be' is on the basis of its use as a bare infinitive, and what I've said appiies to any other bare infinitive; and that if you use a finite verb before and after 'rather than', you require the second to *match* the first verb in *tense* - it doesn't matter what tense the first verb is, and it doesn't make any difference whether the second verb is passive or active.


----------



## Peter Thompson

lentulax said:


> [My last contribution on this, and I'll keep it brief] So far so good : I don't know how WhatsApp works , but if 'he' really had two options (A) kick people out or (B) be kicked out himself, and chose the first, then this sentence is ok.
> Note that all I've said about 'be' is on the basis of its use as a bare infinitive, and what I've said appiies to any other bare infinitive; and that if you use a finite verb before and after 'rather than', you require the second to *match* the first verb in *tense* - it doesn't matter what tense the first verb is, and it doesn't make any difference whether the second verb is passive or active.


Thank you for your help!


----------



## Forero

Peter Thompson said:


> But my biggest question is = Is* "He had kicked the people out of the WhatsApp group rather than be kicked out" *actually grammartically fine ? It's "be" that comes after "rather than" in that sentence.
> If not, why do you use "be" after "rather than" in *"He had told her to leave rather than be told to leave himself" *in post #27 ?


Those both sound wrong to me. I would insist on "being" rather than "be" in both sentences, and I would add "himself" to the end of the first one.


----------

