***** NOT A TEACHER *****
Hello, Clairec:
I have checked my books and the Web, and I am happy to share what I have found:
1." They would never have found him."
a. That is the usual position. The rule is easy: put the adverb after the first auxiliary.
2. "They never would have found him." This position is used when you want to emphasize "would." Say the sentence out loud
and notice how the word "would" is stressed (sounds very strong.)
3. "They would have never found him."
a. Many native speakers would have no trouble with this. When you have time, go to the "books" section of Google and
type in "would have never." You will find many examples of "good" writers using this kind of sentence.
b. But if you want to follow the "rule," then you will NOT use sentence 3. What is the rule? Well, if an adverb refers to
the complete verb ("would have found"), then you must use sentence 1. And the adverb "never" does refer to the
complete verb. It does not refer only to the past participle "found."
*****
4. The workers would firmly have rejected the new contract.
5. The workers would have firmly rejected the new contract.
Which sentence do you think is "better"?
The answer is sentence 5.
This time we can put the word "firmly" in front of the past participle "rejected" because it DOES modify "rejected."
It answers the question: How would the workers have rejected the new contract? Answer: firmly. When you have
a "how" adverb, you may place it next to the past participle. Here is an example from a book that discusses "good"
English:" It has been confidently asserted [said]." How has it been asserted? Answer: Confidently (with confidence).
BUT you cannot put "never" in that position. Why? Because "never" is not a "how" adverb. It is a "when" adverb.
As I said, however, many native speakers break the rule and use sentence 3.
*****
CREDITS: Modern American Usage (1980) by Wilson Follett. Pages 53 - 54.
David L.'s post on usingenglish.com on 20 March 2008.
