expressions - What's the verdict on "sooner than later"?

I have heard a lot of people say at work that we should do something "sooner than later." This grates against my native ear, but it seems fairly commonplace. I have always understood the expression to only make sense as "sooner rather than later."

I found this Word Reference Forum thread on the subject. One poster gave a very reasonable explanation why "sooner than later" is incorrect:

I think it should be "sooner rather than later".

There are two choices: one can do it sooner(A) or one can do it later(B). Each one refers to the doing of "it".
>For this choice:
I want this done A rather than B. (correct)

I want this done A than B. (incorrect)

The fact that the adjectives are comparatives and the construction uses "than" is what makes it tempting to remove the rather. Sooner than a specific time might work (adding in e.g. by 7pm), but sooner than (another comparative adjective) in my mind doesn't work.

However, consider:

I want this done quickly rather than slowly. (correct)

I want this done quickly than slowly. (incorrect)

I agree with him, but was also able to twist my brain around to give the phrase some kind of meaning and actually found myself suggesting ways it could be semi-correct. Here's what I wrote:

I came across this thread considering the same question myself. Below are two caveats to the excellent response by Julian Stewart, and the caveat to my caveats is that you will not find me saying "sooner than later."

It definitely makes sense to say:

"I'd like to walk faster rather than slower."

And it could make sense to say:

"I'd rather walk faster than (walk) slower."
"I'd rather walk fast than (walk) slow."

And therefore:

"I'd rather finish sooner than (finish) later."

Secondly, I can conceive in some convoluted way that "sooner than later" can be used to communicate exactly what it denotes: a point (or range of points) in time preceding the point (or range of points) described by 'later.' I know it's screwy, but it kind of makes sense.

I'd love to hear what you folks here have to say on the matter and see if anyone can make a compelling and definitive argument. I fear I might have put my brain in some alternate English reality in order to make the defense I did. Talk some sense into me please?

Answer

I just had what seems like an insight.

Many have brought up that some loose time reference is a necessary condition for the comparative words "sooner" and "later". I think that sooner rather than later becomes actually meaningful in the way if you consider that the implied time reference could actually be something such as:

...than expected


or

...than we might normally do

Thus: "We should get to this [sooner than we might normally do] rather than [later than we might normally do]."

The only possible way sooner than later makes any sense at all to me is in the very convoluted way I initially describe, which in this new paradigm would be a truncation of:

"We should get to this sooner than [later than we might normally do].

or simply, as some have suggested,

"We should get to this sooner than [later (some arbitrary point in the future)].

I don't quite buy the arguments that defend this, per John Lawler et al, because this seems like a completely pointless sentiment. Further, this interpretation does not use "sooner" and "later" in a comparative sense, though the full and apparently older phrase (with the use of "rather") does.

Of course, I concede all the previous statements about economy of words or an idiom being adopted in just the way that people like it best, which could be the more "catchy" phrasing. But if the question is about meaning, the answer is clear to me.

And I hope everyone else comes around sooner rather than later :)