"Set aside" vs "set something aside"

Question

I've been proofreading a document, and came across many instances of "set aside" being used this way:

e.g. "You'll need to set aside funds", or "They fail to set aside enough time and resources", or "when it comes to setting aside a budget"

It sounds a bit off to me, so I've been correcting it to e.g. "You'll need to set funds aside".

Is using "set aside" that way wrong though? I feel it makes the sentence/action sound more passive somehow, or just plain awkward.

I've just learned that it's okay to use "you've" without "got" behind or expanded as "you have" though it sounds strange to me. e.g. "You can do this when you've data" or "You've the tools you need to succeed", so I'm curious to know if the "set aside" examples are grammatically incorrect or I'm just being anal.

Answer 1

Both forms are acceptable, however, set aside funds is the more common of the two (at least per Google Books Ngram Viewer).

Merriam-Webster defines many different senses of set. Included in this list is a series of verbal phrases that start with set and end with another word.

Some examples are set about, set at, set forth, set forward, and set upon. There are also verbal phrases starting with set that use more words: set in motion, set one's teeth on edge, set store on, set the stage, and so on.

One of the more defined variations, with four different senses (yours being the second), is set aside:

1 : to put to one side : DISCARD
2 : to reserve for a purpose : SAVE
3 : DISMISS
4 : ANNUL, OVERRULE

As these are all common phrases, it's more natural to not "interrupt" them by inserting a different word into the phrase.

So, while there is nothing ungrammatical about set funds aside, it's more typically expressed as set aside funds.