0
Usenet Posted 22 years ago
English in UK
Sank/sunk, shrank/shrunk: a new view
Over the last few years there have been quite a few posts lamenting a gradual loss of past tenses in -a-; for example, shrunk is taking over from shrank, stunk from stank etc.
The general view seems to be that this process has occurred in only one direction: over time, the -a- forms are lost and eventually we'll all be using -u- forms for the past tense.
However, a look through Webster's 1828 dictionary proves that the situation is more complex. What really surprised me is that rang, shrank and sank were regarded as obsolete back then! It seems to me that English usage follows a cycle; many of the -a- forms go out of use, then they're revived by grammarians.
One verb which bucked the trend was 'drink', for which 'drank' was used for the past participle as well as the preterite. I remember reading a post which implied that this was a new trend ...
BEGIN, v.i. pret. began; pp. begun
(Note. Drunk was formerly used as the participle of drink; as, he had drunk wine. But in modern usage, drank has taken its place; and drunk is now used chiefly as an adjective.)
(The OED makes reference to drank as p.p. but marks it as having become obsolete in the 19th century)
RING, v.t. pret. and pp. rung.
SHRINK, v.i. pret. and pp. shrunk. the old pret. shrank and pp. shrunken are nearly obsolete.
STINK, v.i. pret. stank or stunk.
SING, v. i. pret. sung, sang; pp. sung.
SINK, v. i. pret. sunk; pp. id. The old pret. sank is nearly obsolete.
SPIN, v.t. pret. and pp. spun. Span is not used.
(N.B. 'span' was very common in 19th century Britain)
SWIM, v.i. (pret. and pp. details missing but definitions of SWUM and SWAM indicate: pret. swam or swum, pp. swum).
The general view seems to be that this process has occurred in only one direction: over time, the -a- forms are lost and eventually we'll all be using -u- forms for the past tense.
However, a look through Webster's 1828 dictionary proves that the situation is more complex. What really surprised me is that rang, shrank and sank were regarded as obsolete back then! It seems to me that English usage follows a cycle; many of the -a- forms go out of use, then they're revived by grammarians.
One verb which bucked the trend was 'drink', for which 'drank' was used for the past participle as well as the preterite. I remember reading a post which implied that this was a new trend ...
BEGIN, v.i. pret. began; pp. begun
(Note. Drunk was formerly used as the participle of drink; as, he had drunk wine. But in modern usage, drank has taken its place; and drunk is now used chiefly as an adjective.)
(The OED makes reference to drank as p.p. but marks it as having become obsolete in the 19th century)
RING, v.t. pret. and pp. rung.
SHRINK, v.i. pret. and pp. shrunk. the old pret. shrank and pp. shrunken are nearly obsolete.
STINK, v.i. pret. stank or stunk.
SING, v. i. pret. sung, sang; pp. sung.
SINK, v. i. pret. sunk; pp. id. The old pret. sank is nearly obsolete.
SPIN, v.t. pret. and pp. spun. Span is not used.
(N.B. 'span' was very common in 19th century Britain)
SWIM, v.i. (pret. and pp. details missing but definitions of SWUM and SWAM indicate: pret. swam or swum, pp. swum).
Top answer
[nq:1]However, a look through Webster's 1828 dictionary proves that the situation is more complex. [/nq] You have to remember that Webster was not just recording the English language, he was trying to change it - from what he would have regarded as patriotic motives. " (Cunningham (ed), Jonson's Works, vol.
- [nq:1]However, a look through Webster's 1828 dictionary proves that the situation is more complex.
- [/nq] You have to remember that Webster was not just recording the English language, he was trying to change it - from what he would have regarded as patriotic motives.
- " (Cunningham (ed), Jonson's Works, vol.
- 2, p.
- 33) John Briggs
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
113 Answers
0
[nq:1]However, a look through Webster's 1828 dictionary proves that the situation is more complex. What really surprised me is that rang, shrank and sank were regarded as obsolete back then![/nq]
You have to remember that Webster was not just recording the English language, he was trying to change it - from what he would have regarded as patriotic motives.
Mind you, his hatred of the Engli
You have to remember that Webster was not just recording the English language, he was trying to change it - from what he would have regarded as patriotic motives.
Mind you, his hatred of the Engli
00
[nq:1]However, a look through Webster's 1828 dictionary proves that the situation is more complex. What really surprised me is that ... that English usage follows a cycle; many of the -a- forms go out of use, then they're revived by grammarians.[/nq]
Sure, but you have to remember that many of the posters, I am one, are older and remember correct grammar quite well. Webster was a New Englander
Sure, but you have to remember that many of the posters, I am one, are older and remember correct grammar quite well. Webster was a New Englander
00
Well, it depends what the person's educated in. If they're educated inthe classics that may be true; but if they're educated in surf studies, for example, maybe not.
I live in a rural part of Britain where many of the locals, usually ones who didn't go to university, use language forms that are tregarded as archaic - for example, "where to". However, I take your overall point.
Peasema
I live in a rural part of Britain where many of the locals, usually ones who didn't go to university, use language forms that are tregarded as archaic - for example, "where to". However, I take your overall point.
Peasema
00
[nq:1]Over the last few years there have been quite a few posts lamenting a gradual loss of past tenses in ... that English usage follows a cycle; many of the -a- forms go out of use, then they're revived by grammarians.[/nq]
I'm intrigued by the similarity in German, and I regret I don't know, and am too lazy to check whether any of these forms have changed: trinken, trank, getrunken (drink,
I'm intrigued by the similarity in German, and I regret I don't know, and am too lazy to check whether any of these forms have changed: trinken, trank, getrunken (drink,
00
[nq:2]Over the last few years there have been quite a ... forms go out of use, then they're revived by grammarians.[/nq]
[nq:1]I'm intrigued by the similarity in German, and I regret I don't know, and am too lazy to check whether ... sang, sung) sinken, sank, gesunken (sink, sank, sunk) spinnen, spann, gesponnen (spin, span, spun) schwimmen, schwamm, geschwommen (swim, swam, swum)[/nq]
Loo
[nq:1]I'm intrigued by the similarity in German, and I regret I don't know, and am too lazy to check whether ... sang, sung) sinken, sank, gesunken (sink, sank, sunk) spinnen, spann, gesponnen (spin, span, spun) schwimmen, schwamm, geschwommen (swim, swam, swum)[/nq]
Loo
00
[nq:2]Over the last few years there have been quite a ... forms go out of use, then they're revived by grammarians.[/nq]
[nq:1]I'm intrigued by the similarity in German, and I regret I don't know, and am too lazy to check whether ... geschwommen (swim, swam, swum) A pretty close correspondence with only 'shrink' missing and very similar vowel changes. Rob Bannister[/nq]
I have to admit whe
[nq:1]I'm intrigued by the similarity in German, and I regret I don't know, and am too lazy to check whether ... geschwommen (swim, swam, swum) A pretty close correspondence with only 'shrink' missing and very similar vowel changes. Rob Bannister[/nq]
I have to admit whe
00
[nq:2]Over the last few years there have been quite a ... forms go out of use, then they're revived by grammarians.[/nq]
[nq:1]I'm intrigued by the similarity in German, and I regret I don't know, and am too lazy to check whether any of these forms have changed:[/nq]
Insert:
beginnen, begann, begonnen (begin, began, begun)
[nq:1]I'm intrigued by the similarity in German, and I regret I don't know, and am too lazy to check whether any of these forms have changed:[/nq]
Insert:
beginnen, begann, begonnen (begin, began, begun)
00
[nq:2]However, a look through Webster's 1828 dictionary proves that the ... rang, shrank and sank were regarded as obsolete back then![/nq]
[nq:1]You have to remember that Webster was not just recording the English language, he was trying to change it - from what he would have regarded as patriotic motives.[/nq]
However, I don't think that any of Webster's preferred forms weren't in regula
[nq:1]You have to remember that Webster was not just recording the English language, he was trying to change it - from what he would have regarded as patriotic motives.[/nq]
However, I don't think that any of Webster's preferred forms weren't in regula
00
[nq:2]I'm intrigued by the similarity in German, and I regret ... lazy to check whether any of these forms have changed:[/nq]
[nq:1]Insert: beginnen, begann, begonnen (begin, began, begun)[/nq]
[nq:2]trinken, trank, getrunken (drink, drank, drunk) ringen, rang, gerungen (wrestle ... gesunken (sink, sank, sunk) spinnen, spann, gesponnen (spin, span, spun)[/nq]
Insert also:
springen,
[nq:1]Insert: beginnen, begann, begonnen (begin, began, begun)[/nq]
[nq:2]trinken, trank, getrunken (drink, drank, drunk) ringen, rang, gerungen (wrestle ... gesunken (sink, sank, sunk) spinnen, spann, gesponnen (spin, span, spun)[/nq]
Insert also:
springen,
00
[nq:2]However, a look through Webster's 1828 dictionary proves that the ... rang, shrank and sank were regarded as obsolete back then![/nq]
[nq:1]You have to remember that Webster was not just recording the English language, he was trying to change it - from what he would have regarded as patriotic motives.[/nq]
I've seen such a claim exaggerated. too. I'd say he was trying to claim legiti
[nq:1]You have to remember that Webster was not just recording the English language, he was trying to change it - from what he would have regarded as patriotic motives.[/nq]
I've seen such a claim exaggerated. too. I'd say he was trying to claim legiti
0
Related Questions