It's straightforward. Shrunk is the past participle, so of course it is incorrect to use it as the past tense. I shrink, I shrank, I have shrunk.
shrink, shrank, shrunk
<<It's straightforward. Shrunk is the past participle, so of course it is incorrect to use it as the past tense. I shrink, I shrank, I have shrunk.>>
No, it's actually not that straightforward. That's only for historical formal written usage. *All* native speakers (no matter where they are on the globe) use certain forms which are not used in the formal written language or supported by prescriptivists, but that hardly decreases their validity.
No, it's actually not that straightforward. That's only for historical formal written usage. *All* native speakers (no matter where they are on the globe) use certain forms which are not used in the formal written language or supported by prescriptivists, but that hardly decreases their validity.
And furthermore, principle parts of strong verbs are one of the areas of the most widespread variation in actual usage by native speakers today, as has been discussed to death here. Actual linguistic reality does not necessarily match up with the idealized, simplified version of a language that second-language learners are generally taught, and language teachers or other sorts of prescriptivists calling things "incorrect", including the use of other ablaut series such as "shrink"/"shrunk"/"shrunk", changes none of such.
>>>So would you advise students of English to use it, Kirk?<<
>The past tense of "to shrink" is "shrank" in formal literary usage, but in actual usage in many English dialects the past tense and past participle forms of very many strong verbs (and not just "to shrink", or from another thread, "to sink") are apt to significantly vary.
No, I'd spurn such dialects and learn the correct, or standard form rarther than this patois.
>The past tense of "to shrink" is "shrank" in formal literary usage, but in actual usage in many English dialects the past tense and past participle forms of very many strong verbs (and not just "to shrink", or from another thread, "to sink") are apt to significantly vary.
No, I'd spurn such dialects and learn the correct, or standard form rarther than this patois.
<No, I'd spurn such dialects and learn the correct, or standard form rarther than this patois. >
Me too. The standard form is of more use internationally.
NB *rather*
Me too. The standard form is of more use internationally.
NB *rather*
>>No, I'd spurn such dialects and learn the correct, or standard form rarther than this patois.<<
"Than this patois"... You do realize that you are insulting a quite large portion of the English-speaking population right there, do you? Well, I am not sure that many would actually realize that they were being insulted, but that is another issue.
Anyways, no one was telling you that you had to learn to *use* such forms, but just that you should expect to *hear* such forms from actual native speakers. The formal literary forms you are most likely taught and most write (with some variation therein) are not really what most people actually speak, whatever the language may be, even though such may be true for some languages (German) than others (Icelandic).
"Than this patois"... You do realize that you are insulting a quite large portion of the English-speaking population right there, do you? Well, I am not sure that many would actually realize that they were being insulted, but that is another issue.
Anyways, no one was telling you that you had to learn to *use* such forms, but just that you should expect to *hear* such forms from actual native speakers. The formal literary forms you are most likely taught and most write (with some variation therein) are not really what most people actually speak, whatever the language may be, even though such may be true for some languages (German) than others (Icelandic).
You can't brand any wrong strutures of a language under the auspicies of "spoken by native speakers". If native speakers are ignoramuses then they should go for school and have proper education. Nobody has the right to abuse the language.
>>You can't brand any wrong strutures of a language under the auspicies of "spoken by native speakers". If native speakers are ignoramuses then they should go for school and have proper education. Nobody has the right to abuse the language.<<
I was going to simply say "fuck off and die" in response to this one, but for whatever reason I am instead going to actually respond to it...
Umm, from a linguistic standpoint, correctness is solely defined by actual usage by native speakers and what they themselves perceive as "grammatical", mistakes that they themselves would correct aside.
And with that taken in mind, how can you call individuals "ignoramuses" with respect to their own native language, which they, by definition, speak correctly? Oh wait, you are probably thinking of the prescriptive notion of "correctness"
And when you speak of "proper education", you should take into mind that what is usually taught in schools is the formal literary language, which is a wholly different matter than what most individuals actually speak on an everyday basis. As a result, such is of no relevance to a discussion considering spoken language usage.
And how is speaking one's native language how one has natively learned it "abusing the language" just because it may not match the particular oversimplified version of the formal literary language which is being taught as the spoken language by some language teacher? How can you expect that individuals natively speak the formal literary language, when such is specifically *literary* (read: not spoken) in nature to begin with?
And all of that said, how in fucking hell can you have the impudence to tell someone that they do not speak their own native language correctly, especially considering that you are most likely not a native speaker of that language to begin with!
I was going to simply say "fuck off and die" in response to this one, but for whatever reason I am instead going to actually respond to it...
Umm, from a linguistic standpoint, correctness is solely defined by actual usage by native speakers and what they themselves perceive as "grammatical", mistakes that they themselves would correct aside.
And with that taken in mind, how can you call individuals "ignoramuses" with respect to their own native language, which they, by definition, speak correctly? Oh wait, you are probably thinking of the prescriptive notion of "correctness"
And when you speak of "proper education", you should take into mind that what is usually taught in schools is the formal literary language, which is a wholly different matter than what most individuals actually speak on an everyday basis. As a result, such is of no relevance to a discussion considering spoken language usage.
And how is speaking one's native language how one has natively learned it "abusing the language" just because it may not match the particular oversimplified version of the formal literary language which is being taught as the spoken language by some language teacher? How can you expect that individuals natively speak the formal literary language, when such is specifically *literary* (read: not spoken) in nature to begin with?
And all of that said, how in fucking hell can you have the impudence to tell someone that they do not speak their own native language correctly, especially considering that you are most likely not a native speaker of that language to begin with!
<I was going to simply say "fuck off and die" in response to this one, but for whatever reason I am instead going to actually respond to it... >
Can't you control your language, Travis? I hope the moderator sees that post.
Can't you control your language, Travis? I hope the moderator sees that post.
< If native speakers are ignoramuses then they should go for school and have proper education. Nobody has the right to abuse the language. >
Try being polite. It costs nothing.
Try being polite. It costs nothing.
To me, this is good advice:
But isn’t one person’s mistake another’s standard usage?
Often enough, but if your standard usage causes other people to consider you stupid or ignorant, you may want to consider changing it. You have the right to express yourself in any manner you please, but if you wish to communicate effectively, you should use nonstandard English only when you intend to, rather than fall into it because you don’t know any better.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/
But isn’t one person’s mistake another’s standard usage?
Often enough, but if your standard usage causes other people to consider you stupid or ignorant, you may want to consider changing it. You have the right to express yourself in any manner you please, but if you wish to communicate effectively, you should use nonstandard English only when you intend to, rather than fall into it because you don’t know any better.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/
>>Can't you control your language, Travis? I hope the moderator sees that post.<<
Sorry, I do not usually get quite that sharp in my posts, but I was rather irked at essentially being told that I did not speak my own native language "correctly", besides opposing what "Guest" had said simply on the grounds of its prescriptivism.
Sorry, I do not usually get quite that sharp in my posts, but I was rather irked at essentially being told that I did not speak my own native language "correctly", besides opposing what "Guest" had said simply on the grounds of its prescriptivism.
Travis, these are some of the things said by NES. Are they OK in your book?
“the budget shortfall was able to be solved by selling brownies.”
“our club meets on alternative Tuesdays,”
“a backwards glance.”
“calm, cool, and collective.”
“the budget shortfall was able to be solved by selling brownies.”
“our club meets on alternative Tuesdays,”
“a backwards glance.”
“calm, cool, and collective.”
Well, that and being doubly irked by being told such by someone that, from their post, sounded like they were a non-native speaker to boot. I would have not came off as quite as insulted if it were another native speaker saying such, since native speakers can often subjunctively perceive features of others' dialects as "off" or "wrong" simply due to differences between dialects.