shrink, shrank, shrunk

Kirk   Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:42 am GMT
<<Travis and Kirk, what's your take on the use of "had've"?>>

I don't encounter that form that often (and I don't have it myself) so it sounds kind of weird to me. However, I do know some speakers use that construction in various contexts. It's like the situation with double modals. I don't have double modals in my dialect so they sound odd to me but I know some dialects do have them. An example of a double modal would be something like "I might could go to the store" for "I might be able to go to the store."
Guest   Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:44 am GMT
Being commonly used in speech doesn't make something correct, or even acceptable; it does shout "I speak poorly" loud and clear however.

It's statements such as "It is just fine to use in speech" which confirm that the writer cannot be taken seriously in respect of grammar, however much he may profess to know about the more arcane aspects of linguistics.
Travis   Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:58 am GMT
>>Being commonly used in speech doesn't make something correct, or even acceptable; it does shout "I speak poorly" loud and clear however.<<

"Had've" is not really used commonly in spoken language, just for the record, but "hadn't've", at least in the dialect here, most definitely is.

And as for your saying anything about "I speak poorly", I have not found anyone around here at least who has seemed to hold such a view. Rather, at least in the past, I have found the *opposite*, being perceived as a pedantic ass who uses too many "long words" (in practice words which are perceived as too literary/formal; such words need not actually be long), to be far more of a problem. In practice, at least here, speaking in the local dialect with as few unnecessary literary usages (note that normal everyday usages such as the subjunctive or particular formal usages normally used in certain social contexts do not count), except when such are specifically intended for effect, has proved to be a Good Thing.

>>It's statements such as "It is just fine to use in speech" which confirm that the writer cannot be taken seriously in respect of grammar, however much he may profess to know about the more arcane aspects of linguistics.<<

Speech and formal writing are two different things, and anyone who cannot recognize such should not be considered to be credible to begin with. Also note that one would sound absolutely ridiculous if they spoke like a book all the time, which links with what I said earlier in this post.
Tommie   Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:22 am GMT
One thing I don't understand, Clive, is why you choose to write in such formal style here and yet, on the other hand, praise informal use in your own dialect.

Why is that?

<horribly pedantic English teacher or professor or the occasional non-native English student far too wrapped up in notions of "correct English" would ever bat an eyelid at it. >

You seem obsessed with padants and prescriptivists. Did you have a bad time at school?
Tommie   Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:25 am GMT
<An example of a double modal would be something like "I might could go to the store" for "I might be able to go to the store.">

What's the historical basis for such use?
Travis   Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:42 pm GMT
>>One thing I don't understand, Clive, is why you choose to write in such formal style here and yet, on the other hand, praise informal use in your own dialect.

Why is that?<<

For starters, I wonder why I have somehow recently picked up the name "Clive" from some here.

As for writing in a formal style versus informal use in my own dialect when actually speaking, such is a matter of the difference between formal literary use and actual everyday speech. One note, though, is that even if much of my writing here may sound formal superficially, it does actually have influence from my own speech, in particular with the specific usage of certain words such as "then", "there", "though", "yes", and "anyways" (formally "anyway"). However, besides my use of "anyways", the specifics of such are a whole discussion unto themselves, which I will skip here. Also, note that this is not a truly fully formal context despite my use of formal forms here.

>>You seem obsessed with padants and prescriptivists. Did you have a bad time at school?<<

No, such is just a matter of strongly supporting the linguistic principle of descriptivism, and consistently opposing those who would support the opposite doctrine of prescriptivism in some fashion.
M56   Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:46 pm GMT
<No, such is just a matter of strongly supporting the linguistic principle of descriptivism, and consistently opposing those who would support the opposite doctrine of prescriptivism in some fashion. >

To me, you're just as bad as the one's who call out "descriptivist!". You set things at poles without thinking about what you really mean.
Guest   Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:11 pm GMT
M56:

Travis is a train without a station.
Uriel   Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:48 am GMT
My two cents: I've always used sing/sung/sang, sink/sunk/sank, shrink/shrunk/shrank, etc, and I never heard the second tense used as the third in normal conversation until I was out of school. It's always sounded jarringly wrong to me, since that's just not the right tense.
Travis   Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:10 pm GMT
>>My two cents: I've always used sing/sung/sang, sink/sunk/sank, shrink/shrunk/shrank, etc, and I never heard the second tense used as the third in normal conversation until I was out of school. It's always sounded jarringly wrong to me, since that's just not the right tense.<<

My favorite "incorrect" strong verb forms are not those which simply replace the preterite with the past participle or vice versa but rather the ones that glue the suffix "-en" onto the end of the past participle, as in "sunken", "shrunken", "drunken", "shotten", etc.
Dic wants to know   Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:43 pm GMT
What is "preterite"?
Travis   Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:57 pm GMT
"preterite" = "simple past"
greg   Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:43 pm GMT
Tommie : « And why do you use such technical terms as "ablaut vowel"? We are only learners, you know? »

Travis : « I used the technical term because it was more succint than the alternative. I could have said "the vowel which changes between different principle parts", which is far more unwieldy in practice. »



Travis hat offensichtlich Recht : <Ablautvokal> ist der einfachste Name, um solche Lautprozesse wie Apofonie (apophonie) ~ Vokalabstufung (gradation vocalique) ~ Vokalwechsel (alternance vocalique) zu kennzeichnen.
from OHIO   Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:18 pm GMT
It's not incorrect at all but is how many native speakers use the past tense of "shrink." >>>

Kirk,

If a foreigner would use that way, he/she would be told that his/her English is bad.
Tell me why when a foreigner makes mistakes his Englisih is considered bad, but when a native speaker makes the same mistakes, that is OK and acceptable?
Travis   Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:09 pm GMT
>>Kirk,

If a foreigner would use that way, he/she would be told that his/her English is bad.
Tell me why when a foreigner makes mistakes his Englisih is considered bad, but when a native speaker makes the same mistakes, that is OK and acceptable?<<

For starters, there is a difference between making a mistake in learning a variety of a language in which such a form would not actually be used by native speakers and individuals just happening to natively speak a dialect in which some form that is not used in some standard variety happens to be used. In the latter case, one cannot call it a "mistake" to begin with.