SNEAKED OR SNUCK?

Ed   Mon May 08, 2006 12:08 am GMT
I would say sneaked, definitely.

I wonder if English will gradually level the strong verbs and remake them to the weak pattern? Afrikaans has just about completed this process of eliminating the strong verb.
american nic   Mon May 08, 2006 3:41 am GMT
I doubt it. I think some strong verbs will weaken, and some weak verbs with strengthen, but it seems that it will be unlikely to be across the board based on the examples already spoken about. Perhaps one day a person's 'accent' will be determined not by their vowels but by the way the conjugate verbs...
Guest   Mon May 08, 2006 9:10 am GMT
<<In any case, you never answered my question.>>

I would never say "snuck" except in jest, but that is not so much from being an RP speaker as from a desire to speak correctly.
Jason   Mon May 08, 2006 7:01 pm GMT
<<I would never say "snuck" except in jest, but that is not so much from being an RP speaker as from a desire to speak correctly.>>

Thank you. Now you've answered my question.

By the way, speaking "correctly" (i.e. using Received Standard English if you're British) involves using correct grammatical expressions, correct use of vocabulary and idiomatic expressions, AND correct pronunciation. While pronunciation is NOT the only aspect of speaking correctly it certainly is ONE of the many aspects of speaking correctly so, therefore, using RP and speaking correctly need not be mutually exclusive. I consider using RP as falling under the umbrella of "speaking correctly". Remember that RP merely stands for received (accepted) pronunciation while Received Standard English refers to a type of speech in which RP is used AND which also makes correct usage of grammatical constructs and uses words correctly, in addition to reflecting a rich and colourful vocabulary.

Thus, if "sneaked" really IS the correct past tense of "sneak" (and I'm NOT saying it isn't) then for the following sentence to be correct, one would have to use "sneaked" AND pronounce it with an RP accent:

I sneaked into the house in which the party was taking place without being noticed.

Thus, "I snuck into house with party and noticed no one me" is incorrect, even if it were to be pronounced in the finest RP accent.

In addition, "Oi sneikt into the 'ouse in wheeich the pa:ee was tikin' plice wi'ou bein' no-ist", while it may be GRAMMATICALLY correct, is certainly not going to make a very positive impression about the person's speech to an educated/cultured speaker since the pronunciation is far from standard (it's a rough Cockney).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that grammar, vocabulary, AND pronunciation/elocution are ALL important and they ALL contribute to "correct" speech.

Thus, you should not say <<...but that is not so much from being an RP speaker as from a desire to speak correctly.>> By using RP, guest, you ARE exercising a desire to speak correctly (in addition to using correct grammar). Your statement makes it sound like using RP and speaking correctly are two separate things when, in my opinion, they are not. While using RP may not be the ONLY aspect of speaking correctly it IS ONE of the aspects of speaking correctly. It's just part of the "Received Standard English" package.
Guest   Tue May 09, 2006 8:57 am GMT
>>I guess what I'm trying to say is that grammar, vocabulary, AND pronunciation/elocution are ALL important and they ALL contribute to "correct" speech.<<

Agreed.

The point I was trying to make is that RP, by definition, refers to pronunciation only, following your question as to whether an RP speaker should say "snuck". My view is that it should neither be spoken nor written, whether the spoken version is rendered in RP or not, as it is not a word.

An RP speaker could produce the sound of "snuck", and it would not sound like "snook".

Incidentally, one need not be British in order to be a speaker or writer of Received Standard English: it remains the standard in (most of) the English-speaking nations of the Commonwealth.