shone/shined

Divvy   Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:31 pm GMT
Which would you use?

He shone the light into the forest.
He shined the light into the forest.
furrykef   Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:03 pm GMT
I prefer "shined", but it did take me a minute to make up my mind. I think I don't like "shone" mainly because it is a homonym of "shown".

Merriam-Webster notes that "shined" is the only possible form (for either the past or the past participle) when referring to polishing, as in "he shined his shoes".

- Kef
Matt   Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:51 pm GMT
In British English 'shone' can be used in both transitive and intransitive contexts, therefore both 'He shone the light into the forest' (transitive) and 'The sun shone' (intransitive) are perfectly fine and sound correct to me.

On the other hand, 'shined' would still be used with the meaning of 'making glossy or bright by polishing' (transitive), just as furrykef suggested.
Pos   Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:16 pm GMT
<<I prefer "shined", but it did take me a minute to make up my mind. I think I don't like "shone" mainly because it is a homonym of "shown".>>

Should we ban all homonyms?
Guest   Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:17 pm GMT
<I think I don't like "shone" mainly because it is a homonym of "shown". >

Only in America.
M56   Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:48 pm GMT
I use "shone", which is not like "shown" in my dialect.
M56   Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:27 pm GMT
I use "shone", which is not like "shown", in my dialect.
furrykef   Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:18 am GMT
<< Should we ban all homonyms? >>

No, but it can be ambiguous, especially as a past participle. The ambiguity seems gratuitous when there's also "shined".

- Kef
Uriel   Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:23 am GMT
Either one. And yes, I would also have shone and shown as complete homonyms. Saying it as "shon" (like Sean) just sounds odd to me (and defeats the purpose of the silent E at the end, which usually signifies that the preceding vowel is long -- not always, of course, but usually).

Of course, I have to admit doing the same thing with "gone"....;P
Pos   Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:03 am GMT
<No, but it can be ambiguous, especially as a past participle. The ambiguity seems gratuitous when there's also "shined". >

Could you give us some examples of when it can be ambiguous?

And what should we do about these?

He walked up and down the isle/aisle.

Speaking aloud/allowed.

Watch out for the buoys/boys if you go swimming.

There was a cue/queue at the pool table.

Etc.
Divvy   Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:06 am GMT
<(and defeats the purpose of the silent E at the end, which usually signifies that the preceding vowel is long -- not always, of course, but usually). >

Really? Can you show me a lot of words which do that?
M56   Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:37 am GMT
<Really? Can you show me a lot of words which do that?>

Try these, Divvy:

1
ONE

2
DONE

3
GONE

4
SOMEONE

5
ANYONE

6
EVERYONE

7
ALONE

8
NONE

9
TELEPHONE

10
STONE

11
NO ONE

12
PHONE

13
TONE

14
ZONE

15
BONE

16
NO-ONE

17
OZONE

18
LET ALONE

19
THRONE

20
LONE

21
LIMESTONE

22
PRONE

23
SHONE

24
MICROPHONE

25
UNDERGONE

26
TWENTY-ONE

27
HORMONE

28
CONE

29
MAIDSTONE

30
BACKBONE
furrykef   Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:42 am GMT
<< Could you give us some examples of when it can be ambiguous? >>

I can't right now because I'm feeling sick and must go to bed. (I'm making this post backwards... this part at the top is actually the last thing that I wrote.) Don't let me forget.


<< And what should we do about these?

He walked up and down the isle/aisle.

Speaking aloud/allowed.

Watch out for the buoys/boys if you go swimming.

There was a cue/queue at the pool table. >>

Those words don't have easy alternatives akin to using "shined" instead of "shone".


<<<< (and defeats the purpose of the silent E at the end, which usually signifies that the preceding vowel is long -- not always, of course, but usually). >>>>

<< Really? Can you show me a lot of words which do that? >>

Compare:
* fat vs. fate
* pat vs. pate
* mat vs. mate
* pet vs. Pete
* bit vs. bite
* sit vs. site
* strip vs. stripe
* mop vs. mope
* hop vs. hope
* con vs. cone

And so on...

Of course, there are exceptions, like "don" vs. "done", "hug" vs. "huge", as well as word pairs that indicate the difference in different ways, such as "dead" vs. "deed"...

- Kef
Pos   Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:47 am GMT
<Those words don't have easy alternatives akin to using "shined" instead of "shone". >

His shoes shined, he went for a walk.
Guest   Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:16 am GMT
<His shoes shined, he went for a walk.>

"shined" has to be the past participle of "shine" in this sentence because "his shoes shined" can't be an independent clause because commas alone can't separate independent clauses. If you replaced the comma with a semicolon, then "shined" would have to be the past tense of "shine" because "his shoes shined" would be an independent clause.