Driving back from the airport this weekend after our vacation, I put on an audio CD for the kids, one of the Horrid Henry stories. In part of the story, he was said to have “sneaked” into a room. Sneaked? Surely he “snuck” into the room, I thought. But then I lost confidence. Have I been saying “snuck” all these years by mistake?
To reassure myself, I quickly tried to think of other irregular verbs ending in -eak where I would do this. I couldn’t think of any. Instead, I thought of examples where I don’t do this. For example, I wouldn’t say:
- cruck rather than creaked
- fruck rather than freaked
- wruck rather than wreaked
So how on earth did I come to believe that it was snuck rather than sneaked? AskOxford told me that I wasn’t alone and that it was an American form that has grown popular. Common Errors In English agreed but warned I’d be safer sticking with “sneaked.”
Random House’s The Mavens’ Word Of The Day left me most reassured about snuck. It wrote comprehensively about how usage had changed, how it is indeed unusual as a -eak verb to have a -uck form and why no one should feel “snuck” is non-standard for American English
Interestedly, Francesca Simon — who writes the Horrid Henry books — is an American who grew up in California (like me) who lives in the UK (like me). So why didn’t she use “snuck” rather than “sneaked?” No idea, but since her British books use British spellings, I’m guessing “sneaked” won out over here.
While discovering why I use “snuck,” I also learned it was both a past tense and past participle for sneak. And what was the difference between “past tense” and “past participle” again?
Yeah, here I am an English major asking about this. Cut me some slack. English majors don’t take lessons in grammar. You know how we relearn grammatical forms we’ve long forgotten since elementary school? We study a foreign language! That’s why I have on my shelf my trusty copy of English Grammar For Students Of German.
Rather than reach for that, however, I first did a little web searching. A lot of what I found explained how a past participle was formed but not what it was in terms of when you use it.
In other words, plenty of pages told me that a past participle is usually a verb with -ed added as a suffix, except for irregular verbs. Great, but what’s the difference between that and the past tense in terms of usage, not in terms of how you make the verb form?
OK, this page had a good definition of past tense: an action that was both started and finished in the past. The verb form to show this usually ends in -ed, so:
- The race ended.
- The car stalled.
What about the past participle? That same page indirectly explains this is a verb form usually ending in -ed and with a helper or auxiliary verb that is used to represent the various perfect tenses, such as:
- Present Perfect Tense: An action that happened in the past at an indefinite time or began in the past and continues into the present.
- The race has ended.
- Past Perfect Tense: An action that happened in the past before another past action.
- The race had ended, and the awards were given out.
- Future Perfect Tense: An action in the future that will happen before another future action.
- The race will have ended before the awards will be given out.
So to bring it back to sneak, if you consider it to be a regular verb, you use -ed as the suffix for the past tense and the -ed suffix with a helper verb to make the past participle form used for the perfect tenses. Examples show it better:
- He sneaked into the room. (past tense)
- He has sneaked into the room. (present perfect tense)
- He had sneaked into the room, and then he was caught. (past perfect tense)
- He will have sneaked into the room, before stealing the money. (present perfect tense)
If you are like me and prefer to treat sneaked as a irregular verb, then forget that -ed suffix and use snuck:
- He snuck into the room. (past tense)
- He has snuck into the room. (present perfect tense)
- He had snuck into the room, and then he was caught. (past perfect tense)
- He will have snuck into the room, before stealing the money. (present perfect tense)
Isn’t grammar fun? No doubt, if I’ve got it wrong, folks will leave comments below.
Postscript: From below, a video of Conan O’Brien smacking Jennifer Garner down as she tries to correct him from saying snuck:
Postscript 2: Grammar Girl has a video up (sorry, it doesn’t allow embedding) that says it’s sneaked over snuck, if you want to be proper.
{ 268 comments }
Next Comments →
AP style guide says…sneaked is “preferred as past tense of sneak. Do not use the colloquial snuck.” American? British? Don’t know. I’m just sticking with AP.
Wow, Pamela — my AP guide doesn’t have anything on it at all! My mine’s the 1980 copyright edition, so it’s a bit out of date
Thank you so much for the info and explanation – I was completely stuck on this with a paper I’m writing. I finally get it!!
One of my favorite rants – thanks for posting. I think there should be a revision of the declension, to wit: “sneak, snack, snuck” … ho-ho.
My ears and brain are annoyed every time I hear “snuck”. Have you thought about a word much like it with only one letter change? It is also a word I definitely abhor. Sneaked sounds right to me, but then I am not a native Californian and certainly not a Southern Californian. A native Califronian told me to just”get over it”. I don’t think I will. I have lived in california for nearly 30 years, and I hope to retain my English grammar sensibilities.
“He will have sneaked into the room, before stealing the money. (present perfect tense)”
I believe this should read…
“He will have sneaked into the room, before stealing the money. (future perfect tense)”
In case you’re interested, you say above, “Past Perfect Tense: An action that happened in the past before another past action”, and that’s RIGHT.
“The race had ended, and the awards were given out”, is WRONG. Right is, “The race ended and the awards were given out”.
“Call me a taxi”. “O.K., you’re a taxi.” The past perfect doesn’t work that way. You can’t make it work by putting ‘had’ in front of a past tense verb.
Let me know if you don’t know why I said what I said.
I don’t talk so good myself sometimes.
Somebody, somewhere, sometime, will get a kick out of that.
…and another thing: you wrote “…if I’ve got it wrong…”. You are saying then (without the contraction) “…if I have got it wrong…”. I believe the preferred way should be “if I have it wrong”, or even could be “if I got it wrong” OR “if I have GOTTEN it wrong”. Just like “you’ve got mail”. You HAVE mail, you don’t HAVE GOT mail.
And that’s MY little abhor-ation.
The work snuk is like fingernails on a blackboard to me !
That is the thing I was taught in grade school it was snuck not sneaked. Is that not wierd! I just saw sneaked on one of my kids TV shows and thought it was wrong and googled it to find out I am the one that was wrong. I should have known better being proficient in two foreign languages that it did not make any sense my way! I guess you learn something new everyday!
I realize snuck does not follow the rules of the english language, but since when is there not an exception to nearly every rule in the english language. I like snuck.
“Snuck” sounds right to me. “Sneaked” is ridiculous.
I was born and raised in New Zealand, where we apparently speak a version of British English…but I first notice this strange word “sneaked” sometime last year. Over here, it’s been “snuck” ever since I remember having snuck into my parents room and stolen 50cents from the jar for an ice-cream when I was 8.
To .steph. – don’t you mean ‘sticked’?
English is losing its history in German, Latin and Greek. Apart from ‘sneaked’, I have also witnessed the horrifying adoption of ‘fishes’.
speak
spoke
Rules in the English language are meant to be broken
To Nancy -
I believe that “fishes” refers to multiple species of fish together. You use the plural “fish” for multiple ones of the same species. I could be wrong though!
Backed to sneak v. snuck
This English major and teacher educator says the word is sneaked. Moreover, aspiring teachers should save their money by not purchasing Donna Huggins’ “Exam Cram Praxis I” 2005 guide for the teacher examination. In question two of the Writing Exam section where the object is finding an adverb, the author gives future teachers this sentence: “I watched the cat as she quietly snuck up behind the bird.” Is teacher education in trouble when those who market gatekeeper exams to students push this level of ineptitude? Needless to say, I quit reading their defective product at question two.
Thank you for this! I’m a snuck person myself, but was reading The Sea of Monsters, which uses both “sneaked” & “leaped.” After multiple uses of both words (instead of snuck or lept), I just had to look it up. Thank you for making it easy. Not that it is easy: the Englidh language is messed up & as long as a work is consistent, we’re all right.
Thanks for writing this- it was a big help. I’ve always heard ‘snuck’ growing up, and ‘sneaked’ sounds a bit silly to me, somewhat awkward in a sentence, but if it’s the right way, then I’ll use it. Thanks again!
Gregory is correct. I believe this is also the case for other irregular plural animal words, such as deer.
The reason that “snuck” has become acceptable is because of the great number of the masses using the word incorrectly. Without sounding like the proverbial old fart, there was a time that these items were corrected and learned. Now it seems that the majority rules when it comes to language, whether it is proper or not. “Sneak” is a regular verb, requiring an -ed ending for both the past and the past participle. The nuns, brothers and Jesuit priests that educated me made sure I was aware of this–and other anomalies.
Well, NPR evidently considers “snuck” okay, because I have heard two different news announcers report that the Honduran President “snuck” back into the Brazilian Embassy in his country. He did not evade security or elude pursuers or outwit adversaries, no, he just plain snuck back. What larks.
9/23/09
Snuck versus sneaked. Who cares? The reality of language is that it evolves constantly. What was grammatically correct 200 years ago is completely different today. The fact that some “experts” of today claim snuck is incorrect does not make it incorrect. Language never was and never will be controllable by the few who study it.
“The fact that some “experts” of today claim snuck is incorrect does not make it incorrect.”
Nor does saying the opposite make it correct. Speaking and writing are treated differently for the reason that it would be difficult for us to understand the meanings of texts if written language just blindly followed spoken/slang shifts.
It is the standardized, albeit arbitrary, rules of language that determine whether sneaked or snuck is the correct usage, the former being the standard and therefore correct in terms of written language. One need not be an “expert” to claim that with authority.
You can say what you want, and if others think and speak the same way, they’ll understand you. Your papers may not get published, but who cares, right?
The papers that make the big money get published using snuck. Regardless of sneaked being “correct” grammatically is of no consequence to giant media. The best seller list authors use spoken language rather than “proper english”, as do newspaper writers and mass media. My claim was that language evolves and that is more important than the rules of today. I have pet peeves in language myself, including “these ones,” “those ones,” and announcers using “crash” instead of accident or wreck. Yet nothing will not stop their misuse nor freeze the language into what is considered “proper” by today’s experts.
I also can not stand double negatives. My last sentence was supposed to be: “Yet nothing will stop their misuse nor freeze the language into what is considered “proper” by today’s experts.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBplQmbqNmg
I’m with conan on this one.
AHHHHHH! All of you prescriptivists need to open your eyes! American English is NOT British English and just because a grammar book says something does not make it a law. It shows examples of the langauge at any given point in time. A lot of people say snuck, and whether or not you shudder when you hear it, it is not wrong and you need to get over it. Language is always changing and those grammar books that you get your information from won’t even be accurate 100 years from now. Deal with it.
Great to have all the info. I wrote a poem using my Californian “Snuck” and kept getting the dang red line from spell check! I finally “ignored” it but started freaking out last night that I might be wrong. Sneaked sounds TERRIBLE to me, and does not fit the rythmn of my poem, so I am definitely sticking with SNUCK!!! ^_^
I guess you’re stuck with snuck!
Ellen Leahy,
I’m not an expert in use of English or anything, but shouldn’t it be “Is teacher education in trouble when they who market gatekeeper exams to students push this level of ineptitude?” instead of “Is teacher education in trouble when those who market gatekeeper exams to students push this level of ineptitude?” I was always taught that the way to tell the difference was to drop the extraneous portion of the sentence, reducing it to “Is teacher education in trouble when they push this level of ineptitude?” Was I miseducated? Again, not trying to seem pedantic, just curious. Thanks!
I believe that everyone should use “snuck.” Why? “Sneaked” sounds a lot like “squeaked” which is not what you want to be doing when you’re sneaking around. In my opinion, “snuck” sounds softer and sneakier (perhaps why it caught on in the first place?) and generally more like what the word means. I’ve always felt that words should sound similar to what they mean, if at all possible.
(Of course, if you’re writing a poem about a person who sneaked into the room, but the door squeaked, you might have to go with “sneaked.” It’s good to have choices. It’s what makes English great! Also it’s what makes English terrible to non-native speakers. Oh well.)
Kit,
Maybe you would like “squck” instead of “squeaked”..
I have always said sneaked. What is bizarre about this is that everyone in my Appalachian area says snuck, which sounds so strange to me. Maybe this is because my mom always said sneaked. I don’t understand why you would make an irregular verb out of a regular verb if you don’t need to. I understand that the English language is always changing, but I don’t agree with changing the English language just because everyone starts saying something out of ignorance. If we are going to change the English language, then it should be changing the ridiculous rules like “capitalize Mother if it is in place of someone’s name but not if it has a possessive pronoun in front of it.”
Guess what Suck rhymes with?
To Paul. . . . . . How gross and innapropriate. (gags a bit)
I was never good in school but my teacher told me it was sneaked. . . I was the only one who said that. So growing up people would laugh leaving me never knowing which one it was. Thanks to this site I now know that those people who laughed at me were wrong. That makes me feel so happy to know that!
Oh and why are you all getting off the track of ‘sneaked’ and ‘snuck’ ? really? you’re ALL crazy escpecially you Paul (my biggest fan club member) I am really a Jonas Brother. . . . . . . Joe actually. oh GOTTA go got a Hot chick in the house!
First, to those who dig their heels in insisting that (written) language is immutable, read Steven Pinker’s column from the NYT following Obama’s swearing in snafu:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22pinker.html
Note also that “snuck” has been used since the 19th c. and, according to the Oxford American Dictionary, “in the last few decades its use has spread, particularly in the US, where it is now generally regarded as a standard alternative to ‘sneaked.’” (Admittedly, the following line states, “In formal contexts, however, ‘sneaked’ remains the preferred form.” Still, this statement seems to me reminiscent of the matter of splitting infinitives, where conventional usage will overrule (arbitrary) formal conventions.)
Incidentally, many of you complaining about how grating “snuck” sounds to you make your own share of grammatical and syntactical errors.
In the end we just continually move closer and closer to Newspeak. Sneaked. Leaped. Pant. Why buy a pant from the store when your dog seems full of them? But I’m sure you’ll find them on sale everywhere.
I’m delighted at your exploration of this in your blog – I hope many more read it and that I no longer have to hear those around me saying “snuck” (audible cringe/shudder.) In the meantime, I plan to use your made up past tense of freak: “fruck” with those using “snuck” – I love it! Perhaps future generations of grammar nazis like me will have me (well, and you) to blame for “fruck” catching on!
Really, I don’t mind so much when my blue-collar co-workers use imperfect English. I do expect teachers, education administrators, journalists (including TV’s talking heads) to properly use the medium of their careers, living language or no.
Yes, if you consider freak to be an irregular verb, I suppose you can go with fruck. Most people wouldn’t. I think that’s clear in that we don’t have an on-going debate over freaked/fruck with conflicting and confusing dictionary definitions.
We do have that with sneaked versus snuck, which tells me there isn’t a commonly accepted correct usage. So when you’re expecting those teachers, educators and journalists to properly use language, they are, even if they say snuck.
Oops – I forgot to mention my favorite tool for verb conjugation – the song in the Grinch cartoon movie! Remember when the song goes: The three words that best describe you, are, and I quote: “Stink. Stank. Stunk.” If I’m confused about a verb and can’t get to the dictionary or internet, the soothing voice of Tony the Tiger!
Also, like Trish from Appalachia, I was raised (though in an Indiana backwater) by a mother who used proper English. I say we are NOT stuck with snuck! Fight back with knowledge, rather than turn your back on it!
Whew, Danny, you clearly missed the playful nature of my posting. My diabolical plan is to turn freaked/fruck into just such a debate. What’s good for the snuck is good for the fruck, with apologies to both goose and gander for that.
I did, sorry! Long day. Very long day.
It’s a dangerous plan, though. One slip of the R, and people will be really frucked.
That’s simply part of my diabolical masterplan! Bwa-ha-ha… (My friends and I, by the way, would identify that as a “fallopian slip” rather than, you know, the established name.)
Though I was being playful, I am seriously frustrated with the condition of our language, for most of us the only one we have. While I’m somewhat less than appalled by journalists’ (and other educated folks’) lack of knowledge of proper English, I’m sad that my own two sons are among them! I spoke well at home, read to them often, earned my BA while they were little kids, and raised them with the expectation that they would earn higher educations – which they did… But through all of that, what happened to their grammar??? Did they learn “snuck” and develop a lack of understanding of when to use “lie” versus “lay” at elementary school through college? Did the bad grammar of their friends supercede all the efforts of mother and professional educators? Was my decision NOT to follow in my mother’s footsteps (those of a grammar nazi, eternally correcting the errors of small children) wrong-headed? It seems that my expectation that people completing a higher education (especially in fields such as journalism, English, communication, etc.) should come out with a better rather than worse understanding of their native tongue! I’m all for relaxed standards in casual conversation in real and literary life, but formal and professional situations demand use of proper English.
And, of course, everyone deserves latitude for long, tiring days, especially when they’re creating a forum on their own time for people like me, who sometimes act like jerks. I appreciate the your responses. But I suspect I will never subscribe to the “oh, well” attitude of several posters. Thanks for the site, and best wishes with all your present and future aspirations (which, after taking a belated first trip around the rest of this page, I see are both accomplished and many! Question: Are you British and/or in England?
I’m American — but I spent 12 years living in Britain
Do you mean, ‘If I have it wrong’…rather than ‘I’ve got it wrong’?
Read a poem once that went like this: “I dreamed a dream”
Should it be “I dreamt a dream?”
i still cant identify the difference
arent they the same thing???
i still dont get it
Thank you. This was very useful for solving my problem. Dragged and drug is the other one that usually gets me .
I am more prone to use the “snuck” rather than the “sneaked” version!!! …somehow it just sounds better… and I’m one who hates using the Americanised versions of words (ie theatre rather than theater). Go figure! I better start retraining myself! …not that I do much sneaking around!
Seriously been thinking about this a lot lately, it has been coming up in books as “sneaked” but I always pronounce as “snunk”. Glad to know it is okay to do so!!
The English language is a Joy to hear, it’s rules are at once simple and complex. English is both beautiful and vulgar, the former has been tested by time, the latter by the mouths of americans
sneaked , not snuck, (you don’t say puck instead of peeked do you!!?)
dragged, not drug
twice, not two times
P.S. you may be totting up my mistakes while you are reading this, if so i do not care, i do not profess to being a scholar, nevertheless, i am English and detest your bastardisation of “our” spoken word.
Dear Englishman,
We don’t speak British English…we speak American English. I could sit here and list irregular verbs that Brits use and compare them to regular forms…but that’s just pointless. I could actually hear you snobbery as I was reading your arrogant comment… I have two points to make. Although not ALL americans say sneaked, I actually know some British people who do say snuck. Moreover, lets point out a little fact here – 2/3 of native English speakers are American. If it weren’t for us developing our own dialects of English, you would have been forced to master AT LEAST one foreign language (and I’m assuming you are monolingual according to your perspective on language) while you were in school, because English wouldn’t be any more important than let’s say German. So, you’re welcome. Also, if you want to hear some really bastardiZed English, go to London and have a conversation with one of your chavs…
Englishman, you mean “its rules are at once simple and complex,” not “it’s rules are at once simple and complex.”
“Its” is the possessive form of the neuter pronoun. You use it to indicate ownership by a neuter subject, just as you use his to indicate possession by a male subject and hers to indicate possession by a female subject.
“It’s” is a contraction of the words “it is,” where the apostrophe indicates the missing space between the words and the letter I.
When in doubt, always substitute the word “his” or “hers” in place of either “it’s” or “its” to know if you’re using things correctly. In what you wrote, could you have said:
“his rules are at once simple…”
Yes, you could. So its should have been the word you used.
As for the bastardization of of “your” spoken word, English is descended from Germanic roots, with a healthy dose of Latin and French mixed in. One of the strengths of the language has been how it adopts and accepts words from many sources.
Dear Englishman and Danny,
You are really uptight, are you not? This is supposed to be a discussion forum–lighten up.
Everyone,
I know that the English language is always changing, but should it change because we are ignorant of the rules of grammar? Or should it change because we make a conscious decision to change it? Snuck started as slang (I am convinced in my region…I could be wrong though), and now we see it in dictionaries. This irritates me. What are we going to see in dictionaries five years from now as acceptable grammar because people do not know the rules and do not want to learn them? Pretty soon we will see this in the dictionary (Heaven forbid):
lay -verb 1. what you do when you take a nap: Lay down and take ya a nap maw. laid: I laid down cuz I felt allful. lays: She jest lays around all day doin nuthin.
Okay, maybe the above example is a little exaggerated. I suggest we consciously change some capitalization rules and a few spelling rules
(but not because people are too lazy to learn them).
xxx ooo
T
Trish, there are any number of English words that were originally “incorrect” which, because they’ve been used over time, are “correct” today.
One good example could be the many words in American English that end in -er (such as theater) versus British English (theatre) or words like color versus colour. Which is “correct?” It all depends on your point of view. And even in American English, both theater and theatre are correct spellings.
I agree. I think people should use commonly accepted word forms and grammar in general and not just ignore the “rules.” But neither am I panicked if some word forms change over time. That’s always the case.
Sneaked might be technically correct, but it doesnt sound right. Which is probably how “snuck” came to be. It sounds out of place and childish. Maybe we shouldnt get all stuck up in the technical side of things, because in the real world unique style and unique speaking always wins over cookie cutter language.
It does not sound right because you are used to hearing it said the wrong way. Does “I am going to lie down and take a nap” sound right? What about “She has lain in bed all day”? Most people say “She has laid in bed all day” because they never paid attention in English class and they live in a region where everyone says “has laid” instead of has lain.
I am definitely FOR changing some things in our language, but I am NOT for “dumbing it down.” I swear that Ray Bradbury’s predictions, about how technology makes people stupid, will come true–some already have come true (from Fahrenheit 451). It scares me.
P.S. I feel cranky today…sorry.
IN RESPONSE TO DARK MOLE’s “I’VE GOT” RANT
Actually, it is correct to say “I’ve got mail.” I used to yell at my British co-teachers all the time about it, but if you think about it in the sense of the perfect tense, it is correct. It’s referencing a past occurrence, without a time reference, and with a present consequence. Therefore, I received mail at some ambiguous point in the past and it is of present relevance.
So, “I’ve got it wrong” can work if referencing a past thought or action, with no specified time, relating to a present situation. This is in contrast to “I got it wrong yesterday…” or something along those lines.
Also, I hate hearing the word “snuck.” It’s almost as bad as when someone says “Did you eat yet?” Think about that one pseudo-grammarians.
And, I completely agree with you Trish.
Very interesting. I am making a lesson plan right now and I realized that I have always said snuck. it is great to know why I am wrong.
Thanks a lot for this (: ‘Twas pretty helpful. I think I’d like to go for snuck. But this spell check is now saying it’s wrong… -.-
egads! i was googling snuck for a poem i wrote and your explanation was at the top of the search. small world? or just because you’re famous?
cheers!!!!
That always cracks me up, when someone who knows me stumbles onto a post for something really unrelated to what I normally write about! The other day, one of my kids did
That was a fantastic string of comments to peruse. I’d have to say that it was better than the article. I came here wondering which was the correct form of “sneaked.” I’m leaving with the opinion that it is purely a stylistic decision. Consider Jabberwocky, for example. It’s beautiful, and it barely uses real words. Or perhaps, consider anything that Poe, Twain, or Vonnegut wrote. None seemed to be overly concerned with doing things in a proper manner. Colloquialism and vernacular are great ways to capture the essence of an era. When written, at this point, I’d have to say both are correct and that it purely depends on the context the author intends to convey. Spoken? The same could be true or perhaps the speaker is just lazy. Who could blame them for that? Cringe in your mind if you want, but don’t let yourself miss the point just because you were too concerned with how the point was presented.
Certainly, grammatical errors like “your” in place of “you’re” are more worthy of denigration than inconsequential ones like the “sneaked” vs “snuck” debate. “Sneaked” and “snuck” are ultimately intended to mean the same thing. “Your” and “you’re” are, without question, not meant to. “…that was hard to admit to myself… and not just because it ended with a preposition.” – Yorick Brown in Y: The Last Man.
Sorry to bring up a months-old thread. Not sorry to drop the subjects from many of my sentences. It’s just how I speak, as I find that implication often makes language more evocative. Take that for what you will.
As a native Washingtonian I’ve always said snuck not sneaked (sounds so weird to me). As I was writing a post for my blog, I couldn’t understand why Google Chrome’s spell check didn’t want to accept snuck as a valid spelling. Thanks for the post, very informative. I guess I will just have use the add dictionary function so I can continue with misspelling of British English words. As a side note, I find the differences in language very interesting. I’m currently living in Cusco Peru and teaching English at a local university. The thing is, that we teach British English… not American. I’m always coming across the differences.
Still stuck with snuck, does that suck?
I, personally, am horrified by the use of the word “snuck”. I don’t consider it a valid word – and I was born in the US.
It just occurred to me how humorous it is that snuck has sneaked into modern vernacular.
What a fascinating article and thread of comments. I hope that anyone that reads this will take away with them the fact that English (British or otherwise) is always changing. Yes, always.
With those changes come people who need for the changes to stop or the world will end. Also with these changes come people demanding the other people stop being so obstinate or the world will end. Oddly enough, the only thing they seem to agree on is that the world will end. The funniest part is that each side can easily use the same set of rules to prove their argument.
My stance, having majored in English, and having been raised by a father who majored in English, is probably not what a lot of people want to read… but I’ll write it anyways (and I’ll probably make lots of mistakes because my editor isn’t here at the moment, so don’t bother correcting my English… you probably won’t correct it correctly anyway).
Remember that language is meant to be an effective tool of communication. If you are communicating effectively, then the “rules” go out the window. As Winston Churchill (supposedly) once said, “This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.” Rules in English are much better used as suggestions as opposed to steadfast commandments.
We are on our own as far as figuring out English. English doesn’t have an academy like French that devotes its time to keeping the language safe… or is that stagnant? One of the great things about English is that it has always been so accepting when it comes to new words. Sure, it makes English horribly difficult to learn. So what? Good things come from hard work. The thing is that the richness of the English language would not exist if not for all the melding and mutating that has taken place.
So before you begin a rant about the people destroying the language, be sure that you aren’t one of those people… no… assume that you ARE one of those people, and then just stop yourself. We are all still learning English, from the Harvard grad to the knucklehead, and (with any luck) there will never be nothing left to learn.
I think it’s interesting that snuck always sounded right but when I went to write it then it looked silly.
Sneaked and snuck are both fully standard in U.S. English, though snuck is avoided in some formal contexts. Sneaked is generally preferred in British English, but there is dialectal variation.
What’s unusual about the rise of snuck over sneaked — aside from its rapidity — is that snuck is an irregular, strong form. There was a minor disagreement recently between The Paris Review and The Awl over snuck‘s acceptability, which prompted me to investigate both sides’ arguments; my (fairly detailed) blog post is here, if anyone cares to read it.
The purpose of language is to communicate. It evolves. It’s still not ‘proper’ to say/write such sentences as, “He did not know who he was speaking to.” It should be, “He did not know to whom he was speaking.” But did you understand the point of the former sentence?
I’m more irked by the misuse of phrases such as, “the proof is in the pudding.” The original saying is, “the proof of the pudding is in the eating,” which means that an assumption is based on experience. Otherwise, there’s an allusion to an omniscient bowl of pudding somewhere, deciding what is the truth. But everyone still knows what you mean when you use the former example.
Oh, and I believe I may have just committed a couple of faux pas (pases?) by beginning my sentence with a coordinating conjunction. At least, that’s what my teachers told me. And I should have written, “everyone still knows what *one means*…” But y’all knew what I meant, right?
Marc, as for use of the word “crash”, people are increasingly preferring not to use “accident” because, 99 times out of 100, someone is at fault. Accidents rarely happen on their own. But I agree that I’d prefer the word, “wreck”.
My final example of why people need to chill: it is still considered slang to use the word “alright” instead of the words “all right”. Yet James Joyce and Gertrude Stein are but two well-known examples of great authors to use it as a contraction. It is increasingly becoming acceptable and will eventually make its way into a dictionary, not listed as slang. So, if Merriam Webster declares that “snuck” is proper, then you’ll get over your obsession with propriety?
Sorry: “…two well-known examples of great authors to *have used* it as a contraction.”
Marcello,
You jest learned me sumpin I didnt already no. You learned us all sumpin knew.
(Are the above sentences acceptable? You understand them, do you
not?)
The purpose of language is to communicate. However, we have a beautiful language and it is not acceptable to “dumb it down” like we do everything else just because people are too lazy to learn grammar (unless it is acceptable for our future generations to say their teachers “learned me sumpin good” in school).
“Understanding” what someone says is not the issue; thus, it is not a valid argument.
I’m sorry, Trish. I should have written that the purpose of language is to communicate effectively. Since I had to reread your sentence a couple of times, you weren’t being effective. If I read more than a few sentences like that, I’d get frustrated and give up. Therefore, you would have failed to effectively communicate your point to me.
But, whether or not I agree that “snuck” is the past tense of “sneak,” that one word in an otherwise coherent sentence–especially given that there is much debate as to whether or not the word is acceptable–would not keep the writer/speaker from being understood.
It’s not the same as using “loose” when you mean “lose” (which I see OFTEN). That would confuse the reader, prompting one to wonder if the writer meant “loosen” or “lose.”
Do you use “to whom” as in my example above every time it would be applicable? If so, kudos, but many people think that those who speak perfect English are putting on airs.
Trish, my wife is British. She adds U to words like “colour” and uses S in place of Z for words like “realise.” I don’t, because American English has changed from British English. Does that mean American English was dumbed down?
In British English, it’s common to refer to a corporation in the plural: “BP believe they are doing all that can be done.” In American English, we typically use the singular: “BP believes it is doing all that can be done.” Which is the dumbed down version?
We’re not using some contractions and other word forms from 100 years ago, much less 500 years ago. Did our language get dumber because of this?
Of course not. Languages, including English, evolve. We have things like irregular verbs because, well, our language isn’t regular. We have tons of weird things that don’t always make sense. And we have some points of language where there’s disagreement.
Sneaked versus snuck seems to especially be one of those points. We have reference works that say it is correct and not. In contrast, in your example, you’ll be hard pressed to find reference works that will suggest it is common to use “jest” in place of “just.”
My own rule when it comes to the use of “correct” English is this. If you’re going to “break” some commonly accepted rules, that’s fine as long as you understand the rules you’re breaking. I learned that from one of my English teachers in high school, and I think it’s good advice.
If you want to write in a dialect or manner that’s not commonly spoken, enjoy — but know that you’re doing it, and know why you’re doing it and be prepared to defend yourself, if questioned.
I generally use a plural pronoun since English lacks a singuarl neuter pronoun, for cases where I need to describe someone but don’t want to have the “he/she/s/he” debate. I explain that more at the end of this article:
http://daggle.com/dear-s-larson-of-citibank-youre-not-real-so-please-retire-208
I know why I do it. I’m prepared if someone questions it. I don’t feel it interferes with understanding what I’ve written.
As for snuck, that’s what I learned, what I’ve spoken, what I’ve heard others spoken. I’ll be sticking with it.
Danny, here’s something to consider. With the increasing presence of out-of-the-closet transgendered people engaging in the public discourse, a renewed effort to standardize a gender-neutral pronoun has emerged. Many people use “them” instead of “him” or “her.” I don’t like that because I find it confusing. I wonder who are the other people being referred to.
But “ze” (“zes,” “ze’s,” “zeself,” etc.) is beginning to become recognized by official bodies, such as Australia’s census bureau. It will take a bit of effort to get that into the daily lexicon, but I’m just old enough to remember when feminists first started pushing for “Ms.” instead of “Miss” or “Mrs.” That only took a decade or so to become commonplace.
BTW, “Ms.” was originally proposed by a newspaper reporter in 1901. It wasn’t until 1961 that a feminist activist discovered that article, and she was able to promote its use to a NYC radio audience in ’69 or ’70. The debate raged in the mid-’70s and by the mid-’80s, few questioned it as a proper honorific.
I still find it extremely amusing that you pick each other up on the slightest mistake, yet you repeatedly use the phrase “British English”. WE DO NOT SPEAK BRITISH ENGLISH, WE SPEAK ENGLISH.
No, Englishman, you speak British English. To say you speak “English” implies that you speak the only correct or “true” version of English, and all other forms — say Australian English, American English, Canadian English — are incorrect or not original.
In fact, if you do a bit of research, you’ll discover that some usages of American English are more true to “original” English spoken at the time North American was colonized.
For example, from here:
http://www.englishclub.com/english-language-history.htm
But if it makes you feel better to think British English = English, enjoy. Those of us who disagree will find that attitude equally amusing.
I have really enjoyed monitoring this thread. It is a pleasure to read what the thinkers have posted in the comments. Gives one much to consider and I appreciate the chuckles some of you have presented for the rest of us to share.
Marcello, thanks for noting the crash part of one of my comments. I agree, wreck is the most sensible word to use. A wreck is the result of a crash. Arguably, however, I disagree that most wrecks are not accidents. Someone may be at fault, but I sincerely doubt they did it on purpose. If that happened a lot I would imagine we’d call them intentionals instead of accidents. Would anyone agree? ;0)
I have heard it argued that American English is actually closer to the Queen’s English of the mid 1700′s than what is currently in England today. I took a few minutes to see if I could find any citations, however I did not locate any, unlike Danny did. Good work, Danny.
The more snobbish, for lack of a better word at the moment, sound of today’s British accents is also a result of the last couple of hundred years and is not how it was spoken back in the 18th century. Proper pronunciation – yes; exaggerated inflection – no. It appears I found a better phrase to describe it after all.
Hopefully what Danny and I have had to add regarding language evolution is not taken as an insult to our fellow English speaking neighbors, but rather taken into consideration of the overall discussion of snuck versus sneaked. Simply because one version of English does not contain a word does not make it irrelevant.
At least google Chrome’s spell checker underscores snuck as being spelt wrong. That should be considered a win for you, Trish! :0) Yes, I know that the spell-checker has a lot to do with this article’s origination.
I wish we could just sit down and reform the language using logic and be met with a completely receptive crowd of all English speakers. We would completely eliminate all the irregular words and ensure that all words followed the basic rules of the language. Past Tense? It ends with ‘ed’ – if the vowel inside the word was short and it ends with only one consonant it must be doubled. End of story. Our prodigy would find English a very simple subject with no room for error as long as you followed the rules. Confusion would be forever removed! No double meaning words, no contractions [oh, I hate those in the written word!], no more complexity, and no localization! If we could somehow achieve that and then reset every English speaker and writer to utilize it, we still would have the problem of the human mind. Our mind simply is not bound by logic because we are not that simple of a being. Reason is quickly trampled when emotion comes into play.
In truth, the language would lose it’s beauty. Beauty is an emotional reaction, not a logical one. Words will always have double meanings as long as people are sexual beings. You know what I mean… The most innocent sentence can be misconstrued with a slight accent change and mean something else completely different.
Emotion aside, people will begin to add local rules and come up with new spellings out of genius, as a result of social interaction, or simply to make a point. People will find shortcuts, attempt to make things sound better, leave out parts of speech, make a unique variation so they feel like a part of a region, and slang would evolve. Slang would eventually become accepted and put into the dictionary.
With all of that in mind, I will say I am stuck with snuck. In the end, at least it is a word that a poet can use to get sneaking to rhyme with duck.
Oh, if the world had only adopted the universal language of Esperanto, life would be so much simpler.
;^)
Did you know: Plural of “mouse” is “mice” of course. But plural of “computer mouse” is “computer mouses”.
digged or dug, dragged or drug?
“Dug” and “drugged,” I believe. But I grew up using “pet” as past tense of “pet.” I don’t know. It just sounded right. But, as an adult, I noticed everyone used “petted” and I’ve worked to change my erroneous ways. I periodically hear people use “pet” as past tense, so I wonder if that will eventually become more commonplace and, eventually, accepted.
But if it makes you feel better to think British English = English, enjoy. Those of us who disagree will find that attitude equally amusing.
yes ,i do hold that view and always will, and altough i may make gramatical, spelling or syntax errors, i do not care, we can ALL make mistakes with our own language, that does not make the language wrong it only makes the person using it wrong. English is English regarless of how badly an Englishman uses it. The concept of British English only exists outside of britain and no self respecting briton would ever use the term, you can call the version that YOU speak whatever you wish, but we brits, know what it is really called, and that is BOLLOCKS.
BTW, Dont bother correcting my numerous mistakes, and you can laugh all you wish at my misuse of my own language, but there it is, an Englishman using English
Englishman, the concept of American English similarly exists outside of America
Actually, neither is true. Most people in America say they speak English; most in Britain say they speak English — neither typically thinks they speak “American English” or “British English.” But they do indeed have these concepts when they compare their English to that spoken by someone else.
Anyway, if you want to be a pratt and start calling bollocks on anyone who disagrees with you, part of me wants to say just bugger off. But that would only be to, you know, make it clear that I can get into the gutter with British English as well as American English.
My wife’s British. My two sons are half-British. In our house, we speak both American English and British English. We get along pretty well and actually enjoy some of the differences, rather than fighting about it. Though I generally lose the battle that Z is pronounced Z not Zed
Referring to “British English,” “American English,” “Australian English…” is, as I pointed out earlier in another context, simply a way to effectively communicate a point. Most often, people do not make a distinction when referring to the English language. But it becomes relevant when discussing, as we are here, what is considered proper.
If I were talking about torches and boots and lifts and lorries, and others were not understanding what I was saying, I’d explain that I was using British English.
Similarly, it’s an important distinction as information becomes increasingly borderless (not an actual word, according to Firefox), when one must set the language on computer programs for spell-checking, to name one example.
What about Hillbilly English? Don’t forget about us!
I Love you guys. I love to argue. This is the BEST fun.
xxxooo
Shit, I do what I think is going to be a quick search and it ends up costing me a “bloody” 45 minutes (what with the links and all). Thanks a lot, guys!!
This took up more of my time than when I tried to find a consensus on canceled vs. cancelled (the former according to this spell check; the latter to others), and that quest was equally as futile!
Think I’ll get back to my email now.
Growing up in Michigan, all I ever heard was “snuck.” The fact that it’s incorrect makes me want to punch babies
Give me a break. How about “sneak, snack, snuck”…? Even my browser has a fit over “snuck” – my own reaction is a bit closer to heart attack. As an English minor and a fussy grammarian, I object strenuously to the abuse of our language with such as “snuck.” I hope that you will come to the conclusion that it’s an ignorant form which has gained an audience as ignorance in America has become more prevalent. You can help – strike the accursed term from your vocabulary!
John
Amen.
Thanks for this post. Sneaked has always seemed a little weird to me even though I know it is correct since I have always been used to hearing snuck. In speaking I say one, in writing I say the other. I believe that is how a lot of language is though. It is a lot like Lit vs. lighted or dove vs. dived. My personal favorite that has become the thing that tweaks my nerves the most though is the misuse of the word MYSELF. That goes for British and U.S. It is a reflexive pronoun but more and more people are using it in place of the word me. “It was John, Eliza and myself…” “Please feel free to call Peter or myself…” I can’t call yourself people!
In “snuck” vs “sneaked”, I prefer the later. After all, you say, “I sneaked around the corner”. “The killer sneaked up on his victim”. It’s derived from the word “sneak”. “Snuck” just doesn’t make any sense, but as one person noted, we hear people misuse words everyday and copy them. My personal tweak is people who substitute “I” for “me” because they think it makes them sound more learned. As in “Give it to Sue and I”.
Bradvines, I completely disagree with you. You said ““The race had ended, and the awards were given out”, is WRONG. Right is, “The race ended and the awards were given out”.
Here is why I disagree…..saying “the race ended”, implies that it happened recently, followed immediately by the awards. But saying it int this context: “The reason the awards were given out, is because the race had ended”, works perfectly.
“The race had ended, and the awards were given out”
Interesting post.
Just a bit of info…
Snuk is not a word. While linguistically “snuk” has become acceptable through usage, grammatically it is incorrect.
Similar to the word “ain’t”. “Ain’t” has become acceptable to some and has even been acknowledged in some dictionaries. “Ain’t” however, is not grammatically correct.
What about “I don’t got no…”?
Eventually words and improper modes of speech which are used regularly by the masses will become acceptable and even be recognized as legitimate words by many dictionaries.
Just a tangent…
Some words, such as “got” are legit, but are often used sloppily.
Also, when writing professionally, it is best to stay clear of contractions. It’s (heh) just a lazy way of writing, ain’t it?
Next Comments →
Comments on this entry are closed.