Comments on: Sneaked Versus Snuck & Past Tense Versus Past Participle

By: runner

runner — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:24:13 +0000

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.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:13:57 +0000

And, I completely agree with you Trish.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:10:43 +0000

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.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:09:01 +0000

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.

By: Trish

Trish — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:22:58 +0000

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.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:52:48 +0000

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.

By: Danny Sullivan

Danny Sullivan — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 01:44:03 +0000

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.

By: Trish

Trish — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 01:26:46 +0000

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

By: Danny Sullivan

Danny Sullivan — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:08:14 +0000

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.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:41:33 +0000

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…