Oh Yeah... Duh... Blond Moment.
Thanks

Sneaked. We've had this discussion before, methinks.

Definitely sneaked. Also, dived, not dove. Not included but I felt the need.

Yes we did, and the final consensus was that both are correct. Same as for X-Kalibur's dived/dove.

Living languages change and evolve over time.

That may be, but one is more correct than the other.

And in the case of dived it's very simple to show how dove does not work.

Example: I have dived off of a cliff.
or

I have dove off of a cliff.

The second one just doesn't jive with proper English.

Is there a reason you're trying to pick a fight over this ...??






No, it's not actually that simple.

http://tenfootstop.blogspot.com/2005/10/di...ct-from-dr.html

"Old English had two classes of verbs: strong verbs, whose past tense was indicated by a change in their vowel (a process that survives in such present-day English verbs as drive/drove or fling/flung ); and weak verbs, whose past was formed with a suffix related to ?ed in Modern English (as in present-day English live/lived and move/moved ). Since the Old English period, many verbs have changed from the strong pattern to the weak one; for example, the past tense of step, formerly stop, became stepped. Over the years, in fact, the weak pattern has become so prevalent that we use the term regular to refer to verbs that form their past tense by suffixation of -ed. However, there have occasionally been changes in the other direction: the past tense of wear, now wore, was once werede, and that of spit, now spat, was once spitede. The development of dove is an additional example of the small group of verbs that have swum against the historical tide. "

Wear: past tense "wore" or "weared" ...? Used to be the latter, became the former.

Spit: past tense "spat" or "spitted" ...? Same thing.

Dive --> dived/dove follows the exact same pattern.

From the article you lunk (see, I can make up past tenses as well)



You can't really use something that goes against what you're saying to prove anything.

I didn't make up "dove" as a past-tense of dive. If dove is good enough for the likes of Mark Twain and Upton Sinclair, among others, then it's fine by me. Whereas, you? You're not a renowned or even recognised author. Funny how that makes a difference, isn't it?


Except, Ididn't - if you take the article as a whole, rather than cherry picking and then misconstruing one tiny snippet.

Because, first of all, "safer to use" != "the only correct way to use". Dived is safer, in formal writing especially, because outside of North America, it's almost exclusively the past-tense in use. But, again, "safer" does not mean "only way".

And second of all, further down in that same article we find:

"USAGE NOTE: Either dove or dived is acceptable as the past tense of dive. Usage preferences show regional distribution, although both forms are heard throughout the United States."

And please, do pay special attention to the highlighted part of that quote.



Then there's [[ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dive ]], which agrees with the American Heritage dictionary on the issue of dove-vs-dived, including example usages like "She dove into the swimming pool." and "The whale dove down to deeper water."



Or you could look here: [[ http://www.chompchomp.com/rules/irregularrules01.htm ]] .... which lists both "dove" and "dived" as proper past tenses of "dive". OH, and it also reminded me of why your second example sentence didn't look right when using "dove": the second sentence did not use a past tense, it used a past particple. Which for "dive", is always "dived".

Isn't the English Language fun ...?



And there's this bit at [[ http://grammarist.com/usage/dove-dived/ ]], which includes (emphasis mine):

"Dived is considered the standard past-tense and past-participle form of the verb dive. But the newer form dove, which probably came about by analogy with similar words like drove, has been around for at least a century and a half, and it is well established, especially in American and Canadian English. So despite what some careful English users from outside North America may say, dove is not incorrect."

Do note, too, how that passage states that "dove" has been in use for at least 150 years. It's not a recent thing ... it's probably just one from a region you personally did not grow up in. Remember: English has dialects, too. And each dialect can have it's own especial rules, which determine what is or isn't "right".



Can we be done with this grammar-nazi nonsense, yet? Or do you just want to be dead frigging wrong some more?

:sigh:

The second one becomes "I dove off the cliff."

In any event, are there more armor questions?

"I have ____" would use the past participle: "I have dived". In that case there really is only one correct usage. So his sentence, "I have dived off a cliff" is correct. It's just not an example of a straight-up Past Tense usage.

Kind of like:

• She drove / She has driven;
• He arose / He has arisen ;
• They forbade / They have forbidden
• You flew / You have flown
• We forsook / We have forsaken
• I wrote / I have written

... and so on. Other examples would be Ride/Rode/Ridden, See/Saw/Seen, Shake/Shook/Shaken; Sing/Sang/Sung; and many many more.

(As a side note, I always hated the difference between past-tense and past-particple in school. Took me forever to get it straight in my head.)

Since when did my Blond Moment become English 101?

Since we all pretty much agreed to disagree on the armor question and they needed something new to argue about.

Heh... Got it.

this funny!

grammar feud, not armor cheese.