Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
stricken vs. struck
44 views
Skip to first unread message
lcy
Nov 22, 2012, 8:14:17 PM11/22/12
to
Dear all,
Please help me with the following questions. Thanks a lot!
1. When Helen was just 18 months old, an illness had stricken her
deaf and blind.
I would like to know if the word "stricken" could be replaced by
"struck". What is the difference between the two words since both of
them are the past participle of "strike". Thanks a lot!
2. Scientifically, we have to be careful about furnishing the bedroom
with too many mirrors that will reflect morning sunlight around the
room.
I would like to know if the word "that" could be replaced by
"which". Thank you very much!
Please help me with the following questions. Thanks a lot!
1. When Helen was just 18 months old, an illness had stricken her
deaf and blind.
I would like to know if the word "stricken" could be replaced by
"struck". What is the difference between the two words since both of
them are the past participle of "strike". Thanks a lot!
2. Scientifically, we have to be careful about furnishing the bedroom
with too many mirrors that will reflect morning sunlight around the
room.
I would like to know if the word "that" could be replaced by
"which". Thank you very much!
Eric Walker
Nov 22, 2012, 8:38:21 PM11/22/12
to
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:14:17 -0800, lcy wrote:
> Please help me with the following questions. Thanks a lot!
> 1. When Helen was just 18 months old, an illness had stricken her deaf
> and blind.
>
> I would like to know if the word "stricken" could be replaced by
> "struck". What is the difference between the two words since both of
> them are the past participle of "strike". Thanks a lot!
With many "strong" verbs in English, alternative forms of the participle
> Please help me with the following questions. Thanks a lot!
> 1. When Helen was just 18 months old, an illness had stricken her deaf
> and blind.
>
> I would like to know if the word "stricken" could be replaced by
> "struck". What is the difference between the two words since both of
> them are the past participle of "strike". Thanks a lot!
have evolved to have different shades of meaning. For the verb "strike",
the direct sense takes the participle "struck"; for the "figurative"
sense (as one reference puts it, it takes "stricken". In #1 above, the
sense is figurative, hence the wanted form is "stricken".
> 2. Scientifically, we have to be careful about furnishing the bedroom
> with too many mirrors that will reflect morning sunlight around the
> room.
>
> I would like to know if the word "that" could be replaced by
> "which". Thank you very much!
other would be "wrong", the rule recommended by many authorities is that
we distinguish between restrictive and non-restrictive relative causes by
not only punctuation (bracketing commas) but also by choice of pronoun.
Consider these sentences:
a) Wild geese that fly high are a menace to aviation.
b) Wild geese, which fly high, are a menace to aviation.
In sentence (a), the relative clause "that fly high" is restrictive: it
restricts our consideration to a sub-class of wild geese, those that fly
high (by implication, not all wild geese fly high, only some, and those
some are the menace). In sentence (b), the relative clause "which fly
high" is not restrictive: it does not set out some sub-set of all wild
geese, it merely comments on some salient aspect of wild geese, to wit
that they fly high; the clause is comma-bracketed because it is
"parenthetical", meaning that it could be dropped altogether without
harming the grammar or the core sense of the sentence.
Not everyone agrees with that guideline. It would be rare indeed to find
"that" used for a non-restrictive--
c) Wild geese, that fly high, are a menace to aviation.
--but it is quite common to see "which" used in restrictives:
d) Wild geese which fly high are a menace to aviation.
The recommendation is to do that which displeases none and follow the
guideline, hence leave the "that" as is.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Guy Barry
Nov 22, 2012, 11:41:32 PM11/22/12
to
"lcy" wrote in message
news:3dbb6b9a-7ad1-4cd4...@jj5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> Dear all,
> Please help me with the following questions. Thanks a lot!
> 1. When Helen was just 18 months old, an illness had stricken her
> deaf and blind.
> I would like to know if the word "stricken" could be replaced by
> "struck". What is the difference between the two words since both of
> them are the past participle of "strike". Thanks a lot!
participle of "strike". I would only use "stricken" as an adjective, e.g.
in phrases like "grief-stricken".
> 2. Scientifically, we have to be careful about furnishing the bedroom
> with too many mirrors that will reflect morning sunlight around the
> room.
> I would like to know if the word "that" could be replaced by
> "which". Thank you very much!
restrictive relative clause modifying "mirrors". "Which" tends to be used
in non-restrictive clauses.
--
Guy Barry
Steve Hayes
Nov 22, 2012, 11:45:36 PM11/22/12
to
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:14:17 -0800 (PST), lcy <lcyi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Dear all,
> Please help me with the following questions. Thanks a lot!
>1. When Helen was just 18 months old, an illness had stricken her
>deaf and blind.
>
> I would like to know if the word "stricken" could be replaced by
>"struck". What is the difference between the two words since both of
>them are the past participle of "strike". Thanks a lot!
It looks of to me.
>Dear all,
> Please help me with the following questions. Thanks a lot!
>1. When Helen was just 18 months old, an illness had stricken her
>deaf and blind.
>
> I would like to know if the word "stricken" could be replaced by
>"struck". What is the difference between the two words since both of
>them are the past participle of "strike". Thanks a lot!
I'm used to seeing it as passive - she was stricken by illness.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Dr Nick
Nov 23, 2012, 2:38:00 AM11/23/12
to
"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> "lcy" wrote in message
> news:3dbb6b9a-7ad1-4cd4...@jj5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Dear all, Please help me with the following questions. Thanks a
>> lot! 1. When Helen was just 18 months old, an illness had stricken
>> her deaf and blind.
>
>> I would like to know if the word "stricken" could be replaced by
>> "struck". What is the difference between the two words since both
>> of them are the past participle of "strike". Thanks a lot!
>
> I would say "struck" in that example, and elsewhere as the regular
> past participle of "strike". I would only use "stricken" as an
> adjective, e.g. in phrases like "grief-stricken".
Absolutely. "stricken" seems most odd there and "struck" the natural
> "lcy" wrote in message
> news:3dbb6b9a-7ad1-4cd4...@jj5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Dear all, Please help me with the following questions. Thanks a
>> lot! 1. When Helen was just 18 months old, an illness had stricken
>> her deaf and blind.
>
>> I would like to know if the word "stricken" could be replaced by
>> "struck". What is the difference between the two words since both
>> of them are the past participle of "strike". Thanks a lot!
>
> I would say "struck" in that example, and elsewhere as the regular
> past participle of "strike". I would only use "stricken" as an
> adjective, e.g. in phrases like "grief-stricken".
replacement. I don't go with Eric's distinction between literal and
figurative at all. In fact, I'm thunderstruck by it.
Eric Walker
Nov 23, 2012, 4:01:21 AM11/23/12
to
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 07:38:00 +0000, Dr Nick wrote:
[...]
> Absolutely. "stricken" seems most odd there and "struck" the natural
> replacement. I don't go with Eric's distinction between literal and
> figurative at all. In fact, I'm thunderstruck by it.
As the old-time radio announcer's remark went, "Hey, I don't write 'em,
folks, I just read 'em." The listing of strong verbs and their
inflection in Curme's _English Grammar_ has two entries for the two
forms, the second (with "stricken" as its past participle) says
"(figurative)" after the main verb form.
The AHD5 makes no stated distinction, but the first use (and I think
only, though I was only skimming) in an example of "stricken" instead of
"struck" is at sense 5, "To afflict suddenly, as with a disease or
impairment: 'was stricken by cancer'".
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
[...]
> Absolutely. "stricken" seems most odd there and "struck" the natural
> replacement. I don't go with Eric's distinction between literal and
> figurative at all. In fact, I'm thunderstruck by it.
folks, I just read 'em." The listing of strong verbs and their
inflection in Curme's _English Grammar_ has two entries for the two
forms, the second (with "stricken" as its past participle) says
"(figurative)" after the main verb form.
The AHD5 makes no stated distinction, but the first use (and I think
only, though I was only skimming) in an example of "stricken" instead of
"struck" is at sense 5, "To afflict suddenly, as with a disease or
impairment: 'was stricken by cancer'".
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Marius Hancu
Nov 23, 2012, 5:35:54 AM11/23/12
to
Marius Hancu
CDB
Nov 23, 2012, 9:47:15 AM11/23/12
to
literal. It's the compound that is used figuratively.
Mike L
Nov 23, 2012, 6:19:49 PM11/23/12
to
accounts of sea warfare, for example, a "stricken" ship is in very
deep trouble.
--
Mike.
Robert Bannister
Nov 23, 2012, 6:26:41 PM11/23/12
to
sudden discovery of the complaint, and "was stricken by cancer" to
describe a long-standing condition.
--
Robert Bannister
Andrew B
Nov 23, 2012, 7:13:57 PM11/23/12
to
brilliant idea", would you?
CDB
Nov 23, 2012, 10:49:55 PM11/23/12
to
On 23/11/2012 6:19 PM, Mike L wrote:
> CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
place devastated by electric storms could be called "lightning-stricken".
> CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Eric Walker wrote:
>>> Dr Nick wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Absolutely. "stricken" seems most odd there and "struck" the natural
>>>> replacement. I don't go with Eric's distinction between literal and
>>>> figurative at all. In fact, I'm thunderstruck by it.
>>> As the old-time radio announcer's remark went, "Hey, I don't write 'em,
>>> folks, I just read 'em." The listing of strong verbs and their
>>> inflection in Curme's _English Grammar_ has two entries for the two
>>> forms, the second (with "stricken" as its past participle) says
>>> "(figurative)" after the main verb form.
>>> The AHD5 makes no stated distinction, but the first use (and I think
>>> only, though I was only skimming) in an example of "stricken" instead of
>>> "struck" is at sense 5, "To afflict suddenly, as with a disease or
>>> impairment: 'was stricken by cancer'".
>> Yes, and that's figurative, but the "struck" in "thunderstruck" is quite
>> literal. It's the compound that is used figuratively.
> And "stricken" can be used as a sort of intensive "struck". In
> accounts of sea warfare, for example, a "stricken" ship is in very
> deep trouble.
Yes, the rule isn't absolute. I was thinking after I posted that a
>>> Dr Nick wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Absolutely. "stricken" seems most odd there and "struck" the natural
>>>> replacement. I don't go with Eric's distinction between literal and
>>>> figurative at all. In fact, I'm thunderstruck by it.
>>> As the old-time radio announcer's remark went, "Hey, I don't write 'em,
>>> folks, I just read 'em." The listing of strong verbs and their
>>> inflection in Curme's _English Grammar_ has two entries for the two
>>> forms, the second (with "stricken" as its past participle) says
>>> "(figurative)" after the main verb form.
>>> The AHD5 makes no stated distinction, but the first use (and I think
>>> only, though I was only skimming) in an example of "stricken" instead of
>>> "struck" is at sense 5, "To afflict suddenly, as with a disease or
>>> impairment: 'was stricken by cancer'".
>> Yes, and that's figurative, but the "struck" in "thunderstruck" is quite
>> literal. It's the compound that is used figuratively.
> And "stricken" can be used as a sort of intensive "struck". In
> accounts of sea warfare, for example, a "stricken" ship is in very
> deep trouble.
place devastated by electric storms could be called "lightning-stricken".
CDB
Nov 23, 2012, 10:53:35 PM11/23/12
to
is literal, within the image as proposed; it's the striking by an idea
that's a metaphor. I agree that it's not as clear a case.
Guy Barry
Nov 23, 2012, 11:14:53 PM11/23/12
to
"Robert Bannister" wrote in message
news:ahaf1j...@mid.individual.net...
--
Guy Barry
Ian Jackson
Nov 24, 2012, 3:25:29 AM11/24/12
to
In message <ahaf1j...@mid.individual.net>, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> writes
I think my thoughts are the same. "Struck" is the usual past tense of
"strike", and "stricken" is used more as an adjective, which describes a
situation.
--
Ian
<rob...@clubtelco.com> writes
"strike", and "stricken" is used more as an adjective, which describes a
situation.
--
Ian
Tom P
Nov 25, 2012, 6:05:56 AM11/25/12
to
"When Helen was just 18 months old, an illness had stricken her
deaf and blind."
- I'd like to point out that the sentence uses "stricken" as a past
deaf and blind."
participle and not as an adjective. We can ask the question, what
happens if we re-write the sentence in a different tense? "When Helen
was just 18 months old, an illness struck her deaf and bind", or "Helen
is just 18 months old, as an illness strikes her deaf and blind" are the
only alternatives, so "had struck" seems only logical - assuming that
that is what we really mean to say.
The sentence can be re-written to use the word "stricken" in an
adjectival sense -
"When Helen was just 18 months old, an illness left her stricken with
deafness and blindness". I prefer the use of the word "stricken"
because it emphasizes that that this was not merely a single event, but
that she was left with a permanent devastating disability.
Dr Nick
Nov 25, 2012, 6:27:39 AM11/25/12
to
this, I think the original is "wrong" (or at least, not the best) - that
in the original it ought to be "struck", and if "stricken" is needed,
your version does it well.
Eric Walker
Nov 25, 2012, 11:48:12 PM11/25/12
to
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 11:27:39 +0000, Dr Nick wrote:
[...]
[...]
> I think I agree with all this and, after all thought and discussion on
> this, I think the original is "wrong" (or at least, not the best) - that
> in the original it ought to be "struck", and if "stricken" is needed,
> your version does it well.
Yet it remains so that of all the various sense of "struck" defined in
> this, I think the original is "wrong" (or at least, not the best) - that
> in the original it ought to be "struck", and if "stricken" is needed,
> your version does it well.
the AHD5, the one (and only) in which they used "stricken" in the sample
sentence was sense 5, "To afflict suddenly, as with a disease or
impairment: 'was stricken by cancer'".
Generally, strong verbs that have two alternative past participles use
one for the verbal sense and the other for the adjectival sense, but that
particular sense of "strike"--to be afflicted with--seems to be an
exception.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Ian Jackson
Nov 26, 2012, 3:12:21 AM11/26/12
to
In message <k8usab$pfp$1...@dont-email.me>, Eric Walker
<em...@owlcroft.com> writes
Isn't "proved" vs "proven" another exception?
--
Ian
<em...@owlcroft.com> writes
--
Ian
Guy Barry
Nov 26, 2012, 3:29:37 AM11/26/12
to
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message news:es9C2wCl...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
> >Generally, strong verbs that have two alternative past participles use
> >one for the verbal sense and the other for the adjectival sense, but that
> >particular sense of "strike"--to be afflicted with--seems to be an
> >exception.
>
> Isn't "proved" vs "proven" another exception?
This was discussed very recently on a.u.e. Personally I would only use
> >one for the verbal sense and the other for the adjectival sense, but that
> >particular sense of "strike"--to be afflicted with--seems to be an
> >exception.
>
> Isn't "proved" vs "proven" another exception?
"proven" as an adjective, though I believe that "proven" is used as a past
participle in Scotland and some parts of northern England.
--
Guy Barry
Robert Bannister
Nov 26, 2012, 8:24:00 PM11/26/12
to
--
Robert Bannister
Eric Walker
Nov 27, 2012, 2:41:57 AM11/27/12
to
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:24:00 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 26/11/12 4:12 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
[...]
> On 26/11/12 4:12 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Isn't "proved" vs "proven" another exception?
>
> Only in Scotland and America.
poor form (see Follett, Bernstein, and Garner for discussions); in fact,
even as an adjective it is a bit dubious, save in more or less set uses.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Glenn Knickerbocker
Nov 28, 2012, 1:48:57 AM11/28/12
to
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 07:41:57 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker wrote:
>In America, using "proven" except as an adjective is regarded as rather
>poor form (see Follett, Bernstein, and Garner for discussions); in fact,
>even as an adjective it is a bit dubious, save in more or less set uses.
To have proven oneself, for instance.
>In America, using "proven" except as an adjective is regarded as rather
>poor form (see Follett, Bernstein, and Garner for discussions); in fact,
>even as an adjective it is a bit dubious, save in more or less set uses.
ŹR Around here, the fun is always filled with blanks.
http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/arkville.html --Theresa Willis
0 new messages