Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
I would have drank/drunk/drunken it
1,588 views
Skip to first unread message
Danny D
May 28, 2013, 7:47:39 PM5/28/13
to
My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
but neither sounds right.
What's the rule in play here?
but neither sounds right.
What's the rule in play here?
Skitt
May 28, 2013, 8:37:43 PM5/28/13
to
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/main.html
musika
May 28, 2013, 8:48:24 PM5/28/13
to
--
Ray
UK
Robert Bannister
May 28, 2013, 10:34:28 PM5/28/13
to
On 29/05/13 8:37 AM, Skitt wrote:
> Danny D wrote:
>
>> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
>> but neither sounds right.
>>
>> What's the rule in play here?
>>
> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
>
I am amazed. I have heard "I drunk it" for "I drank it" enough times to
> Danny D wrote:
>
>> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
>> but neither sounds right.
>>
>> What's the rule in play here?
>>
> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
>
consider it a reasonably common dialect form, but "I have drank it"
leaves me with a dry throat.
--
Robert Bannister
Message has been deleted
R H Draney
May 28, 2013, 11:55:53 PM5/28/13
to
Robert Bannister filted:
Be a trendsetter!...say "I would have drinked it"....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Pablo
May 29, 2013, 3:34:41 AM5/29/13
to
arth...@yahoo.com
May 29, 2013, 3:42:05 AM5/29/13
to
"Swum" doesn't sound nice and is hard to say!
Respectfully,
Navi.
Scion
May 29, 2013, 6:16:08 AM5/29/13
to
Danny D put finger to keyboard:
> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
> but neither sounds right.
>
> What's the rule in play here?
"I would of drank it".
Is what many kids would say.
> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
> but neither sounds right.
>
> What's the rule in play here?
Is what many kids would say.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
May 29, 2013, 6:27:17 AM5/29/13
to
modern use (though the SOED allows it as a past participle) but an
adjective, as in "he came home in a very drunken state last night". It
can always be replaced with "drunk", but it can't always replace
"drunk".
--
athel
Danny D
May 29, 2013, 10:12:41 AM5/29/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 12:27:17 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> No one seems to have commented on "drunken": this is not a verb form in
> modern use (though the SOED allows it as a past participle) but an
> adjective, as in "he came home in a very drunken state last night". It
> can always be replaced with "drunk", but it can't always replace
> "drunk".
So *this* is the proper usage?
> No one seems to have commented on "drunken": this is not a verb form in
> modern use (though the SOED allows it as a past participle) but an
> adjective, as in "he came home in a very drunken state last night". It
> can always be replaced with "drunk", but it can't always replace
> "drunk".
I would have drunken it. <-- not acceptable
I would have drunk it. <-- acceptable
Thanks
.
(This is for my kids to see so I am hiding this comment at the bottom off the screen.)
Pablo
May 29, 2013, 1:45:32 PM5/29/13
to
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> No one seems to have commented on "drunken": this is not a verb form in
> modern use (though the SOED allows it as a past participle) but an
> adjective, as in "he came home in a very drunken state last night". It
> can always be replaced with "drunk"
#What shall we do with the drunk sailor?
> No one seems to have commented on "drunken": this is not a verb form in
> modern use (though the SOED allows it as a past participle) but an
> adjective, as in "he came home in a very drunken state last night". It
> can always be replaced with "drunk"
Aside from that example, I would never put "drunk" before the substantive.
The drunken man fell over.
The drunk fell over, but not the drunk man fell over.
Maybe the man fell over because he was drunk.
--
Pablo
http://www.ipernity.com/home/313627
http://paulc.es/
Pablo
May 29, 2013, 1:46:53 PM5/29/13
to
What's that noise? Black helicopters?
Pablo
May 29, 2013, 1:47:56 PM5/29/13
to
arth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> It seems to me that "I have swam" has become quite common amongst idiots.
Bully for them.
> It seems to me that "I have swam" has become quite common amongst idiots.
Bully for them.
Skitt
May 29, 2013, 2:24:25 PM5/29/13
to
Pablo wrote:
> arth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> It seems to me that "I have swam" has become quite common amongst idiots.
>
> Bully for them.
>
The use of the simple past to form past participles is extremely common
> arth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> It seems to me that "I have swam" has become quite common amongst idiots.
>
> Bully for them.
>
these days. Things like "we had went there" and "we had saw everything"
are heard on TV almost daily.
Edjikation ain't what it useta be.
Mike L
May 29, 2013, 6:06:32 PM5/29/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 19:45:32 +0200, Pablo <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> No one seems to have commented on "drunken": this is not a verb form in
>> modern use (though the SOED allows it as a past participle) but an
>> adjective, as in "he came home in a very drunken state last night". It
>> can always be replaced with "drunk"
>
>#What shall we do with the drunk sailor?
>
>Aside from that example, I would never put "drunk" before the substantive.
>
>The drunken man fell over.
>
>The drunk fell over, but not the drunk man fell over.
>
>Maybe the man fell over because he was drunk.
Worked for Hugh MacDiarmid: "The Drunk Man Looks at the Thistle". But
>Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> No one seems to have commented on "drunken": this is not a verb form in
>> modern use (though the SOED allows it as a past participle) but an
>> adjective, as in "he came home in a very drunken state last night". It
>> can always be replaced with "drunk"
>
>#What shall we do with the drunk sailor?
>
>Aside from that example, I would never put "drunk" before the substantive.
>
>The drunken man fell over.
>
>The drunk fell over, but not the drunk man fell over.
>
>Maybe the man fell over because he was drunk.
I couldn't get away with it.
--
Mike.
Robert Bannister
May 29, 2013, 9:00:51 PM5/29/13
to
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
May 29, 2013, 9:04:28 PM5/29/13
to
of my head: "molten" and, for those who use "it has swelled up", "swollen".
--
Robert Bannister
Fred
May 29, 2013, 9:06:47 PM5/29/13
to
On 29/05/2013 12:37 p.m., Skitt wrote:
> Danny D wrote:
>
>> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
>> but neither sounds right.
>>
>> What's the rule in play here?
>>
> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
>
No it's not.
> Danny D wrote:
>
>> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
>> but neither sounds right.
>>
>> What's the rule in play here?
>>
> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
>
Fred
May 29, 2013, 9:08:58 PM5/29/13
to
On 30/05/2013 5:46 a.m., Pablo wrote:
> Scion wrote:
>
>> Danny D put finger to keyboard:
>>
>>> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
>>> but neither sounds right.
>>>
>>> What's the rule in play here?
>>
>> "I would of drank it".
>>
>> Is what many kids would say.
>
> They should obviously be thrashed within an inch of their lives.
>
Plus or minus?
> Scion wrote:
>
>> Danny D put finger to keyboard:
>>
>>> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
>>> but neither sounds right.
>>>
>>> What's the rule in play here?
>>
>> "I would of drank it".
>>
>> Is what many kids would say.
>
> They should obviously be thrashed within an inch of their lives.
>
Danny D
May 29, 2013, 9:13:27 PM5/29/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:37:43 -0700, Skitt wrote:
> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
So, this is it then:
> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
I drink today; <== sounds ok
I drank yesterday; <== sounds ok
I had drunk yesterday; <== starting to sink in
I had drank yesterday. <== sounds horrid
Danny D
May 29, 2013, 9:15:37 PM5/29/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:42:05 -0700, arthurvv wrote:
> It seems to me that "I have swam" has become quite common
If I had heard someone say "I have swam" or "I have drank", I would have
> It seems to me that "I have swam" has become quite common
thought very little of their grasp of (Am) English grammar.
Bannon
May 29, 2013, 9:16:01 PM5/29/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 11:24:25 -0700, Skitt wrote:
> Things like "we had went there" and "we had saw everything"
> are heard on TV almost daily.
by morons ...
> Things like "we had went there" and "we had saw everything"
> are heard on TV almost daily.
Danny D
May 29, 2013, 9:16:14 PM5/29/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 01:48:24 +0100, musika wrote:
> I drink, I drank, I have drunk.
Got it! Thanks.
> I drink, I drank, I have drunk.
Danny D
May 29, 2013, 9:16:48 PM5/29/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:25:59 +0000, Lewis wrote:
> I would say "I would have drunk it."
Thanks!
I don't know where I came up with "drunken"; but with this reinforcement,
"would have drunk" it is.
> I would say "I would have drunk it."
Thanks!
I don't know where I came up with "drunken"; but with this reinforcement,
"would have drunk" it is.
Stan Brown
May 29, 2013, 10:06:35 PM5/29/13
to
"Drunken" is an adjective, as in "you drunken lout!" Confusingly,
"drunk" is also an adjective, "He was drunk at his job interview."
I am not certain, but I believe that "drunken" is always used
attributively and "drunk" is nearly always used predicatively.
--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
Stan Brown
May 29, 2013, 10:07:06 PM5/29/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:37:43 -0700, Skitt wrote:
>
>
> Danny D wrote:
>
> > My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
> > but neither sounds right.
> >
> > What's the rule in play here?
> >
> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
Not to me.
>
> > My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
> > but neither sounds right.
> >
> > What's the rule in play here?
> >
> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
"Have drank" is an ignorant mistake as far as I'm concerned.
Stan Brown
May 29, 2013, 10:11:27 PM5/29/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 12:27:17 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> No one seems to have commented on "drunken":
I did just now, before seeing that you had already covered much of
the same ground.
> this is not a verb form in
> modern use (though the SOED allows it as a past participle) but an
> adjective, as in "he came home in a very drunken state last night". It
> can always be replaced with "drunk",
"Sixty drunk Prussian soldiers relieved themselves on my front lawn"
is, I suppose, acceptable; but I think "drunken" would be better.
> but it can't always replace "drunk".
Message has been deleted
R H Draney
May 30, 2013, 1:20:15 AM5/30/13
to
Danny D filted:
Ford Prefect: "You'd better be prepared for the jump into hyperspace. It's
unpleasantly like being drunk."
Arthur Dent: "What's so unpleasant about being drunk?"
Ford Prefect: "Ask a glass of water."
unpleasantly like being drunk."
Arthur Dent: "What's so unpleasant about being drunk?"
Ford Prefect: "Ask a glass of water."
Rich Ulrich
May 30, 2013, 1:54:07 AM5/30/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 22:07:06 -0400, Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:37:43 -0700, Skitt wrote:
>>
>> Danny D wrote:
>>
>> > My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
>> > but neither sounds right.
>> >
>> > What's the rule in play here?
>> >
>> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
>
>Not to me.
>
>"Have drank" is an ignorant mistake as far as I'm concerned.
And to me.
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:37:43 -0700, Skitt wrote:
>>
>> Danny D wrote:
>>
>> > My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
>> > but neither sounds right.
>> >
>> > What's the rule in play here?
>> >
>> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
>
>Not to me.
>
>"Have drank" is an ignorant mistake as far as I'm concerned.
In recent weeks, I've had my attention hijacked every time I
hear this one in a particular tv commercial. IIRC, the "drank"
is not immediately after the "have", being separated by
an earlier verb and some prepositional phrase. It is part
of a warning about avoiding side effects for some drug.
I suppose the ad is a "success" to the extent that I do not
automatically ignore it. However, I now must distrust the
company.
--
Rich Ulrich
Iain Archer
May 30, 2013, 4:43:56 AM5/30/13
to
Pablo wrote on Wed, 29 May 2013 at 09:34:41 GMT
one can assume that the speaker is an honest and competent communicator.
"I would have drink it."
"sung the sing"
They are of course useful as part of an error-correcting code.
--
Iain Archer
>R H Draney wrote:
>> Be a trendsetter!...say "I would have drinked it"....r
>
>...sung the singist.
>
These word endings are redundant anyway, given the context, so long as
>> Be a trendsetter!...say "I would have drinked it"....r
>
>...sung the singist.
>
one can assume that the speaker is an honest and competent communicator.
"I would have drink it."
"sung the sing"
They are of course useful as part of an error-correcting code.
--
Iain Archer
Peter Moylan
May 30, 2013, 9:13:24 AM5/30/13
to
job in the house, and asked my young son to go to the toolshed to get me
a screwdriver. "Do you want a plus or a minus?", he asked.
It took me a while to understand what he meant. When I finally got it,
it made perfect sense.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Nick Spalding
May 30, 2013, 10:25:47 AM5/30/13
to
Peter Moylan wrote, in <51a75076$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
on Thu, 30 May 2013 23:13:24 +1000:
> On 30/05/13 11:08, Fred wrote:
> > On 30/05/2013 5:46 a.m., Pablo wrote:
> >> Scion wrote:
> >>
> >>> Danny D put finger to keyboard:
> >>>
> >>>> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
> >>>> but neither sounds right.
> >>>>
> >>>> What's the rule in play here?
> >>>
> >>> "I would of drank it".
> >>>
> >>> Is what many kids would say.
> >>
> >> They should obviously be thrashed within an inch of their lives.
> >>
> > Plus or minus?
> >
> You've made me remember a time, years ago, when I was doing a handyman
> job in the house, and asked my young son to go to the toolshed to get me
> a screwdriver. "Do you want a plus or a minus?", he asked.
>
> It took me a while to understand what he meant. When I finally got it,
> it made perfect sense.
It does. Back in the 60s when I was an IBM CE there was a story of a
Japanese CE putting in a request that for some machine that had a
mixture of plus and minus screws IBM would stick to one or the other.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
on Thu, 30 May 2013 23:13:24 +1000:
> On 30/05/13 11:08, Fred wrote:
> > On 30/05/2013 5:46 a.m., Pablo wrote:
> >> Scion wrote:
> >>
> >>> Danny D put finger to keyboard:
> >>>
> >>>> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
> >>>> but neither sounds right.
> >>>>
> >>>> What's the rule in play here?
> >>>
> >>> "I would of drank it".
> >>>
> >>> Is what many kids would say.
> >>
> >> They should obviously be thrashed within an inch of their lives.
> >>
> > Plus or minus?
> >
> You've made me remember a time, years ago, when I was doing a handyman
> job in the house, and asked my young son to go to the toolshed to get me
> a screwdriver. "Do you want a plus or a minus?", he asked.
>
> It took me a while to understand what he meant. When I finally got it,
> it made perfect sense.
Japanese CE putting in a request that for some machine that had a
mixture of plus and minus screws IBM would stick to one or the other.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Skitt
May 30, 2013, 2:28:27 PM5/30/13
to
1drink
verb \ˈdriŋk\
drank drunk or drank drink·ing
I do not agree with them, but M-W Online reports usage, not what is
deemed to be correct by those who have the power to deem such things.
Skitt
May 30, 2013, 2:35:13 PM5/30/13
to
Danny D wrote:
> Skitt wrote:
>> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
>
> So, this is it then:
> I drink today; <== sounds ok
> I drank yesterday; <== sounds ok
> I had drunk yesterday; <== starting to sink in
> I had drank yesterday. <== sounds horrid
>
I agree, but as regards that last one, many folk talk funny these days.
> Skitt wrote:
>> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
>
> So, this is it then:
> I drink today; <== sounds ok
> I drank yesterday; <== sounds ok
> I had drunk yesterday; <== starting to sink in
> I had drank yesterday. <== sounds horrid
>
M-W Online reports what is encountered in the wild. It does not prescribe.
Skitt
May 30, 2013, 2:46:34 PM5/30/13
to
Stan Brown wrote:
> Skitt wrote:
>> Danny D wrote:
>>> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
>>> but neither sounds right.
>>>
>>> What's the rule in play here?
>>>
>> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
>
> Not to me.
>
> "Have drank" is an ignorant mistake as far as I'm concerned.
>
I applaud you, but there's no changing what many people say.
> Skitt wrote:
>> Danny D wrote:
>>> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
>>> but neither sounds right.
>>>
>>> What's the rule in play here?
>>>
>> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
>
> Not to me.
>
> "Have drank" is an ignorant mistake as far as I'm concerned.
>
Watching TV, I am appalled at many things I hear these days, but should
we tilt at windmills? I am about to give up the good fight of trying to
correct the ignorant, although I find it impossible to copy their ways.
I do believe that ignorance will win in the long run. Sad, but true.
Many faulty usages of grammar have become the accepted ones over time.
Skitt
May 30, 2013, 2:52:08 PM5/30/13
to
Bannon wrote:
> Skitt wrote:
>> Things like "we had went there" and "we had saw everything"
>> are heard on TV almost daily.
>
> by morons ...
>
No, those who heard and reported them were smart enough to notice. <g>
> Skitt wrote:
>> Things like "we had went there" and "we had saw everything"
>> are heard on TV almost daily.
>
> by morons ...
>
I did understand what you were *trying* to say, though.
R H Draney
May 30, 2013, 2:57:05 PM5/30/13
to
Nick Spalding filted:
an unknown origin and a symbol on the back of each hand, one a minus sign and
the other a plus...in recognition of these mysterious markings, he was given the
name "Dash X"....r
>> You've made me remember a time, years ago, when I was doing a handyman
>> job in the house, and asked my young son to go to the toolshed to get me
>> a screwdriver. "Do you want a plus or a minus?", he asked.
>>
>> It took me a while to understand what he meant. When I finally got it,
>> it made perfect sense.
>
>It does. Back in the 60s when I was an IBM CE there was a story of a
>Japanese CE putting in a request that for some machine that had a
>mixture of plus and minus screws IBM would stick to one or the other.
The TV show "Eerie, Indiana" (sort of "X Files" for kids) had a character with
>> job in the house, and asked my young son to go to the toolshed to get me
>> a screwdriver. "Do you want a plus or a minus?", he asked.
>>
>> It took me a while to understand what he meant. When I finally got it,
>> it made perfect sense.
>
>It does. Back in the 60s when I was an IBM CE there was a story of a
>Japanese CE putting in a request that for some machine that had a
>mixture of plus and minus screws IBM would stick to one or the other.
an unknown origin and a symbol on the back of each hand, one a minus sign and
the other a plus...in recognition of these mysterious markings, he was given the
name "Dash X"....r
Skitt
May 30, 2013, 2:59:11 PM5/30/13
to
Danny D wrote:
> arthurvv wrote:
>> It seems to me that "I have swam" has become quite common
>
> If I had heard someone say "I have swam" or "I have drank", I would have
> thought very little of their grasp of (Am) English grammar.
>
Unfortunately, with regard to the masses, you would have been correct in
> arthurvv wrote:
>> It seems to me that "I have swam" has become quite common
>
> If I had heard someone say "I have swam" or "I have drank", I would have
> thought very little of their grasp of (Am) English grammar.
>
thinking that.
Joe Fineman
May 30, 2013, 5:35:44 PM5/30/13
to
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes:
> "Drunken" is an adjective, as in "you drunken lout!" Confusingly,
> "drunk" is also an adjective, "He was drunk at his job interview."
According to Fowler (& me), when it stands before the noun, it has to
> "Drunken" is an adjective, as in "you drunken lout!" Confusingly,
> "drunk" is also an adjective, "He was drunk at his job interview."
be "drunken". (MacDiarmid has "A Drunk Man Looks at the Thistle", but
that is Scottish.) In predicate, "drunk" refers to a state, and
"drunken" to a habit: "drunk and disorderly", "drunken and dissolute".
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Been there, done that, and had the baby too. :||
Message has been deleted
Robert Bannister
May 30, 2013, 8:53:38 PM5/30/13
to
On 31/05/13 2:28 AM, Skitt wrote:
> Fred wrote:
>> Skitt wrote:
>>> Danny D wrote:
>
>>>> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
>>>> but neither sounds right.
>>>>
>>>> What's the rule in play here?
>>>>
>>> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
>>>
>>
>> No it's not.
>
> To M-W Online it is:
> 1drink
> verb \ˈdriŋk\
> drank drunk or drank drink·ing
>
> I do not agree with them, but M-W Online reports usage, not what is
> deemed to be correct by those who have the power to deem such things.
>
When I look up M-W Online, it tells me "drink, drank, drunk". However,
> Fred wrote:
>> Skitt wrote:
>>> Danny D wrote:
>
>>>> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
>>>> but neither sounds right.
>>>>
>>>> What's the rule in play here?
>>>>
>>> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
>>>
>>
>> No it's not.
>
> To M-W Online it is:
> 1drink
> verb \ˈdriŋk\
> drank drunk or drank drink·ing
>
> I do not agree with them, but M-W Online reports usage, not what is
> deemed to be correct by those who have the power to deem such things.
>
it does not specify how to use them, and none of the examples give "have
drunk".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drink?show=0&t=1369961412
--
Robert Bannister
Message has been deleted
Skitt
May 30, 2013, 9:05:02 PM5/30/13
to
Lewis wrote:
> actual usage.
>
You meant "Yes, M-W does not ...".
In other words, you just repeated what I wrote, but prefixed it with a
"no".
> Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Fred wrote:
>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>> Danny D wrote:
>>>>> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
>>>>> but neither sounds right.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the rule in play here?
>>>>>
>>>> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
>>>
>>> No it's not.
>
>> To M-W Online it is:
>> 1drink
>> verb \ˈdriŋk\
>> drank drunk or drank drink·ing
>
>> I do not agree with them, but M-W Online reports usage, not what is
>> deemed to be correct by those who have the power to deem such things.
>
> No, M-W does not claim that anything is correct, it simply describes the
>> Fred wrote:
>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>> Danny D wrote:
>>>>> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
>>>>> but neither sounds right.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the rule in play here?
>>>>>
>>>> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
>>>
>>> No it's not.
>
>> To M-W Online it is:
>> 1drink
>> verb \ˈdriŋk\
>> drank drunk or drank drink·ing
>
>> I do not agree with them, but M-W Online reports usage, not what is
>> deemed to be correct by those who have the power to deem such things.
>
> actual usage.
>
You meant "Yes, M-W does not ...".
In other words, you just repeated what I wrote, but prefixed it with a
"no".
Skitt
May 30, 2013, 9:11:14 PM5/30/13
to
Robert Bannister wrote:
> Skitt wrote:
>> Fred wrote:
>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>> Danny D wrote:
>>>>> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
>>>>> but neither sounds right.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the rule in play here?
>>>>>
>>>> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
>>>
>>> No it's not.
>>
>> To M-W Online it is:
>> 1drink
>> verb \ˈdriŋk\
>> drank drunk or drank drink·ing
>>
>> I do not agree with them, but M-W Online reports usage, not what is
>> deemed to be correct by those who have the power to deem such things.
>
> When I look up M-W Online, it tells me "drink, drank, drunk".
You are misreading what is there. I checked the link you gave below.
> Skitt wrote:
>> Fred wrote:
>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>> Danny D wrote:
>>>>> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
>>>>> but neither sounds right.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the rule in play here?
>>>>>
>>>> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
>>>
>>> No it's not.
>>
>> To M-W Online it is:
>> 1drink
>> verb \ˈdriŋk\
>> drank drunk or drank drink·ing
>>
>> I do not agree with them, but M-W Online reports usage, not what is
>> deemed to be correct by those who have the power to deem such things.
>
> When I look up M-W Online, it tells me "drink, drank, drunk".
> However,
> it does not specify how to use them, and none of the examples give "have
> drunk".
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drink?show=0&t=1369961412
clarity, but I guess it didn't help.).
Robert Bannister
May 30, 2013, 11:12:02 PM5/30/13
to
what this is supposed to mean written in that order, or rather without
them making it clear that either can (allegedly) be used for the
preterite and/or the past participle - if that is what they do mean.
Usually, verb bits are listed in the order "ring, rang, rung; bring,
brought, brought; lie, lay, lain". The order M-W is presenting seems to
imply that they think
"I often drink wine",
"I drunk wine yesterday";
"I have drank wine before" is the accepted norm. Most confusing.
--
Robert Bannister
John Holmes
May 31, 2013, 6:11:01 AM5/31/13
to
Skitt wrote:
> Danny D wrote:
>> Skitt wrote:
>
>>> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W
>>> Online).
>>
>> So, this is it then:
>> I drink today; <== sounds ok
>> I drank yesterday; <== sounds ok
>> I had drunk yesterday; <== starting to sink in
>> I had drank yesterday. <== sounds horrid
>>
> I agree, but as regards that last one, many folk talk funny these
> days.
>
> M-W Online reports what is encountered in the wild. It does not
> prescribe.
The misunderstanding is because your "drank is acceptable (to M-W Online)"
> Danny D wrote:
>> Skitt wrote:
>
>>> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W
>>> Online).
>>
>> So, this is it then:
>> I drink today; <== sounds ok
>> I drank yesterday; <== sounds ok
>> I had drunk yesterday; <== starting to sink in
>> I had drank yesterday. <== sounds horrid
>>
> I agree, but as regards that last one, many folk talk funny these
> days.
>
> M-W Online reports what is encountered in the wild. It does not
> prescribe.
above sounds as if you are saying that they endorse its use.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Skitt
May 31, 2013, 1:02:58 PM5/31/13
to
John Holmes wrote:
> Skitt wrote:
>> Danny D wrote:
>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W
>>>> Online).
>>>
>>> So, this is it then:
>>> I drink today; <== sounds ok
>>> I drank yesterday; <== sounds ok
>>> I had drunk yesterday; <== starting to sink in
>>> I had drank yesterday. <== sounds horrid
>>>
>> I agree, but as regards that last one, many folk talk funny these
>> days.
>>
>> M-W Online reports what is encountered in the wild. It does not
>> prescribe.
>
> The misunderstanding is because your "drank is acceptable (to M-W
> Online)" above sounds as if you are saying that they endorse its use.
>
Oh, OK. They only report that it is being used. They express no
> Skitt wrote:
>> Danny D wrote:
>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W
>>>> Online).
>>>
>>> So, this is it then:
>>> I drink today; <== sounds ok
>>> I drank yesterday; <== sounds ok
>>> I had drunk yesterday; <== starting to sink in
>>> I had drank yesterday. <== sounds horrid
>>>
>> I agree, but as regards that last one, many folk talk funny these
>> days.
>>
>> M-W Online reports what is encountered in the wild. It does not
>> prescribe.
>
> The misunderstanding is because your "drank is acceptable (to M-W
> Online)" above sounds as if you are saying that they endorse its use.
>
opinion about the acceptability of it.
Stan Brown
May 31, 2013, 5:07:01 PM5/31/13
to
On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:46:34 -0700, Skitt wrote:
> Watching TV, I am appalled at many things I hear these days, but should
> we tilt at windmills?
>
If not, then what are we here for? :-)
> Watching TV, I am appalled at many things I hear these days, but should
> we tilt at windmills?
>
Evan Kirshenbaum
May 31, 2013, 7:34:34 PM5/31/13
to
tense as "drank or _dial_ drunk or _substandard_ drinked" and the past
participle as "drunk or drank or _substandard_ drinked or _archaic_
drunken". So they could have attached a usage label to "drank" as a
past participle but chose not to.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Voting in the House of
SF Bay Area (1982-) |Representatives is done by means of a
Chicago (1964-1982) |little plastic card with a magnetic
|strip on the back--like a VISA card,
evan.kir...@gmail.com |but with no, that is, absolutely
|*no*, spending limit.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | P.J. O'Rourke
Evan Kirshenbaum
May 31, 2013, 7:44:57 PM5/31/13
to
After dinner they led mee back to the Castle of Auret, where
Monsieur the Marquess staied for mee with great expectation to
recount unto him, what wee had don in our banquet, I told him that
all the companie had drank divers times to his health; in six
weeks hee began to uphold himself a little with crutches, and to
grow verie fat and get a livelie natural colour.
Thomas Johnson (tr), _The Workes of that
Famous Chirurgion Ambrose Parey_, 1649
This seem'd to be the very dregs of that bitter Cup whereof he had
drank so largely a little before, but being, as he hop'd, the last
draught he was to take of Infelicity, he bore it with suitable
patience, as became a Christian and a king
Winston Churchill, _Divi Britannici: Being
a Remark Upon the Lives of All the Kings of
this Isle, from the Year of the World 2855
unto the Year of Grace 1660_, 1675.
Presumably not *that* Winston Churchill. That title is the first time
I've seen both AM and AD used in a date range.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |It's gotten to the point where the
SF Bay Area (1982-) |only place you can get work done is
Chicago (1964-1982) |at home, because no one bugs you,
|and the best place to entertain
evan.kir...@gmail.com |yourself is at work, because the
|Internet connections are faster.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Scott Adams
Evan Kirshenbaum
May 31, 2013, 7:45:49 PM5/31/13
to
Bannon <ban...@is.invalid> writes:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 11:24:25 -0700, Skitt wrote:
>
>> Things like "we had went there" and "we had saw everything"
>> are heard on TV almost daily.
>
> by morons ...
I think the proper response is "I'll have to take your word for that."
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The body was wrapped in duct tape,
SF Bay Area (1982-) |weighted down with concrete blocks
Chicago (1964-1982) |and a telephone cord was tied
|around the neck. Police suspect
evan.kir...@gmail.com |foul play...
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 11:24:25 -0700, Skitt wrote:
>
>> Things like "we had went there" and "we had saw everything"
>> are heard on TV almost daily.
>
> by morons ...
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The body was wrapped in duct tape,
SF Bay Area (1982-) |weighted down with concrete blocks
Chicago (1964-1982) |and a telephone cord was tied
|around the neck. Police suspect
evan.kir...@gmail.com |foul play...
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Evan Kirshenbaum
May 31, 2013, 8:25:05 PM5/31/13
to
drank | drunk or drank | drink·ing
spoke | spo·ken | speak·ing
so clearly the first column is past tense, the second past participle,
and the third present participle.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |When all else fails, give the
SF Bay Area (1982-) |customer what they ask for. This
Chicago (1964-1982) |is strong medicine and rarely needs
|to be repeated.
evan.kir...@gmail.com
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Message has been deleted
Robert Bannister
May 31, 2013, 9:49:04 PM5/31/13
to
On 1/06/13 8:25 AM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> writes:
>
>> On 31/05/13 2:28 AM, Skitt wrote:
>>> Fred wrote:
>>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>>> Danny D wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
>>>>>> but neither sounds right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the rule in play here?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No it's not.
>>>
>>> To M-W Online it is:
>>> 1drink
>>> verb \ˈdriŋk\
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> writes:
>
>> On 31/05/13 2:28 AM, Skitt wrote:
>>> Fred wrote:
>>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>>> Danny D wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
>>>>>> but neither sounds right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the rule in play here?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No it's not.
>>>
>>> To M-W Online it is:
>>> 1drink
>>> drank drunk or drank drink·ing
>>>
>>> I do not agree with them, but M-W Online reports usage, not what is
>>> deemed to be correct by those who have the power to deem such things.
>>>
>>
>> When I look up M-W Online, it tells me "drink, drank, drunk". However,
>> it does not specify how to use them, and none of the examples give
>> "have drunk".
>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drink?show=0&t=1369961412
>
> When I follow that link I see
>
> drank | drunk or drank | drink·ing
>
> Looking at a word like "speak", I see
>
> spoke | spo·ken | speak·ing
>
> so clearly the first column is past tense, the second past participle,
> and the third present participle.
>
OK. I still think it is unclear, but I did misread the first word twice.
>>> I do not agree with them, but M-W Online reports usage, not what is
>>> deemed to be correct by those who have the power to deem such things.
>>>
>>
>> When I look up M-W Online, it tells me "drink, drank, drunk". However,
>> it does not specify how to use them, and none of the examples give
>> "have drunk".
>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drink?show=0&t=1369961412
>
> When I follow that link I see
>
> drank | drunk or drank | drink·ing
>
> Looking at a word like "speak", I see
>
> spoke | spo·ken | speak·ing
>
> so clearly the first column is past tense, the second past participle,
> and the third present participle.
>
--
Robert Bannister
Peter Moylan
Jun 1, 2013, 7:54:06 AM6/1/13
to
On 01/06/13 09:44, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> Oh, and it's not a particularly new construction
>
> After dinner they led mee back to the Castle of Auret, where
> Monsieur the Marquess staied for mee with great expectation to
> recount unto him, what wee had don in our banquet, I told him that
> all the companie had drank divers times to his health; in six
> weeks hee began to uphold himself a little with crutches, and to
> grow verie fat and get a livelie natural colour.
>
> Thomas Johnson (tr), _The Workes of that
> Famous Chirurgion Ambrose Parey_, 1649
This seems to point to a belief that drinking to someone's health can
> Oh, and it's not a particularly new construction
>
> After dinner they led mee back to the Castle of Auret, where
> Monsieur the Marquess staied for mee with great expectation to
> recount unto him, what wee had don in our banquet, I told him that
> all the companie had drank divers times to his health; in six
> weeks hee began to uphold himself a little with crutches, and to
> grow verie fat and get a livelie natural colour.
>
> Thomas Johnson (tr), _The Workes of that
> Famous Chirurgion Ambrose Parey_, 1649
actually affect their health. I know that there was a strong belief in
the power of prayer in the 17th century, but didn't know that it
extended to the power of toasting.
Cheryl
Jun 1, 2013, 8:49:37 AM6/1/13
to
On 01/06/2013 9:24 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 01/06/13 09:44, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
>> Oh, and it's not a particularly new construction
>>
>> After dinner they led mee back to the Castle of Auret, where
>> Monsieur the Marquess staied for mee with great expectation to
>> recount unto him, what wee had don in our banquet, I told him that
>> all the companie had drank divers times to his health; in six
>> weeks hee began to uphold himself a little with crutches, and to
>> grow verie fat and get a livelie natural colour.
>>
>> Thomas Johnson (tr), _The Workes of that
>> Famous Chirurgion Ambrose Parey_, 1649
>
> This seems to point to a belief that drinking to someone's health can
> actually affect their health. I know that there was a strong belief in
> the power of prayer in the 17th century, but didn't know that it
> extended to the power of toasting.
>
Wasn't there an actual risk to your health if you happened to toast the
> On 01/06/13 09:44, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
>> Oh, and it's not a particularly new construction
>>
>> After dinner they led mee back to the Castle of Auret, where
>> Monsieur the Marquess staied for mee with great expectation to
>> recount unto him, what wee had don in our banquet, I told him that
>> all the companie had drank divers times to his health; in six
>> weeks hee began to uphold himself a little with crutches, and to
>> grow verie fat and get a livelie natural colour.
>>
>> Thomas Johnson (tr), _The Workes of that
>> Famous Chirurgion Ambrose Parey_, 1649
>
> This seems to point to a belief that drinking to someone's health can
> actually affect their health. I know that there was a strong belief in
> the power of prayer in the 17th century, but didn't know that it
> extended to the power of toasting.
>
wrong political leader?
--
Cheryl
Leslie Danks
Jun 1, 2013, 8:51:05 AM6/1/13
to
--
Les (BrE)
"... be skeptical of government guidelines. The Indians learned not to trust
our government and neither should you." (Fallon & Enig)
Walter P. Zähl
Jun 1, 2013, 11:29:10 AM6/1/13
to
Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 01/06/13 09:44, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
>> Oh, and it's not a particularly new construction
>>
>> After dinner they led mee back to the Castle of Auret, where
>> Monsieur the Marquess staied for mee with great expectation to
>> recount unto him, what wee had don in our banquet, I told him that
>> all the companie had drank divers times to his health; in six
>> weeks hee began to uphold himself a little with crutches, and to
>> grow verie fat and get a livelie natural colour.
>>
>> Thomas Johnson (tr), _The Workes of that
>> Famous Chirurgion Ambrose Parey_, 1649
>
> This seems to point to a belief that drinking to someone's health can
> actually affect their health. I know that there was a strong belief in
> the power of prayer in the 17th century, but didn't know that it
> extended to the power of toasting.
I just read that the placebo effect even works when patients are told
> On 01/06/13 09:44, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
>> Oh, and it's not a particularly new construction
>>
>> After dinner they led mee back to the Castle of Auret, where
>> Monsieur the Marquess staied for mee with great expectation to
>> recount unto him, what wee had don in our banquet, I told him that
>> all the companie had drank divers times to his health; in six
>> weeks hee began to uphold himself a little with crutches, and to
>> grow verie fat and get a livelie natural colour.
>>
>> Thomas Johnson (tr), _The Workes of that
>> Famous Chirurgion Ambrose Parey_, 1649
>
> This seems to point to a belief that drinking to someone's health can
> actually affect their health. I know that there was a strong belief in
> the power of prayer in the 17th century, but didn't know that it
> extended to the power of toasting.
explicitly that the pills they are taking are just sugar.
And vice versa - telling them they will get an injection of plain water
while actually they receive an opiate will render the medicine ineffective.
So, knowing that people have thought about you and performed a healing
ritual of sorts might actually have a curative effect.
/Walter
Mike L
Jun 1, 2013, 5:58:24 PM6/1/13
to
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 14:51:05 +0200, Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>
wrote:
>Cheryl wrote:
>
>> On 01/06/2013 9:24 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 01/06/13 09:44, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh, and it's not a particularly new construction
>>>>
>>>> After dinner they led mee back to the Castle of Auret, where
>>>> Monsieur the Marquess staied for mee with great expectation to
>>>> recount unto him, what wee had don in our banquet, I told him that
>>>> all the companie had drank divers times to his health; in six
>>>> weeks hee began to uphold himself a little with crutches, and to
>>>> grow verie fat and get a livelie natural colour.
>>>>
>>>> Thomas Johnson (tr), _The Workes of that
>>>> Famous Chirurgion Ambrose Parey_, 1649
>>>
>>> This seems to point to a belief that drinking to someone's health can
>>> actually affect their health. I know that there was a strong belief in
>>> the power of prayer in the 17th century, but didn't know that it
>>> extended to the power of toasting.
>>>
>>
>> Wasn't there an actual risk to your health if you happened to toast the
>> wrong political leader?
>>
>Not to mention the health risk for the toastee...
Which is why water-jugs and carafes are removed from the official
dinner table before healths are drunk. "Gentlemen, the King!" to which
the response "The King" must not be accompanied by any attempt to pass
one's glass over the water.
But isn't drinking to health a relic of ancient sacrifices?
--
Mike.
wrote:
>Cheryl wrote:
>
>> On 01/06/2013 9:24 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 01/06/13 09:44, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh, and it's not a particularly new construction
>>>>
>>>> After dinner they led mee back to the Castle of Auret, where
>>>> Monsieur the Marquess staied for mee with great expectation to
>>>> recount unto him, what wee had don in our banquet, I told him that
>>>> all the companie had drank divers times to his health; in six
>>>> weeks hee began to uphold himself a little with crutches, and to
>>>> grow verie fat and get a livelie natural colour.
>>>>
>>>> Thomas Johnson (tr), _The Workes of that
>>>> Famous Chirurgion Ambrose Parey_, 1649
>>>
>>> This seems to point to a belief that drinking to someone's health can
>>> actually affect their health. I know that there was a strong belief in
>>> the power of prayer in the 17th century, but didn't know that it
>>> extended to the power of toasting.
>>>
>>
>> Wasn't there an actual risk to your health if you happened to toast the
>> wrong political leader?
>>
>Not to mention the health risk for the toastee...
dinner table before healths are drunk. "Gentlemen, the King!" to which
the response "The King" must not be accompanied by any attempt to pass
one's glass over the water.
But isn't drinking to health a relic of ancient sacrifices?
--
Mike.
Dr Nick
Jun 3, 2013, 6:48:37 AM6/3/13
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
> In message <uppw8c...@verizon.net>
> acceptable to my ear.
By this stage in the thread I can't think of anything except Sir Rowley
Birkin QC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPiGJBHVadA
for example
> In message <uppw8c...@verizon.net>
> Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes:
>
>>> "Drunken" is an adjective, as in "you drunken lout!" Confusingly,
>>> "drunk" is also an adjective, "He was drunk at his job interview."
>
>> According to Fowler (& me), when it stands before the noun, it has to
>> be "drunken". (MacDiarmid has "A Drunk Man Looks at the Thistle", but
>> that is Scottish.) In predicate, "drunk" refers to a state, and
>> "drunken" to a habit: "drunk and disorderly", "drunken and dissolute".
>
> I would say that that is out of date. "A drunk man" is perfectly
>> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes:
>
>>> "Drunken" is an adjective, as in "you drunken lout!" Confusingly,
>>> "drunk" is also an adjective, "He was drunk at his job interview."
>
>> According to Fowler (& me), when it stands before the noun, it has to
>> be "drunken". (MacDiarmid has "A Drunk Man Looks at the Thistle", but
>> that is Scottish.) In predicate, "drunk" refers to a state, and
>> "drunken" to a habit: "drunk and disorderly", "drunken and dissolute".
>
> acceptable to my ear.
By this stage in the thread I can't think of anything except Sir Rowley
Birkin QC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPiGJBHVadA
for example
Mike L
Jun 4, 2013, 6:44:35 PM6/4/13
to
Johnson used to sound like that, but without the intelligible bits.
--
Mike.
Snidely
Jul 30, 2013, 4:00:44 AM7/30/13
to
Lewis was thinking very hard :
> In message <ko8svm$2h3$2...@news.albasani.net>
> Sorry. Perhaps too much Guinness.
Ah, trying to test out the theories ....
/dps
--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
> In message <ko8svm$2h3$2...@news.albasani.net>
Ah, trying to test out the theories ....
/dps
--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
Snidely
Jul 30, 2013, 4:08:39 AM7/30/13
to
Just this Wednesday, Stan Brown explained that ...
> "Sixty drunk Prussian soldiers relieved themselves on my front lawn"
> is, I suppose, acceptable; but I think "drunken" would be better.
I'd think that would be bad for the lawn.
/dps
--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013
> "Sixty drunk Prussian soldiers relieved themselves on my front lawn"
> is, I suppose, acceptable; but I think "drunken" would be better.
I'd think that would be bad for the lawn.
/dps
--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013
Peter T. Daniels
Jul 30, 2013, 7:22:30 AM7/30/13
to
On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:24:25 PM UTC-4, Skitt wrote:
> The use of the simple past to form past participles is extremely common
> these days. Things like "we had went there" and "we had saw everything"
> Edjikation ain't what it useta be.
That's "eddication."
> The use of the simple past to form past participles is extremely common
> these days. Things like "we had went there" and "we had saw everything"
> are heard on TV almost daily.
And vice versa: I seen it, I been there.
> Edjikation ain't what it useta be.
That's "eddication."
Peter T. Daniels
Jul 30, 2013, 7:24:01 AM7/30/13
to
On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 9:16:01 PM UTC-4, Bannon wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 11:24:25 -0700, Skitt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 11:24:25 -0700, Skitt wrote:
>
> > Things like "we had went there" and "we had saw everything"
> > are heard on TV almost daily.
>
> by morons ...
> > are heard on TV almost daily.
>
If you hear that, then you're a moron??
Peter T. Daniels
Jul 30, 2013, 7:25:42 AM7/30/13
to
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:37:43 PM UTC-4, Skitt wrote:
> Danny D wrote:
>
> > My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
> > but neither sounds right.
>
> > What's the rule in play here?
>
> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
Dictionaries don't do "acceptable." They do "is attested."
> Danny D wrote:
>
> > My kid said "I would have drank it", and I corrected to "drunken",
> > but neither sounds right.
>
> > What's the rule in play here?
>
> Drunk is the preferred term, but drank is acceptable (to M-W Online).
Robert Bannister
Jul 30, 2013, 11:26:31 PM7/30/13
to
On 30/07/13 4:00 PM, Snidely wrote:
> Lewis was thinking very hard :
>> In message <ko8svm$2h3$2...@news.albasani.net> Skitt
>> <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Lewis wrote:
>>>> Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> To M-W Online it is:
>>>>> 1drink
>>>>> verb \ˈdriŋk\
>>>>> drank drunk or drank drink·ing I do not agree with them, but
>>>>> M-W Online reports usage, not what is
>>>>> deemed to be correct by those who have the power to deem such things.
>>>>
>>>> No, M-W does not claim that anything is correct, it simply describes
>>>> the
>>>> actual usage.
>>>>
>>> You meant "Yes, M-W does not ...".
>>
>>> In other words, you just repeated what I wrote, but prefixed it with a
>>> "no".
>>
>> Sorry. Perhaps too much Guinness.
>
> Ah, trying to test out the theories ....
I read in this morning's paper that more breastfeeding improves a
> Lewis was thinking very hard :
>> In message <ko8svm$2h3$2...@news.albasani.net> Skitt
>> <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Lewis wrote:
>>>> Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> To M-W Online it is:
>>>>> 1drink
>>>>> verb \ˈdriŋk\
>>>>> drank drunk or drank drink·ing I do not agree with them, but
>>>>> M-W Online reports usage, not what is
>>>>> deemed to be correct by those who have the power to deem such things.
>>>>
>>>> No, M-W does not claim that anything is correct, it simply describes
>>>> the
>>>> actual usage.
>>>>
>>> You meant "Yes, M-W does not ...".
>>
>>> In other words, you just repeated what I wrote, but prefixed it with a
>>> "no".
>>
>> Sorry. Perhaps too much Guinness.
>
> Ah, trying to test out the theories ....
child's intelligence. The two ladies I approached requesting an
intelligence boost replied with unnecessary force in the negative.
--
Robert Bannister
0 new messages