Strike (verb)

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Has the verb "strike" (lay down work) got a past tense?

The word "striked" appears in an Ngram and not too seldom, but it's not
clear what it means.

"The workers struck yesterday" sounds ominous.

I tried "striked" in Blossom, but it was not accepted.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Peter Moylan]

"Struck" is normal in AusE.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

[Peter Moylan]

On 16/08/23 16:13, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

I've just remembered a well-known nursery rhyme.

Hickory dickory dock
Two mice ran up the clock
The clock struck one
But the other one got away.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Peter Moylan wrote:

> I've just remembered a well-known nursery rhyme.
>
> Hickory dickory dock
> Two mice ran up the clock
> The clock struck one
> But the other one got away.

I'm familiar with "struck", but it just doesn't sound right in
connection with a strike.

Oh well ...

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Hibou]

'Struck' is fine. First result from Google:

"May Day 1973 - when two million workers struck" - 'Socialist Worker'
2023/05/01 -

<https://socialistworker.co.uk/features/may-day-1973-when-two-million-workers-struck/>

'Went on strike' has become somewhat commoner of recent years:

<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=workers+struck%2Cworkers+went+on+strike&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>

[Hibou]

Though 'workers struck' is ambiguous - workers struck water main,
workers struck by lightning, workers struck by runaway lorry....

[Peter Moylan]

On 16/08/23 16:36, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>
> I'm familiar with "struck", but it just doesn't sound right in
> connection with a strike.

I strike, I struck, I have gestroken. Actually, that third part sounds
wrong.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-08-16 07:07:09 +0000, Hibou said:

> Le 16/08/2023 à 07:13, Bertel Lund Hansen a écrit :
>>
>> Has the verb "strike" (lay down work) got a past tense?
>>
>> The word "striked" appears in an Ngram and not too seldom, but it's not
>> clear what it means.
>>
>> "The workers struck yesterday" sounds ominous.
>>
>> I tried "striked" in Blossom, but it was not accepted.
>
> 'Struck' is fine. First result from Google:
>
> "May Day 1973 - when two million workers struck" - 'Socialist Worker'
> 2023/05/01 -
>
> <https://socialistworker.co.uk/features/may-day-1973-when-two-million-workers-struck/>
>
>
> 'Went on strike' has become somewhat commoner of recent years:

Yes. That's the normal expression in my experience.
>
> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=workers+struck%2Cworkers+went+on+strike&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>
>


--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Hibou wrote:

>> "The workers struck yesterday" sounds ominous.
>>
>> I tried "striked" in Blossom, but it was not accepted.
>
> 'Struck' is fine. First result from Google:
>
> "May Day 1973 - when two million workers struck" - 'Socialist Worker'
> 2023/05/01 -
>
> <https://socialistworker.co.uk/features/may-day-1973-when-two-million-workers-struck/>
>
> 'Went on strike' has become somewhat commoner of recent years:

That's provbably the reason that I hesitate. I don't think that I have
heard "struck" in that context.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Ross Clark]

On 16/08/2023 6:26 p.m., Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 16/08/23 16:13, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Has the verb "strike" (lay down work) got a past tense?
>>
>> The word "striked" appears in an Ngram and not too seldom, but it's not
>> clear what it means.
>>
>> "The workers struck yesterday" sounds ominous.
>>
>> I tried "striked" in Blossom, but it was not accepted.
>
> "Struck" is normal in AusE.

Normal everywhere, I'd say.
People who think it sounds ominous might say "went on strike", but it's
not necessary.

[Bebercito]

Found in Wiktionary:

---
Usage notes
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English: "In everyday English, people usually say
hit rather than strike."
The simple past is almost always struck, but it is often avoided by using the verb hit
(even more than in other tenses) or other verbs and expressions. This is especially true
in the sense of stopped working in protest, about which many native speakers have
strong opinions concerning the use or appropriateness of struck or striked. These
strong opinions and criticism of different usage by other people are partly due to
regional differences but mostly due to the verb actually being essentially defective
(not used in all tenses) in this sense, although apparently no dictionary except Wiktionary
mentions this. The expressions workers went on strike and workers were on strike are
muchmore common than workers struck and workers striked, which sound weird, dated,
or wrong to many native speakers.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/strike
---

[Ross Clark]

I don't know much about wiktionary, so I'm wondering who the writer is
and what their sources of information are.
I don't think there is any avoidance of "struck".
The impact verb "strike" has simply been replaced by "hit" in everyday
English, as the Longman quote clearly states. "Strike" in this sense is
found in legal language, older literature, etc.
The "stop work" sense is frequently expressed by "go on strike", but the
simple verb remains an option.
There are many other senses, where "struck" is completely normal.
As for the writer's "(even more than in other tenses)", I would like to
see some evidence.
And "essentially defective" is nonsense; which is probably why "no

[Jerry Friedman]

Here are the results for "workers struck" and "workers went on strike" at
Google books. Summary: "Struck" was about even with "went on strike" in
1975 but has fallen to about half the frequency of "went on strike".

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=workers+struck%2C+workers+went+on+strike&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3

https://tinyurl.com/yc6tphp3

There's a noticeable difference according to genre. The hits on the first
page at Google Books were all from histories of labor relations. When I
switched to Google News, the first hits were all about accidents except
for one headline with "mandate for health care workers struck down".

> And "essentially defective" is nonsense; which is probably why "no
> dictionary except Wiktionary mentions this."

I don't think I ever say "strike" to mean "go on strike", but I agree that the
ngram results refute "essentially defective". On the other hand, I think
"normal everywhere" might be too strong. I may look at COCA, especially
the spoken corpus, sometime soon.

--
Jerry Friedman

[bil...@shaw.ca]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 12:09:58 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
> Le 16/08/2023 à 08:07, Hibou a écrit :
> > Le 16/08/2023 à 07:13, Bertel Lund Hansen a écrit :
> >>
> >> Has the verb "strike" (lay down work) got a past tense?

"Struck". But you'll need some very clear context to be understood.
Lacking that, "went on strike" will do the job.

> >>
> >> The word "striked" appears in an Ngram and not too seldom, but it's
> >> not clear what it means.

It means less than nothing. It is bad English.

> >>
> >> "The workers struck yesterday" sounds ominous.

"Ominous" refers to future events, not to what happened yesterday.

> >> I tried "striked" in Blossom, but it was not accepted.

Good.

> >
> > 'Struck' is fine. First result from Google:
> >
> > "May Day 1973 - when two million workers struck" - 'Socialist Worker'
> > 2023/05/01 -
> >
> > <https://socialistworker.co.uk/features/may-day-1973-when-two-million-workers-struck/>
> >
> > 'Went on strike' has become somewhat commoner of recent years:
> >
> > <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=workers+struck%2Cworkers+went+on+strike&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>
> >
> Though 'workers struck' is ambiguous - workers struck water main,
> workers struck by lightning, workers struck by runaway lorry....

Yes, it requires a little bit of context to be meaningful. But a little context
is not too much to ask, surely.

bill

[bil...@shaw.ca]

I have. I was involved with several newspaper strikes in Canada in the 1970s. "Struck" was quite common,
both as a past tense of "went on strike" and to describe "struck work", meaning work that another union
has contracted to do. Another union undertaking to do that work is essentially crossing a picket line. That's
a big no-no.

bill

[Phil Carmody]

Hibou <vpaereru-u...@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
> Le 16/08/2023 à 07:13, Bertel Lund Hansen a écrit :
>>
>> Has the verb "strike" (lay down work) got a past tense?
>>
>> The word "striked" appears in an Ngram and not too seldom, but it's
>> not clear what it means.
>>
>> "The workers struck yesterday" sounds ominous.
>>
>> I tried "striked" in Blossom, but it was not accepted.
>
> 'Struck' is fine. First result from Google:
>
> "May Day 1973 - when two million workers struck" - 'Socialist Worker'
> 2023/05/01 -
>
> <https://socialistworker.co.uk/features/may-day-1973-when-two-million-workers-struck/>

A reference from 2023 won't tell us what's well-established.

I'm on team "went on strike". I heard that a lot in the 70s. Neither of
the alternative pass through my ear canal without causing some pain.

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

[Phil Carmody]

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:
> On 16/08/23 16:36, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>
>> I'm familiar with "struck", but it just doesn't sound right in
>> connection with a strike.
>
> I strike, I struck, I have gestroken. Actually, that third part sounds
> wrong.

Gestrikt, surely, the employer would thence have become gestruken?

[Phil Carmody]

> And "essentially defective" is nonsense; which is probably why "no
> dictionary except Wiktionary mentions this."

I think the clue that it was bullshit was the "actually" two words
prior. If it's actually provably actually, then you wouldn't feel the
need to tell us it's actually, you'd just prove it.

Anyway, I'm glad that some unknown on the internet has graced the world
with his staunch opinion on a matter - the world needs more of that!

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 4:12:05 AM UTC-4, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:

> I have. I was involved with several newspaper strikes in Canada
> in the 1970s. "Struck" was quite common, both as a past tense
> of "went on strike" and to describe "struck work", meaning work that
> another union has contracted to do. Another union undertaking to
> do that work is essentially crossing a picket line. That's a big no-no.

Only in Canada? A union sending its members to be scabs?

Do we even have competing unions in the same industry?

[lar3ryca]

I was working for IBM around that time, and went in to either the Sun or
Province (can't remember which) to do some ECs (Engineering Changes) on
their computers. I had the devil of a time trying to convince the
picketers that I was not a member of any union, but finally got in.

One of the things I remember about that visit was that a urinal in one
of the washrooms was out of service, and had a piece of plywood covering
it. A sign said something about it not being fixed until the strike was
over. Apparently, the workers who did the repairs would not cross the
picket line.

--
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it,
I hope it lands on a philosophy professor.
— Jon Stewart

[Ross Clark]

On 17/08/2023 8:16 p.m., Phil Carmody wrote:
> Hibou <vpaereru-u...@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>> Le 16/08/2023 à 07:13, Bertel Lund Hansen a écrit :
>>>
>>> Has the verb "strike" (lay down work) got a past tense?
>>>
>>> The word "striked" appears in an Ngram and not too seldom, but it's
>>> not clear what it means.
>>>
>>> "The workers struck yesterday" sounds ominous.
>>>
>>> I tried "striked" in Blossom, but it was not accepted.
>>
>> 'Struck' is fine. First result from Google:
>>
>> "May Day 1973 - when two million workers struck" - 'Socialist Worker'
>> 2023/05/01 -
>>
>> <https://socialistworker.co.uk/features/may-day-1973-when-two-million-workers-struck/>
>
> A reference from 2023 won't tell us what's well-established.
>
> I'm on team "went on strike". I heard that a lot in the 70s. Neither of
> the alternative pass through my ear canal without causing some pain.
>
> Phil
>

1769 This day the hatters struck, and refused to work till their wages
are raised.
- Annual Register 1768 107/1

[Hibou]

Le 17/08/2023 à 09:16, Phil Carmody a écrit :

> Hibou writes:
>>
>> 'Struck' is fine. First result from Google:
>>
>> "May Day 1973 - when two million workers struck" - 'Socialist Worker'
>> 2023/05/01 -
>>
>> <https://socialistworker.co.uk/features/may-day-1973-when-two-million-workers-struck/>
>
> A reference from 2023 won't tell us what's well-established.

I think the 'Socialist Worker' is probably a good source for such
terminology - and I did supply an Ngram, which you have omitted, and
which was, admittedly, flawed. Here is a better one:

<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=workers+struck+for%2Cworkers+went+on+strike+for&year_start=1850&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>

> I'm on team "went on strike". I heard that a lot in the 70s. Neither of
> the alternative pass through my ear canal without causing some pain.

Your ear will feel worse if you picket.

[bil...@shaw.ca]

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:08:11 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 4:12:05 AM UTC-4, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
>
> > I have. I was involved with several newspaper strikes in Canada
> > in the 1970s. "Struck" was quite common, both as a past tense
> > of "went on strike" and to describe "struck work", meaning work that
> > another union has contracted to do. Another union undertaking to
> > do that work is essentially crossing a picket line. That's a big no-no.

> Only in Canada? A union sending its members to be scabs?

Not what I said, or meant to say. There have been instances of unions
competing with each other for members and, ultimately, for the right to
bargain with employers on behalf of their members.

There was a kind of independence movement among Canadian trade unionists
several decades ago to try to get away from the very conservative, management-oriented
AFL-CIO gang
and set their own (Canadian) course.

>
> Do we even have competing unions in the same industry?

We have had in some instances, when Canadian nationalist unions were trying to
form organizations without AFL-CIO ties. Most of the steam leaked out of that movement
several decades ago, although I think there are remnants out there. But then, there are
also remnants of the One Big Union/IWW out there.

I'm not up to date on this, but in places where the North American auto industry operates on both sides
of the border -- Michigan and Ontario -- so, in general, do the relevant unions.

bill

[Peter T. Daniels]

Makes sense.

But what's the AFL-CIO doing Up There in the first place?

[The last couple of days I've had to rebreak your lines, because they're
a bit too long and drop a word or two to the next ine]