Home « Forum « Editors/Reviewers Hangout

Forum: Editors/Reviewers Hangout

Dove

Switch Blayde

Ernest, I guess this is for you. I just read the heading of an article in the "Washington Post" which is:

She dove in the water to save her son. It was her body they pulled out.


"Dove" is valid as the past tense of "to dive."

ustourist

@Switch Blayde

That leaves the reader believing she was in the water already, otherwise it would be dove 'into', but personally I would always use dove rather than an alternative - which I assume would be dived?
Dived just sounds incorrect to me.

Zom

Dove is a new creation which has only been around for a couple of hundred years. Dived is the non-US standard.

Replies:   sejintenej
Switch Blayde

@ustourist

otherwise it would be dove 'into',


I caught that also. :)

Ernest Bywater

@Switch Blayde

"Dove" is valid as the past tense of "to dive."


Not to most of the world, although it is used extensively in some regional areas of the USA.

It also causes most readers to wonder what the hell the writer was trying to say, due to the non-general usage. Which brings us back to the Apple owned and run dance club IHOP. By itself it isn't clear what it is or means, and causes reader disruption.

Replies:   Bondi Beach
sejintenej

@Zom

Dove is a new creation which has only been around for a couple of hundred years. Dived is the non-US standard.

Yet more evidence to support the governor and other high-ups of Illinois who voted to call the language of the west side of the Atlantic "American". Then some morons (we might call them berks over here) changed the name back.

Ross at Play
Updated:

@ustourist


Dived just sounds incorrect to me.


Dove just sounds incorrect to those from outside North America.

Replies:   ustourist
ustourist

@Ross at Play

I was taught dove at school - in the UK state system - back in the fifties.

awnlee jawking

@ustourist

I was taught dove at school - in the UK state system


As was I.

AJ

sejintenej

@ustourist

I was taught dove at school - in the UK state system - back in the fifties.

It is certainly logical but I simply don't remember the concept of diving coming up in school a bit before you. Later on ISTR the word 'dived' being used but since I was trying to learn proper English in the fifties I simply took it as being correct.

Crumbly Writer

@ustourist

That leaves the reader believing she was in the water already, otherwise it would be dove 'into', but personally I would always use dove rather than an alternative - which I assume would be dived?

Except, isn't "into" an unnecessary redundancy? "Dove in the water" is a complete sentence, adding "into" really adds nothing to the sentence at all. She's either in or out, there's no quantitative steps for "in the water".

Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

Dove in the water" is a complete sentence


Depends on the actual situation. If I'm standing on something beside the water and decide to get wet, then I dive into the water. If I'm already in the water and decide to go from paddling with my head above the water to going under water, such as in a duck dive, then I'll dive in the water. The first is into, as it's to enter the water from inside it, the second is in the water because that's where you already are.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

If I'm already in the water and decide to go from paddling with my head above the water to going under water, such as in a duck dive, then I'll dive in the water.


Maybe it's an American vs British thing, but I wouldn't say dive in the water for that situation. It would be "I'll dive underwater."

Replies:   sejintenej
Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

Except, isn't "into" an unnecessary redundancy?


Nope. Ernest explained it correctly.

I believe we have begun using "in" all the time even when "into" or "inside" is the correct word. When I'm editing my writing I'm constantly fixing that problem.

It's like using "can" instead of "may."

"Can I look up your skirt?"

"Sure."

When I tried, she slapped me.

"You said I can look up your skirt," I said.

"You can, meaning you have the ability, but I never gave you permission. If you would have asked, 'May I look up your skirt?' I'd have said no."

Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

Nope. Ernest explained it correctly.


Not quite, from my understanding.

As I understand it the "to" is always required if changing location, and never used when describing the static location of something.

However, describing someone diving when already in the water, then neither applies it's not static nor does it involve a transition of location.

If it's already clear from context that the person is already in the water, then saying "in the water" in relation to the person diving is redundant in it's entirety. It's not like you might have meant he was diving from an airplane.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Dominions Son

From Grammar Girl:

When you use in, you're indicating position.

Her iPod was in her pocket.

When you use into in a sentence, you're indicating movement; an action is happening.

She stuffed her iPod into her backpack.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

From Grammar Girl:


I believe that that is what I very very close to what I said.

Bondi Beach

@Ernest Bywater

Which brings us back to the Apple owned and run dance club IHOP


I must live a sheltered life. The only IHOP I know is a U.S.-based chain of inexpensive restaurants with excellent breakfasts. Planning a trip? They'll give you a map with IHOP locations along your route.

What's the connection with Apple?

bb

Dominions Son

@Bondi Beach


What's the connection with Apple?


Except for their computers (Macs) all apple products and services these days are named iSomething. Generation Y thinks any I* must be some kind of Apple product or services.

In US parlance, a "hop" is an informal dance event for teens.

There fore, and IHOP must be an Apple dance venue.

Replies:   Bondi Beach  Capt Zapp
Bondi Beach
Updated:

@Dominions Son


There fore, and IHOP must be an Apple dance venue.


Heh. That was my first thought. Then I figured that was too weird. But of course, since we are all sticklers for language and grammar ("dove" vs "dove into" vs "dived," anyone?), it should have been iHOP.

I hated [sock] hops. Daylight, school property, no making out. Where's the fun in that?

bb

Dominions Son

@Bondi Beach

I hated hops. Daylight, school property, no making out. Where's the fun in that?


It wasn't just school events. From what I have read, a lot of diners and other causal restaurants that didn't have alcohol licenses ran their own hops to drum up business.

Dominions Son

@Bondi Beach

it should have been iHOP


Actually, for an Apple dance venue, it should be iHop.

Capt Zapp

@Dominions Son

In US parlance, a "hop" is an informal dance event for teens.


As a former DJ, I haven't heard the term 'hop' used for any kind of dance unless it was referring to a retro 'Sock Hop' in many years. Is it making a comeback?

Replies:   Bondi Beach
Bondi Beach
Updated:

@Capt Zapp


Is it making a comeback?


Don't know, but many members of this group are speaking from personal experience [ETA: with the original].

bb

Bondi Beach

@Dominions Son

Actually, for an Apple dance venue, it should be iHop.


Not if pancakes were included.

bb

Switch Blayde

@Dominions Son

Actually, for an Apple dance venue, it should be iHop.


Either way, Chicago Manual of Style got it covered. They say you do not have to capitalize the first word in a sentence if that word starts with a lower case, such as, "iPad."

Ernest Bywater

@Bondi Beach

The only IHOP I know is a U.S.-based chain of inexpensive restaurants with excellent breakfasts.


BB, I was using the IHOP acronym to point out using a term outside it's generally expected or usual usage form will confuse people. The same applies when using a term that doesn't have a general expected usage form. The International House of Pancakes has stores in the USA, Canada, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE only. Thus the great majority of the world's population have never seen or heard of the franchise, so using the acronym alone does not tell anything about what it is to the majority of people.

In using the term in what seems a logical manner different to what you expect it disrupts your reading, which is something all writers should avoid doing to the readers.

Ross at Play
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


"Can I look up your skirt?"

"Sure."

When I tried, she slapped me.


Be VERY CAREFUL if you ever go to Singapore or Malaysia.

Asians are very reluctant to answer with a definitive, "Yes". In South-East Asia, they usually say 'can' as an answer to mean "Yes", and as a question to mean "Will you?"

You are very likely to get slapped there just for asking, "Can I look up your skirt?"

Ernest Bywater

@Ross at Play

Be VERY CAREFUL if you ever go to Singapore or Malaysia.

Asians are very reluctant to answer with a definitive, "Yes". In South-East Asia, they usually say 'can' as an answer to mean "Yes", and as a question to mean "Will you?"

You are very likely to get slapped there just for asking, "Can I look up your skirt?"


Not sure I want to know how you know this. Sounds too much like direct knowledge, and way too much information.

Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Ross at Play


a question to mean "Will you?"


That's the error.

"Can you drive off a cliff?" is not the same as "Will you drive off a cliff?"

The first is asking if you have the ability. The second is asking you to do it.

Ross at Play

I was pointing out how strange the usage of 'can' is in Singapore and Malaysia.
In Australia, if I wanted a chip from somebody's plate, I would ask, "May I?" and expect the answer, "Yes."
In Singapore, I would ask, "Can?" and hope for the answer, "Can."

sejintenej

@Dominions Son

Ernest Bywater

If I'm already in the water and decide to go from paddling with my head above the water to going under water, such as in a duck dive, then I'll dive in the water.

Maybe it's an American vs British thing, but I wouldn't say dive in the water for that situation. It would be "I'll dive underwater."

IMHO EB is being grammatically correct. This is one of those cases where I (and probably a host of others) would go colloquial and say that I dive in the water off the shore / pool side

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@sejintenej

IMHO EB is being grammatically correct.


It might be grammatically correct, but 99.999% of the time, it's redundant.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

It might be grammatically correct, but 99.999% of the time, it's redundant.


I disagree, because the word in describes your current location, while the word into describes your action. People swim in the water, while they get into the water to swim. It's the correct way to use the words and how the majority of English speaking people would understand them.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

People swim in the water, while they get into the water to swim. It's the correct way to use the words and how the majority of English speaking people would understand them.


Not when you are talking about diving.

There are only three contexts for diving.

1. into water.
2. in the water.
3. out of an airplane.

Nearly all the time, the surrounding context will make explicitly stating 2 or 3 rendundent

Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

explicitly stating 2 or 3 rendundent


true, context will often make the usage of the word redundant, but not always. This is especially so when you get a SEAL diving out of a helicopter into the water.

Replies:   ustourist
Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Dominions Son


1. into water.

2. in the water.

3. out of an airplane.

Nearly all the time, the surrounding context will make explicitly stating 2 or 3 rendundent


It only makes sense to you because we (as an English speaking country) have said it wrong for so long that you know what was meant.

It's the same for, "He laid down on the bed." Everyone knows that what's meant is "He lay down on the bed."

The same for, "Can I look up your skirt." Everyone (and evidently the people in Singapore) hear that as "May I look up your skirt."

But "in" and "into" mean different things. (see Grammar Girl's explanation)

ustourist

@Ernest Bywater

People also dive for cover, into bushes; they can dive into a shop, dumpster, etc. which invalidates his point about only three contexts.
Plus the whole original point of the 'in' or 'into' being raised was because it wasn't clear from the context.
I wouldn't waste your breath arguing, you are only lowering yourself to his level.

Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

It only makes sense to you because we (as an English speaking country) have said it wrong for so long that you know what was meant.


For the tenth time, I am not saying "in the water" is wrong grammatically. I have not anywhere in this thread said that.

What I am / have been saying is that with dive in particular it will far more often then not be redundant in context.

Same thing goes with swim.

Paul: "Fred is swimming in the water."

Sam: "Thanks for clarifying, for a second there I thought he might be swimming in concrete."

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Switch Blayde

It's the same for, "He laid down on the bed." Everyone knows that what's meant is "He lay down on the bed."


Switch, I suspect a big reason for the misuse of laid in that case is due to people pushing words into their past tense while writing because many are taught to write in the past tense. Most people see lay and lie as present tense words and thus to put it into the past tense they use laid - thus the error.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

Paul: "Fred is swimming in the water."


he could be swimming in jello, sewerage, the cistern, the beer vat, the dam, the lake, the pool, the sea, or figuratively - with the sharks at the courthouse.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

he could be swimming in jello, sewerage, the cistern, the beer vat, the dam, the lake, the pool, the sea, or figuratively - with the sharks at the courthouse.


He could be, but all of those others in total would be only a few percentage points of all references to swimming. If you just say "Fred is swimming" that is still grammatically correct and the vast majority of of readers will correctly assume that Fred is in the water.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

assume that Fred is in the water.


probably, and in some cases he can be in the water and in the sewerage. Also, you often need to clarify which lot of water and where in the water.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

Also, you often need to clarify which lot of water and where in the water.


true, but a simple "in the water" in regards to swimming will rarely add any useful information.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@Dominions Son


true, but a simple "in the water" in regards to swimming will rarely add any useful information.


depends on the location and the context.

edit to add: while simply saying 'swimming' doesn't convey much unless there's already a lot of context to provide the implied water to swim in.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

while simply saying 'swimming' doesn't convey much unless there's already a lot of context to provide the implied water to swim in.


Simply saying 'swimming' necessarily implies that there is water to swim in. Saying 'swimming in the water' without being more specific says absolutely nothing more than just 'swimming'

Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@Dominions Son


Simply saying 'swimming' necessarily implies that there is water to swim in.


except at those fancy resort with the mud wallows you can swim in for your skin's health.

edit to add: Regardless of the situation, I'd never say something as simple as "Fred went swimming." I'd have to qualify it with the information on where he went swimming, as a bare minimum, so it becomes something like, "Fred went swimming at the Ashfield Pool." or similar.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

Simply saying 'swimming' necessarily implies that there is water to swim in.


where i grew up you could go swimming in the bay, swimming in one of the local swimming pools, or go swimming in the swamp, which was more mud than water.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Switch Blayde

@Ernest Bywater

Most people see lay and lie as present tense words and thus to put it into the past tense they use laid - thus the error.


Both lay and lie are present tense. The problem is that "lay" is also the past tense of "lie."

Lay the book on the table (present tense).
He lay on the bed (past tense).

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Switch Blayde

Lay the book on the table (present tense).
He lay on the bed (past tense).


Switch, we both know that, and so do many others, but most have to stop and think about it before they realise lay can be both present and past tense, so when they want to go past tens they go with laid. Which is the point I was making, they choose the wrong word due to not really thinking about it while adhering to a policy they do not have to adhere to, but don't realise they can step out of it.

Dominions Son
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


swimming in the bay, swimming in one of the local swimming pools, or go swimming in the swamp, which was more mud than water.


All of which contain water, even if they contain more than water.

"He went swimming in the bay" is not redundant.

"He went swimming in the water" is redundant.

Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

"He went swimming in the bay" is not redundant.

"He went swimming in the water" is redundant.


While "He went swimming" is not enough information to be useful.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Switch Blayde

@Dominions Son

He swam in a pond of acid until his bones floated to the bottom.


I have no idea where you think there's redundancy.

But back to the topic:

1. He jumped in the water.
2. He jumped into the water.

Two very different meanings.

Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

But back to the topic:
1. He jumped in the water.
2. He jumped into the water.
Two very different meanings.

Agreed.
There are two simple tests an author can use to decide whether or not they to use 'into' or 'in'.
The first test is whether substituting 'in to' makes sense. If so, then 'into' is correct.
The second test is whether they, as an author, have enough pride in their work to prefer using simple, correct words when they exist.
For this example, 'He jumped in to the water' is correct if he was not in the water before jumping. 'He jumped in the water' is only correct if he was already in the water before jumping.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

While "He went swimming" is not enough information to be useful.


"He went swimming in the water" provides zero additional information over "he went swimming"

Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

I have no idea where you think there's redundancy.

But back to the topic:

1. He jumped in the water.
2. He jumped into the water.


Agreed on jumped.

Swimming is different. You can't swim just anywhere. You have to have a sufficiently dense fluid to swim in. 99% of the time that fluid will be water.

There fore adding something as generic as "in the water" to "he went swimming" add zero additional information.

By the way:

He swam in a pond of acid until his bones floated to the bottom.


This sentence makes zero sense.

1. swimming is an action and he would be dead and therefore incapable of taking any action long before his body was reduced to just bones.

2. Things float to the top, they sink to the bottom.

Replies:   sejintenej
Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

"He went swimming in the water" provides zero additional information over "he went swimming"


by saying 'the water' you know he's not at the sewerage plant or in the beer vat.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


by saying 'the water' you know he's not at the sewerage plant or in the beer vat.


I assume he's not suicidal and the beer company isn't going to let him contaminate their beer, so the odds of him swimming in either of those places is too low to be worth considering if not explicitly mentioned.

Your overly contrived attempts to create ambiguity about what someone might be swimming in are not going to occur to any normal reader.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
sejintenej
Updated:

@Dominions Son


There fore adding something as generic as "in the water" to "he went swimming" add zero additional information.


Agreed; it is implied and is generally understood that he went swimming in water UNLESS the speaker/writer clarifies otherwise. You would not use the verb 'swimming' if you are discussing mud at a spa or bog racing (a UK masochistic competition)

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@sejintenej

bog racing (a UK masochistic competition)


We call it something else in North America, but it's popular in the US and Canada as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mud_bogging

Switch Blayde

@Ross at Play

The first test is whether substituting 'in to' makes sense. If so, then 'into' is correct.


"in to" isn't always "into." Here are two examples from Grammar Girl.

Squiggly walked in to hear Aardvark talking about the surprise party.

(Because to is part of the verb hear [to hear, an infinitive], keep it separate from in.)

We broke in to the room.

(Broke in is a phrasal verb. The word in belongs with broke. The word to is a preposition to tell the reader where the action of the verb happened. Where did you break in to? The room.)

My wife had her retirement party yesterday. She introduced me to a lot of people at her company, one group being the editing staff for all their publications. They all said they used Grammar Girl.

Replies:   Ross at Play
richardshagrin
Updated:

@Dominions Son


There are only three contexts for diving.


There is always going into dives (bars). If you or more normally a group go into multiple dives, you are "diving". Makes more sense than "baring". If you are going into upscale establishments that aren't dives, you may be bar-hopping. You have extremely strong leg muscles if you can hop over a bar, I don't know what you would call it. Maybe Superman who can leap tall buildings in a single bound can go bar hopping?

Dominions Son
Updated:

@richardshagrin


If you or more normally a group go into multiple dives, you are "diving". Makes more sense than "baring". If you are going into upscale establishments that aren't dives, you may be bar-hopping.


I've never heard it called anything other than bar-hopping, regardless of the quality of the bars involved.

You have extremely strong leg muscles if you can hop over a bar, I don't know what you would call it. Maybe Superman who can leap tall buildings in a single bound can go bar hopping?


You remind me of my favorite man walks into a bar joke.

A man walks into a bar and says...."Ouch!"

Not_a_ID

@Dominions Son

I assume he's not suicidal and the beer company isn't going to let him contaminate their beer, so the odds of him swimming in either of those places is too low to be worth considering if not explicitly mentioned.


He might be, or know, an eccentric millionaire(or billionaire) who has a swimming pool(or pond) filled with beer or some other exotic liquid. It might be a particularly fluid mud(and women in particular seem to enjoy mud-baths) or milk for all we know. So it is possible he could dive into a pond(or pool) of something other than water, and live to tell of it.

Plenty of other kinds of pools he could dive into with lethal results, some being more immediate than others. You probably could swim (briefly) in some pools of acid before it incapacitated you. If you have the right protective gear, you might be able to swim with impunity in it.

A pool of lava on the other hand, isn't likely to be swimmable without very special protective gear, and even then, you'd probably be literally cooked in short order.

Dominions Son

@Not_a_ID

So it is possible he could dive into a pond(or pool) of something other than water, and live to tell of it.


It's possible, but the probability it too low to create any real ambiguity so saying swimming without specifying "in the water"

Ross at Play
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


"in to" isn't always "into."


Agreed. My 'test' needs to be more specific: If you have "in" and are wondering whether is correct, (or is "into" needed) then test if "in to" makes sense. If it does "in" is incorrect. You can usually change it to "into", but sometimes it must be "in to".

I appreciate the distinction you have pointed out. It had not occurred to me before that it may be incorrect to join two connecting words together that exist as one word combined. But I can see why it is necessary to check what parts of speech they actually are before doing so.

The second example would not apply for my (revised) 'test'. I know I hear it sometimes, but "We broke in the room" would fail my smell test. I know 'in' is incorrect, I would not be wondering.


all (the editing staff) said they used Grammar Girl


Good to know. Thanks.

P.S. I hope the wife's retirement goes well for you. :-)

sejintenej

@richardshagrin

If you or more normally a group go into multiple dives, you are "diving". Makes more sense than "baring". If you are going into upscale establishments that aren't dives, you may be bar-hopping

Those must be local slang; we would say you are "pub-crawling" (which, given the state of many afterwards, is appropriate)

sejintenej

@Not_a_ID

You probably could swim (briefly) in some pools of acid before it incapacitated you.

An outdoor swimming pool gets plenty of carbonic acid after rain. As for the chemicals used I often wondered if the chlorine compound I used reacted to form hydrochloric acid. Whatever, it was so mild we simply referred to the pool being filled with water.

Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

except at those fancy resort with the mud wallows you can swim in for your skin's health.

You generally don't "swim" in mud. Instead they either apply a mud "mask", often covering the whole body, or at the more exclusive resorts, you'll "sit" in a mud "bath". They typically frown on swimming in mud, because no one wants to rescue someone drowning in mud, and losing customers in the under toe is bad for business.

(Believe me, I've been in several of them over the years, both in the U.S. (Chicago and Manhattan) and Europe.

@Ernest

or go swimming in the swamp, which was more mud than water

Our swamps are filled with stagnant water, making them less attractive, though there's usually plenty of mud along the edges making getting in and out difficult. They're often infested with alligators, making swimming in it more dangerous than merely unpleasant!

Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

All of which contain water, even if they contain more than water.

"He went swimming in the bay" is not redundant.

"He went swimming in the water" is redundant.

That's why I'll often get metaphysical:

He went swimming in his imaginary fjords.

or

He swam, staring into the starry abyss high overhead.

Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

"He went swimming in the water" provides zero additional information over "he went swimming"

Can we possibly compromise and agree "he went swimming" is a poor sentence construction as there's too little information. While adding a couple more boring words ("in the water") doesn't help, adding more context does.

He went swimming, enjoying the crisp, cool water against his skin.

or

He went swimming, fighting the fierce battering waves in his bathtub which continually threatened to pull him down the drain.


Both those examples are MUCH more fun to read than the boring and uninformative "He went swimming in water." :(

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


Can we possibly compromise and agree "he went swimming" is a poor sentence construction as there's too little information. While adding a couple more boring words ("in the water") doesn't help, adding more context does.


I definitely agree that adding more context is better. My only objection is that adding "in the water" to swimming doesn't actually add any context.

The larger context matters as well. If it's just base narrative your examples are certainly better.

On the other hand if the setting is a cottage on a lake and Fred asks Janet where Bob is then "He went swimming." as a response is fine. It shouldn't be necessary to be more specific in dialog unless the general setting offers more than one possible location to go swimming.

Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

I definitely agree that adding more context is better. My only objection is that adding "in the water" to swimming doesn't actually add any context.

Jesus J. Christopher! We get it. You prefer "in the water". However, everyone else here thinks it's a stupid idea and not only wouldn't use it, but actively dislike seeing redundancies like that while reading.

I was trying to move beyond your continued yammering about the same dead issue. We understand your objection, but the rest of us have moved on weeks ago. Take the rejection like a man and move on. Keep using "He swam in water" if you like, but don't expect anyone else to follow you in.

I was providing an alternative. Instead of combining two overly simplistic fragments which describe nothing at all (and are utterly boring), I suggested using an alternate approach of introducing a new, unrelated element to the sentence to spice it up and distract from the whole "in what?" argument.

Now, if you have nothing else to add, let's move on and focus on something else than your fondness of unnecessary redundancies.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  Dominions Son
Not_a_ID

@Crumbly Writer

Like ATM machines?

Replies:   richardshagrin
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


You prefer "in the water".


No, I was consistently objecting to "in the water". Where you get the idea that I prefer it from I have no idea.

However, everyone else here thinks it's a stupid idea and not only wouldn't use it, but actively dislike seeing redundancies like that while reading.


WHAT THE FUCK? I'm the one who has been complaining that "swimming in the water" was redundant.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

WHAT THE FUCK? I'm the one who has been complaining that "swimming in the water" was redundant.

Sorry, I was trying to close down the petty squabbling, and when you objected to my compromise, I lost it, assuming you were objecting to my compromise rather than agreeing with it (since you never said those words). However, I didn't backtrack to see who specifically said what.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

I lost it, assuming you were objecting to my compromise rather than agreeing with it (since you never said those words)


My first sentence was:

I definitely agree that adding more context is better.


I only had a minor quibble about one very specific situation involving dialog rather than narration.

richardshagrin

@Not_a_ID

Like ATM machines?

They have ass to mouth machines?

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@richardshagrin

I'd be more surprised if somebody, didn't have one somewhere on this great big, and very disturbing world.

sejintenej

@Dominions Son

I definitely agree that adding more context is better. My only objection is that adding "in the water" to swimming doesn't actually add any context.

Surely it depends totally on the context. Swimming can be used when referring to the mire surrounding the Mafia or in some other chaotic situation. It has been used by an SOL writer to describe the subject's feelings swimming in the darkness and silence between death and new life.

I agree with the normal lack of need to refer to the water - a separate thread is dealing with the task of making text more concise

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@sejintenej

I agree with the normal lack of need to refer to the water - a separate thread is dealing with the task of making text more concise

That's simple enough. You remove anything which doesn't advance the story. Recognizing what's appreciated and what isn't is the tough part. Identifying what you never included is even tougher! Is swimming between darkness and a new life excess, or necessary exposition? Who the hell knows until it succeeds or fails?

Replies:   sejintenej
sejintenej

@Crumbly Writer

Is swimming between darkness and a new life excess, or necessary exposition? Who the hell knows until it succeeds or fails?

I think he/she has died 10 times so far (always violently) and wonders if he/she is dead for keeps or just "resting" in preparation for being dumped in another live body. In this case I don't think the repeated exposure is too excessive even though there is repetition.

PotomacBob

@Switch Blayde

I was taught that dove is a bird. The past tense of dive is dived

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@PotomacBob

I was taught that dove is a bird. The past tense of dive is dived


And the past tense of drive is drived. And the past tense of ride is rided.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Switch Blayde

Don't you just love English irregularities! The past tense of hive is hived, hove being the past tense of heave! :)

AJ

Replies:   ustourist  Switch Blayde
ustourist

@awnlee jawking

Not disputing, just asking.
Does it depend on which way heave is used?
I know nautically it would be hove, but if someone regurgitated up the contents of their stomach (even due to seasickness), I have always seen that described as heaved.

Switch Blayde

@awnlee jawking

Don't you just love English irregularities!


He was hanged from the lamp post.
He hung the painting.
(a person is hanged; a thing is hung)

The problem with "dove" as a bird is that it's spelled wrong. If spelled the way it's pronounced, it would be "dov."

Dove (bird) - soft o
Dove (dive) - long o
(two different words with two different pronunciations)

Replies:   PotomacBob
Switch Blayde

Re-reading my last post brings something to home.

Because of the region I grew up in, I wrote "spelled." I would guess many of you would use "spelt." It's the same with "dove." Depends where you're from.

Switch Blayde

Past, Present, and Future walked into a bar. It was tense.

I went to an Apple class for my new iPhone 7-plus and the instructor showed us Siri by asking it for a joke. The joke above was the one Siri gave us. How apropos.

awnlee jawking

@ustourist

Yes, my dictionary and I agree with you.

AJ

sejintenej

@Switch Blayde

Because of the region I grew up in, I wrote "spelled." I would guess many of you would use "spelt." It's the same with "dove." Depends where you're from.

I would certainly write "spelled" but say "spelt". Surely spelt is some ingredient in certain types of bread? Your two pronunciations for dove are what I would also use

Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

Because of the region I grew up in, I wrote "spelled." I would guess many of you would use "spelt." It's the same with "dove." Depends where you're from.

"Spelt" is a spell cast by a transsexual wizards. You'd use "spelts" when using more than one. (Now That's an irregular usage!)

Replies:   graybyrd  Ernest Bywater
graybyrd

@Crumbly Writer

Here in the PacNW, "smelt" is a species of small fish, easily netted in quantity. "Spelt" is a bucket of spoiled smelt.

Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

"Spelt" is a spell cast by a transsexual wizards.


And a Spelling Bee is an annoying insect that flies around casting curses on people.

Ross at Play

@ustourist

Not disputing, just asking.
Does it depend on which way heave is used?
I know nautically it would be hove, but if someone regurgitated up the contents of their stomach (even due to seasickness), I have always seen that described as heaved.

There is a long term trend from irregular towards regular verb forms. That is a natural process driven by children applying regular rules of grammar to new words they add to their vocabularies.
'Heave' is one that is now (almost) completely regular. My Oxford dictionary does not list 'hove', but Wikipedia's 'List of Irregular Verbs' does include it with the note "now usually regular except in nautical uses".
'Hung' is a similar example. That is usually still irregular (hung), and the regular (hanged) only for 'by the neck until death'.
***
I don't have problems with authors using either regular or older irregular forms: both forms exist in the common language, even if used rarely.
I sometimes do have problems with authors using new irregular forms that have only ever existed in specific regions. It can feel as if an author is being contemptuous of those not from their location when they use words like that.
***
My New Year's resolution will be to deduct points from stories I see using 'dove' or 'drug' as if they existed in the English language as the past tense of verbs.

Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Ross at Play


My New Year's resolution will be to deduct points from stories I see using 'dove' or 'drug' as if they existed in the English language as the past tense of verbs.


But "dove" is a valid past tense of "to dive." Why penalize an author for doing it right? That's like me penalizing you for spelling "color" as "colour" since it's regional.

I sometimes do have problems with authors using new irregular forms


How about authors making up verbs, such as "pistoned"? "His dick pistoned in and out of her."

Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

My New Year's resolution will be to deduct points from stories I see using 'dove' or 'drug' as if they existed in the English language as the past tense of verbs.

Penalizing authors, without providing an example of why, is pointless, as it won't help anyone, either the author or other readers, it'll only let you blow off steam while hurting everyone else.

A better strategy, is to send the author in question a note, explaining why you downgraded their vote. That way they get the message. After that, it's largely immaterial whether you actually do it or not. (And realistically, what's the difference between one or two "dove" references and a half dozen other random typos throughout the course of a extended story?)

Replies:   Ross at Play
Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

How about authors making up verbs, such as "pistoned"? "His dick pistoned in and out of her."

Or like "downvoted", or the irregular form "downvot" (ex: "I downvot him righteously!").

Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

But "dove" is a valid past tense of "to dive."

Things like 'ass' and the spelling 'color' I accept as the American style that all Americans would use. In contrast, 'dove' and 'drug' are irregular forms even within America.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Ross at Play


In contrast, 'dove' and 'drug' are irregular forms even within America.


When Ernest first brought "dove" up I asked around. I grew up in NYC and now live in Arizona which are very different regions. And most people here are from other parts of the U.S.

Everyone said "dived" was wrong and they would never use it. So I don't believe "dove" is regionalized. From where I am, "dived" is regionlized hence my comment of British spelling.

ETA: from dictionary.com:


dove

[dohv]

verb

1. a simple past tense of dive.


and (when I searched on "dived")

Both dived and dove are standard as the past tense of dive. Dived, historically the older form, is somewhat more common in edited writing, but dove occurs there so frequently that it also must be considered standard

Replies:   ustourist  Ross at Play
ustourist

@Switch Blayde

I was raised and educated in England and 'dove' is the past tense I was taught and used - and with a family including teachers I would have been made aware if they thought it incorrect.
Dived is used journalistically in sports, but I don't recall it from general fiction.
I would agree that 'dived' may be the regional variation in this case.

Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

what's the difference between one or two "dove" references and a half dozen other random typos throughout the course of a extended story?

I promise I will tell authors why.
The difference is one of intent.
I accept some level of typos and unintended errors.
I accept anything all Americans would do.
I do not accept intentional use of something that does not exist, and has never existed outside your region.
Are you writing for yourself, or for readers?
If you have a choice, why choose an irregular form only used by some in your country - when a simple regular form exists that would be used by others in your country and everybody outside it.
It's a simple courtesy - when you want to communicate with someone, use language you know they will understand, not your personal dialect.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

Both dived and dove are standard as the past tense of dive. Dived, historically the older form, is somewhat more common in edited writing, but dove occurs there so frequently that it also must be considered standard

I could probably accept 'dove' as used commonly enough in America to not deduct points.
Are you prepared to argue I should not deduct points if I see 'drug' used as the past tense of 'drag'?

Switch Blayde

@Ross at Play

I should not deduct points if I see 'drug' used as the past tense of 'drag'?


I never used "drug" to mean "dragged."

From dictionary.com:

verb, Chiefly Midland and Southern U.S. Nonstandard.

1. a simple past tense and past participle of drag.


So "drug" is nonstandard (of course someone in the South would argue otherwise).

I'm more lenient than you on regionalization, including slang and spelling. You want to call the trunk of a car a boot, I don't care. It actually adds something to the story.

As an American, I spell words ending in "er" rather than "re." But I grew up in NYC where, on Broadway, all the theaters were spelled theatre so that's how I often spell it.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

Are you writing for yourself, or for readers?

I would assume, if they used "dove", it fits within the story (i.e. it's a book about Americans aimed primarily for Americans), so it's not technically 'for yourself' but for 1) the story and 2) your intended target audience.

Also, as stated above, I agree that "dove" is the more common usage (at least in fiction), and that dived is used more in sports journalism, which wouldn't apply.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

I could probably accept 'dove' as used commonly enough in America to not deduct points.
Are you prepared to argue I should not deduct points if I see 'drug' used as the past tense of 'drag'?

I grew up with that usage, though I can't pinpoint which regions use it and which don't. However, I remember several murder mysteries which feature 'someone drug the body back behind the shed to bury it'. It's got a more 'down home' feel to the more formal "he dragged the body".

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

I'm more lenient than you on regionalization, including slang and spelling.

1. Spelling with -or, -er, and -ize is clearly correct for an American to do.
2. Regional slang is using words that not all readers will know, but the meaning is not ambiguous.
***
That is quite different from using a spelling that already exists for a word with a very different meaning.

Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

it's a book about Americans aimed primarily for Americans

When I see that attitude in a writer's work, my reaction is FU too, and that gets reflected in my score.
I am sure I am not alone in that!

Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

It's got a more 'down home' feel to the more formal "he dragged the body".

I can't think how to respond to that one.
I'm tempted to ask if Deliverance was filmed in your home town, but that would sound offensive. :-)
To me it feels ignorant and uneducated.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

When I see that attitude in a writer's work, my reaction is FU too, and that gets reflected in my score.

I can understand that, but you've got to decide whether writing in American will annoy more Brits, or writing in British will annoy more American.

My point, is that if you're writing about Americans, or Zulus for that matter, you want to get the speech right. It's generally best to remain true to the character, instead of what's easier for you, the author. However, that doesn't absolve the author of writing clear prose. If you use regional expressions, you've got to clue readers, regardless of their backgrounds, on what's being said. Thus your Americanisms must be clear to a little Iranian boy, so that it informs them about foreign cultures as well as carrying the story forward. That's where the real work resides. Often, I suspect authors try to sidestep that additional work by simply speaking in one voice all the time (something I find myself doing often).

Replies:   Ross at Play
Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

I'm tempted to ask if Deliverance was filmed in your home town, but that would sound offensive. :-)

Deliverance took place in Arkansas (I'm pretty sure), while the area I spent much of my youth was near Tenn, only a couple states over.

In my example, anyone from the south would say "drug", while only the detectives trained up north would say "dragged" (making their speech sound more formal than that used by the locals). That doesn't make the locals stupid, it just sets the lonely detective as the odd-man out, and highlights how ostracized he is (and why he might resent everyone around him).

Ernest Bywater
Updated:

I know we thrashed this out before, and I've no intention of trying to convince anyone to use one word or the other. However, since we first discussed this I've corresponded with a lot of readers in the US about this. Of the 15 I correspond a lot with, 5 are from Florida, 2 Texas, 2 Georgia, 1 Tennessee, 2 New York, 1 Michigan, 2 California - of them, only one from New York and one from Tennessee said they'd heard the word dove as a past tense form of the diving action, and the one from Tennessee said he'd heard the word drug as a past tense for drag by some people growing up, but others there used dragged.

Statistically, that's an insignificant sample, but it does illustrate some people use the words and some people don't. It also emphasizes why it's important to ensure what words you use a extremely common usage ones, or you need to make it clear to the reader what they mean - the same goes for slang and acronyms. Here we get burgers at Maccas, while the same burger in the US will be at Mickey D's. Also we have to ensure people understand you get breakfast at the IHOP and it isn't a special Apple Company dance club or app.

edit to add: One thing to worry about when using a word the reader may not be familiar with is it can often throw them out of the story, do that too often and many won't go back to it. Thus you can lose readers.
usual typo edit

richardshagrin

@Ernest Bywater

Ask the one legged man how he gets around and he says "I hop."

ustourist

@Ernest Bywater

One thing to worry about when using a word the reader may not be familiar with is it can often throw them out of the story, do that too often and many won't go back to it.

Agreed, but at the same time you need to keep dialogue and references relevant to the area, such as using ute in Oz, truck in the UK and pick up in the US. Which is a problem you have encountered (and overcome) if I recall correctly. The wrong word can also throw the reader out if it isn't a natural fit with everything else.
There probably isn't an easy answer for online publishing, though the publishers used to edit dead tree books to change that for readerships in different countries. I don't know if they bother as much nowadays with the UK becoming increasingly Americanized in the media generally.

Ernest Bywater

@ustourist

Agreed, but at the same time you need to keep dialogue and references relevant to the area, such as using ute in Oz, truck in the UK and pick up in the US.


Yeah, I deal with as mostly UK English for the non-US characters and the non-US narrator, but have taken to using US spelling in the dialogue of US characters. That's relatively easy to do with words etc. that are uniform across the US. However, it becomes an issue when you have a few words that are in regional use only, and may not be known to well, or are used with alternatives in the area they're used - that becomes too hard for non-locals to know or understand the usage. It often makes it hard to get the references etc. right, but an effort should be made where it fits the character involved.

At the moment I'm writing a story with US characters based in the US, and have a Foreword stating I'm not even going to attempt the local dialects and slang used in the areas the characters travel through. It's set in the mid 1800s and they go from Lexington, Virginia to Oregon via Harrisburg, Pennsylvania - so you can imagine how many different dialects and slangs they'd have passed through on the way. Way too hard, so I don't even attempt it, and scream mea culpa at the start.

Ernest Bywater

@ustourist

I don't know if they bother as much nowadays with the UK becoming increasingly Americanized in the media generally.


Actually, although I tend towards the UK spelling, my main dictionary reference now is a late 1980s Dictionary of International English which has both the UK and US variants in it with appropriate notes on when you should plough a field or plow a field.

Replies:   ustourist
ustourist

@Ernest Bywater

With Queens English being taught in many Indian schools, plus the UK, it is possible that Queens English is actually more commonly used than US English.
Unfortunately I don't know which they teach in Europe, where in most countries it is apparently the second language, but UK spelling potentially has a larger user base......though probably not on SOL

Switch Blayde

@Ross at Play

When I see that attitude in a writer's work, my reaction is FU too, and that gets reflected in my score.


Unfortunately, there are people who agree with you.

An Irish author complained about an Amazon 1-star review where the person said it was because of spelling errors. It's a traditionally published book by Penguin in Ireland thus the spelling was British spelling.

To the person who gave her a 1 star, she didn't abide by what HE considered right.

Ernest Bywater

@ustourist

I'm not so sure, due to the US spelling being the default in most computer software.

Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

you've got to decide whether writing in American will annoy more Brits, or writing in British will annoy more American.

'Writing in American or British' (if you mean spelling and a few other things) is NOT a problem.
When BrE and AmE are different, Americans should use AmE. I would do so myself for a story set in America.

you want to get the speech right. It's generally best to remain true to the character

I might even replace 'generally' with '(almost) always' in that. Dialogue is different. Dialogue is always different! Characters from the north/south using dragged/drug in the same story would be fine with me. But in the narrative ... Yuck!
***
My objections are not when BrE and AmE are different. It is the choice to use something that is AmE only when a simple word with the same meaning exists in both AmE and BrE. That is when I think authors become contemptuous of readers from outside America. I do not think 'This is okay with Americans' EQUALS 'It is okay to ignore the common language when it exists'.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
awnlee jawking

@ustourist

I don't know which they teach in Europe


I believe it's mainly American English. I've encountered Europeans who professed to deliberately taking English English courses just to be different from the majority of their peers.

AJ

Crumbly Writer

@ustourist

There probably isn't an easy answer for online publishing, though the publishers used to edit dead tree books to change that for readerships in different countries. I don't know if they bother as much nowadays with the UK becoming increasingly Americanized in the media generally.

The rule of thumb now for the mainline publishers is, unless it's a top of the line, million selling author, the author is responsible for having their books edited themselves. As the publishers lose more sales over time, they're divesting themselves of alternative services (like basic editing).

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Crumbly Writer

@ustourist

UK spelling potentially has a larger user base......though probably not on SOL

That may be, at least for certain regions, but due to the widespread acceptance of U.S. movies, most people of the world are now familiar with U.S. accents and pronunciations (though not exceptions, like drug), although they wouldn't be as familiar with the U.S. spellings.

The key, as always, is not to leave anything to chance. If there's a chance something won't be understood, you need to include enough context for the readers to understand what's being said. However, that's different from 'I don't wanna bother researching my book'.

Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

My objections are not when BrE and AmE are different. It is the choice to use something that is AmE only when a simple word with the same meaning exists in both AmE and BrE. That is when I think authors become contemptuous of readers from outside America. I do not think 'This is okay with Americans' EQUALS 'It is okay to ignore the common language when it exists'.

In my examples, I was referring to using such terms in character dialogues only, in order to give it a more natural 'feel' for the characters. Narrative should always be more understandable. While there's been a move over the years to make narrative less formal (ex. more contractions), that doesn't mean the narrator should rely on local dialects.

Capt Zapp

Dove/Dived. It all depends on what is happening.

"I dove into the lake" sounds a lot better to me than "I dived into the lake."

If my use of 'Dove' instead of 'Dived' causes certain people to drop their rating on my stories, then so be it.

Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


The rule of thumb now for the mainline publishers is, unless it's a top of the line, million selling author, the author is responsible for having their books edited themselves.


I don't believe that's true for the big publishers. They have editors. It has nothing to do with the author. Where the author comes into play is how much money they spend on marketing.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Switch Blayde

I have no direct experience but I attended a seminar given by agents and they said pretty much what CW said - publishers expect submissions to be virtually print ready, and are minimal contributors towards editing and proofreading.

AJ

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@awnlee jawking

they said pretty much what CW said - publishers expect submissions to be virtually print ready, and are minimal contributors towards editing and proofreading.


Published authors on wattpad sometimes talk about their experiences working with the publisher's editors. But these are the Big-5 publishers.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


Published authors on wattpad sometimes talk about their experiences working with the publisher's editors. But these are the Big-5 publishers.


Again, there's a big discrepancy between what the 'average Joe' gets, and when they make special dispensations (say when an Indie author hits it big on Amazon and they decide to snap up their book contract, while putting their 'stamp' on the book, to differentiate it from the Amazon version).

For most of us, we pay through the nose and then get little support or sales.

Qualifier: The big-5 publishers have never offered me diddly, so all I can report is that other authors have related to me.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

The big-5 publishers have never offered me diddly


My opinion is, if you don't get a deal with a Big-5 then self-publish.

With the smaller traditional publishers:
1. you don't get much help from an editor, if any.
2. you don't get on bookstore shelves.
3. and you get a much smaller royalty than self-pub.

For me, that's where indie makes sense (also for stuff like my first novel which they would call porn).

With my latest novel, I will try to get an agent. But my sights are high. The ones I'm interested in so far had clients like Hemingway and Harper Lee. But I thought I'd give it a chance before lowering my sights.

Crumbly Writer

Speaking of using "dove" instead of "dived", I just encountered the following when revising a story. Consider which you'd use, "dove" or "dived".

They dove at his head, striking at him with their pitchforks.

Without spoiling the story by supplying context, small demons were attacking my protagonist, yet saying they "dived at his head" doesn't make much sense. I guess I could say "they attacked his head", but it just doesn't sound as good (less descriptive).

Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


"dived at his head" doesn't make much sense.


For those who refuse to accept "dove" is past tense for "dive," using "dived" there makes perfect sense.

To them, using "dived" there sounds natural. To you and me, it doesn't.

Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

Without spoiling the story by supplying context, small demons were attacking my protagonist, yet saying they "dived at his head" doesn't make much sense.


I would use

They swooped down at his head


This implies a arced path down and passing over the target's head.

Diving in this context implies a steep decent, a free fall if not a power dive.

However, to use such a move to attack a man sized ground target with a melee weapon would be a very dangerous tactic.

While it would make for a very powerful blow, you have almost zero time to pull out of the dive and avoid going splat on the ground.

Falcons are the only birds of prey know to use a dive or power dive for hunting. However, their prey is other birds which they catch in flight, so they have a lot of room to pull out of the dive after hitting their prey.

Crumbly Writer

"Swooped" makes sense, but again, "swooped down at" takes too long to explain and makes for an awkward description. "Dove" is a more natural description for when someone (or something) leaps at another. If the fall isn't that steep (in the case of someone flying, or someone only a short distance away), the arc is implied. However, "dived" (with it's assumption of aquatic sports) doesn't carry the same connotations. But again, what Switch says is true, it only sounds right because I grew up where I use "dove" for certain phrases, while using "dived" for others.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


"Dove" is a more natural description for when someone (or something) leaps at another.


Yes for someone leaping, but you seem to be talking about flying creatures.

For a flying creature/machine it makes little sense to call a gentle arc a dive. Do some searing on fighter planes or birds diving.

Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


They dove at his head, striking at him with their pitchforks.


In this case, I gather they're attacking him the way small birds fly at bigger birds in their territory, or the way Magpies attack humans in their territory during breeding season. In such a case I'd have used words like swooped or swarmed, depending on the image I was painting. If they're flying around well above him, then they swoop down to attack, thus giving an image of them falling down at an sharp angle like a dive bomber. If they're just above him, then I'd probably say they swarmed his hard to build an image of them swarming around his head picking at him.

typo edit

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

In this case, I gather they're attacking him the way small birds fly at bigger birds in their territory, or the way Magpies attack humans in their territory during breeding season. In such a case I'd have used words like swooped or swarmed, depending on the image I was painting. If they're flying around well above him, then they swoop down to attack, thus giving and image of them falling down at an sharp angle like a dive bomber. If they're just above him, then I'd probably say they swarmed his hard to build an image of them swarming around his head picking at him.

Since they occur so often, I switch the verbs I use. "Dove" just seemed to fit in this one instance, but I often use "swooped", "attacked" and "clawed", though there are various types of creatures, each of which has different characteristics, though each flies (though some fly differently than others (ex: fluttering vs. gliding vs. flapping).

As you pictured it, they started from above (over the head of someone else, so diving down at my protagonist is a quick transition, not as much a literal aquatic dive as a downward leap, though that differentiation may be lost to anyone not familiar with the nuances of "dove" vs. "dived".

Just out of curiosity, does anyone not from America differentiate between dive (into water) and dove (into something else)?

Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

Just out of curiosity, does anyone not from America differentiate between dive (into water) and dove (into something else)?


As you know, to us Aussies dove is only ever a bird and is pronounced like duv. We dive into water or dive into a task etc.

Replies:   Grant
Grant

@Ernest Bywater

As you know, to us Aussies dove is only ever a bird and is pronounced like duv.

But when pronounced dov (ov as in over) it's the past tense of dive.
'She dove in to the water in a graceful arc.'

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Grant

But when pronounced dov (ov as in over) it's the past tense of dive.
'She dove in to the water in a graceful arc.'


Only in the areas where it's used as such. Many parts of the world don't recognise such a usage at all. And that's why it can cause such confusion to many readers, because they think the writer has no real idea of the English language. The same is true of any usage of a regional slang as if it's a universal word usage when not well explained to the reader.

Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

Just out of curiosity, does anyone not from America differentiate between dive (into water) and dove (into something else)?

According to all evidence I have seen, the only way 'anyone not from America' differentiates between 'dived' / 'dove' is right / wrong (or perhaps, only something that lot would do).

that differentiation may be lost to anyone not familiar with the nuances of "dove" vs. "dived"

I can find no evidence anywhere of accepted nuances differentiating them, even by Americans.
Both forms are mentioned by CMOS, dictionary.com, and the American Heritage Dictionary.
CMOS 5.220 says 'The form dove, though common in certain regions and possibly on the rise, has not traditionally been considered good form.'
Dictionary.com lists the past tense form as 'dived or dove' then lists nine different uses for the verb 'dive'.
According to AHD, 'dove' may now be more frequently used by Americans, but either is acceptable to the vast majority.
Those are all American references. The Oxford dictionary lists it as "North American English also".
***
In contrast, none of these references even mentions 'drug' as a possible alternative to 'dragged'.
***
There is a usage note in AHD that might help Americans see just how bizarre and irritating 'dove' can be to non-Americans.
The trend over centuries has been away from 'strong verbs' with Germanic roots where the vowel sound changes for the past tense - and towards 'weak' or 'regular verbs' that use -ed endings.
It cites two examples where the shift went the other way. They are the past tenses of 'wear' and 'spit' are no longer 'werede' and 'spitede', but 'wore' and 'spat'.
For about as long as English has been spoken on the American continent, There has only been one verb in the English language that ill-educated have corrupted in their speech often enough for it to become an accepted form. That is 'dove' and it is only considered acceptable by North Americans.
***
This will probably be 'news' to many Americans, but many non-Americans resent how contemptuous Americans are of others. We see it all too often in so many different ways. That contempt is so ingrained in the culture otherwise decent people cannot see themselves doing it. For example:
* SB cited 'the heading of an article in the "Washington Post"' as "proof" that '"Dove" is valid as the past tense of "to dive."'
The Washington Post is directed specifically to an American audience. It may be proof it is valid on 'Planet America', but it is a huge to leap to conclude that proves it is also valid on 'Planet Earth'.
* CW even posted here 'it's a book about Americans aimed primarily for Americans'.
Seriously? Do you actually think that? Or have you just never thought about it?
***
I have no problems at all with anything that is the 'American style', e.g. -ize spellings, commas before end quotes.
I have no problems with any regional idiomatic usages. If an expression means something different then it is okay to use if readers will understand it. But 'dove' and 'dived' mean exactly the same thing, even to Americans. Some imagine nuances differentiating them, but nuances do not exist unless others agree about what those differences.
***
I ask, who are you writing for - yourself or your audience, and which audience?
For an American audience, either is acceptable and they mean exactly the same thing. If it makes no difference to them, why choose the one that is not acceptable to the rest of the planet?
Can't you see how doing that makes it clear to non-American readers you do not give a damn about them?
Why are you surprised some readers cut ratings when they see an author displaying contempt of them?

awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

There is a usage note in AHD that might help Americans see just how bizarre and irritating 'dove' can be to non-Americans.


We're familiar with 'dove' here in the UK. It even appeared in the headline of a recent newspaper article (sorry, no link).

However 'drug' took me surprise when I first saw it, and when editing/proofreading, I would always encourage the author to change it to 'dragged'.

AJ

Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

headline of a recent newspaper

It kind of matters which newspaper.
It is hard to think of a phrase in the language that lends less credence to an argument than 'headline in an unnamed British newspaper'.

Replies:   ustourist
ustourist

@Ross at Play

It is hard to think of a phrase in the language that lends less credence to an argument than 'headline in an unnamed British newspaper'.


"Wikipedia says....."
Far less credible than any journalist, even in the rags that rely on fiction.

Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking

We're familiar with 'dove' here in the UK. It even appeared in the headline of a recent newspaper article (sorry, no link).


Considering how often the newspapers now just electronically add reports from other countries and use their headlines etc as in the original, it may well have been a US story carried in the UK. This straight unchecked carry-over issue ie so common now it's possible for a hoax to be in major papers around the world within hours of the first publication in some obscure regional or local paper in the back edge of nowhere.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Ernest Bywater

I vaguely remember it being a British political story, but don't take that as gospel (which is ironic, since the gospels aren't gospel).

AJ

richardshagrin

If a person who dives is a diver, would a person who dove be a dover? Like the white cliffs of dover?

Dominions Son

@richardshagrin

All well and good, but what I want to know is why a piano player has a weak bladder. :)

Ross at Play

@richardshagrin

would a person who dove be a dover?

No, but a person who drives cattle is a drover.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ross at Play

No, but a person who drives cattle is a drover.


For some strange reason I keep thinking that there should be a red dog in this joke somewhere.

Roll over.

Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

* CW even posted here 'it's a book about Americans aimed primarily for Americans'.
Seriously? Do you actually think that? Or have you just never thought about it?

When I posted that, I meant I was trying to capture how the Americans in the story would be likely to speak, not that I didn't give a damn what anyone else thought about the story.

However, now that you bring it up, years ago, I used to analyze Google usage reports, to determine the readership of my stories. It was amazing where people read them from (ex: Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, etc.), but at the end of the day, 96% of the readers resided in America, the rest split in England, Australia and Canada, and 'the rest of the world' consisted of, at most, 1 - 2 individual readers, depending on the size of the country.

Given that distribution, yes, it does make sense to address a story to 96% of your market. Gaining another two readers won't significantly change anything, while appeasing the 96% will affect the story.

I still try to make the story enjoyable for everyone, mostly by providing enough context for anyone else to make sense of the story, but abandoning phrases used by 30% of my readers to appease, at most, 1% makes absolutely NO sense!

Finally, when I posted my last example (where I used "dove" in my current story), I was asking how everyone responded to it's use (i.e. did it sound natural, and did the meaning vary depending on usage. Instead, I got a diatribe about American Imperialism, and how American needs to cater to the dictates of every minor constituency with a differing opinion.

I'd used "dove" in that instance because "dived at his head" didn't sound natural, or make a lick of sense (have you ever tasted sense? Not that flavorful.) In that instance, if you'd simply said "I prefer "swooped", because "dove" also sounds wrong, I'd have respected your opinion, but demanding that I drop everything I've ever learned about English just because a small contingent insists it's wrong (a "regional" usage if I've ever heard one), then I'm less likely to pay any attention. In short, you're not adding an opinion, you're simply dictating how I tell stories. NO author wants to be told how to tell their own stories. They might seek advice, but when someone demands they do something, they'll invariable twist the knife, ending with a story about the very people demanding they change the story!

At this point, if you, Ross, quit reading my stories because I used "dove" once out of a dozen books, then frankly, I don't give a damn, since you're being a pissant, and I couldn't change your opinion no matter what I did!

Crumbly Writer

@awnlee jawking

However 'drug' took me surprise when I first saw it, and when editing/proofreading, I would always encourage the author to change it to 'dragged'.

In terms of usage (mostly by newspapers), "drug" often sounds better only when used in instances of "he drug her body through the underbrush to bury it". It has a more sinister, demeaning connotation. In virtually every other instance, it's identical to "dragged" and offers no value over the other usage (hence there's little reason to select it).

In terms of "dove" and "dived", as was discussed earlier, the main distinction is that "dived" is often used for aquatic sporting events, while "dove" more often implies another usage (i.e. it signifies a different usage, so highlights the difference by using a different verb).

Replies:   Grant  Ross at Play
Switch Blayde

For the record, dove/dived has a different connotative meaning than swooped. A Kamikaze pilot wouldn't swoop his plane into a carrier.

By the way, the past tense of "nose dive" is "nose dived" not "nose dove."

Grant
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


"drug" often sounds better only when used in instances of "he drug her body through the underbrush to bury it".


To be honest, it still sounds ridiculous. It actually sounds like something that someone for whom English is their second or third language would say.
Which is why I've been so surprised to see it used here in the way it is.

If you drug a body, you're giving it drugs. If you drag it, you're moving it.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Grant

To be honest, it still sounds ridiculous. It actually sounds like something that someone for whom English is their second or third language would say.
Which is why I've been so surprised to see it used here in the way it is.

I'll admit, I've never used "drug" in a story, nor been tempted to. However, that's the way I've seen it used in newspapers.

As far as "dove" is concerned, "dived at his head" just sounded wrong. You dive into something, not at something.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

I couldn't change your opinion no matter what I did!

Yes, you can. All you need to do is cite ANY evidence that supports your opinions over my assessment of facts.
***
You have asserted (or similar things, more than once here):
* "drug" often sounds better (than "dragged")
* the main distinction is that "dived" is often used for aquatic sporting events, while "dove" more often implies another usage

I assert that relevant facts are:
* "drug" has never existed in the English language as the past tense of drag (beyond dialectic use within limited regions of North America)
* "dove" exists and is considered acceptable as the past tense of dive in North American English, but not in British English
* There are no generally accepted distinctions between "dove" and "dived" within North American English, in either connotations or situations they are used
Show me the money on any of these points, and I will humbly change my opinions!
***
The references I rely upon for evidence are:
Merriam-Webster online dictionariy
Collins online dictionariy
American Heritage Dictionary (online version)
dictionary.com
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Chicago Manual of Style
Wikipedia (English irregular verbs)
***
Not one of the dictionaries even mentions "drug" as a possible form of the verb drag.
CMOS 5.220 dismisses it with as few words as possible, 'drag. Conjugated drag–dragged–dragged. The past form drug is dialectal.
Wikipedia (English Irregular Verbs) has the note 'the form drug is chiefly dialectal'.
This evidence could hardly be news to you. You've seen what others here think about it on this thread, yet still you persist with: "drug" often sounds better. You are the one who is determined to stick to their opinion irrespective of what everybody else thinks.
***
The four American dictionaries all list "dove" (second) as an acceptable form for the past tense of dive.
Not one of them mentions any variations in meaning or usage, despite the American Heritage Dictionary including a long 'usage note' on the origins this variation, and the Merriam-Webster including a long 'usage note' on the regions where the two variations are used more frequently.
The Oxford Dictionary lists it after the note '(North American English also)'
CMOS put their jackboots on (at 5.220) dictating ' The preferred conjugation is dive–dived–dived. The form dove, though common in certain regions and possibly on the rise, has not traditionally been considered good form.'
Wikipedia states 'dive – dived/dove – dived [the form dove is chiefly American]'.
Again, I can find NO EVIDENCE to support the view there is any accepted distinction between them, even among North Americans.
***
If any accepted distinction existed between them, they would certainly be noted somewhere in these references.
All of the references above do make the distinction between people being 'hanged' until death, but for other senses 'hung' is used. All except Merriam-Webster and CMOS make a similar distinction between using 'hove' for nautical settings, but 'heaved' for other senses.
***
I am willing to change my opinions, but for the moment I will accept definitions in five dictionaries over your opinions.

Crumbly Writer
Updated:

@Ross at Play

Again, I'm familiar with the use of "drug", though I don't use it myself. I've seen it in print, and seem to recall it being used in books, though I can't provide any references offhand.

The four American dictionaries all list "dove" (second) as an acceptable form for the past tense of dive.


Being listed as a second definition in most dictionaries is hardly a disqualifier for a legitimate English word. However, my objections to your last response weren't based on references or sources, instead it was with your approach. I specifically asked whether the phrase I used bothered anyone, or whether one usage was any clearer than the other. Instead of answering that question, you go off into left field fielding a shot no one made about American Imperialism and how no one in American respects anyone else in the entire world. That kind of response isn't helpful to anyone.

I'd agreed with most of what was said, but then encountered a situation where I'd used the term, and found it did work better than the alternative. Rather than 'insult everyone else in the world', I asked what the other authors/readers here thought about the situation, asking for a clarification on the one use, not a blanket acceptance of my dictates (something, I should point out, both you and Ernest insisted on several times concerning your own regional uses of language).

If you'd simply said, "No, it still sounds stupid," I would have accepted that and been satisfied, but instead you treated me like a jerk, insisting I can do whatever the hell I feel like regardless of what others feel about it. That's clearly NOT the case, otherwise I wouldn't have asked everyone else's opinion on the matter.

It's time we stopped attacking each other, rather than focusing on the uses of language and writing technique. Just because someone uses a form we aren't familiar with doesn't mean they're evil incarnate! It just means they have a different opinion. Sometimes using different techniques pays off, and I can quote several references when authors have succeeded in using regional American language which other nationalities would have trouble understanding. However, I've also insisted all along that it's necessary to provide context, so readers CAN understand what's being said, even if someone uses a regional expression for whatever reason.

Again, just because someone uses a word or phrase you're unfamiliar with doesn't mean there's a vast conspiracy against you personally! It just means they think they can achieve something by trying something slightly different. Shutting them down and calling them names doesn't help anyone!

So get off your friggin' high horse and quit making ultimatums. My point was: if you can't argue your point, and insist on demanding everyone do things your way, you'll NEVER convince anyone of anything. That's just a stupid way of communicating!

You'll also notice that you and Ernest are again the minority on this forum in this regard. While everyone else says "I've heard the terms used, but I'd still stick to the more easily understood usage", the two of you insist that ANY non-Australian usage is dead wrong under ANY circumstances, yet there's absolutely no basis for such a claim.

Ernest especially has this habit of demanding that anything he wasn't taught in school, decades ago, is by definition, invalid and improper, as if education isn't a fluid thing, and educational practices don't evolve over time.

If any accepted distinction existed between them, they would certainly be noted somewhere in these references.

You and I both know that the last group to accept ANY change in a languages usage are dictionaries. They're forever playing catchup, and often, when they do add new words, they select words that quickly pass out of favor, making them sound like they've got NO intuitive feel for the language. So stating that they don't acknowledge something doesn't mean it's the final word on anything!

The distinction between "dived" and "dove" was mentioned by someone else in this thread, and I was building on that. Again, I wasn't insisting that everyone follow my lead, or that my usage was the only valid use of the term, I was simply asking for clarification on how others interpreted the usage. But again, you're often the last person I'd ask for an opinion from, as if it's not documented three-ways from Sunday, you're uninterested in anyone's opinion!

awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

* "dove" exists and is considered acceptable as the past tense of dive in North American English, but not in British English


I believe it is more widely accepted within British English than your sources suggest.

AJ

Replies:   ustourist
Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


You'll also notice that you and Ernest are again the minority on this forum in this regard. While everyone else says "I've heard the terms used, but I'd still stick to the more easily understood usage", the two of you insist that ANY non-Australian usage is dead wrong under ANY circumstances, yet there's absolutely no basis for such a claim.


I was trying to avoid getting caught up in this again, but since my name has been sued and directly linked with a statement that is not correct, I'm having a short say on this statement, and want to be left out of the rest of this.

At no point have I ever said any non-Australian usage was dead wrong. However, I have reiterated, several times, the use of a slang or colloquial word or usage should be avoided or fully explained at its first usage if you don't want to lose readers by confusing them with words that aren't in general standard usage of the English language. I did also say that using such no standard usage does confuse and annoy many readers because they are not familiar with the regional or colloquial usage and thus they have to stop reading to go back over the sentence a number of times to work out what the author means. I have also often said the aim of an author is to tell their story in clear way, and any word or phrase that isn't immediately clear and obvious to the reader needs to be explained before it's used or immediately it's used. Sadly, where I've seen US authors on SoL use the word dove for the past tense of dive and drug for the past tense of drag they've never bothered to clarify the situation of the usage, and seem to hope the readers will fathom out the meaning of the usage on their own, thus often having the readers unfamiliar with the usage thrown out of the story will they work it out. The same happens with many other regional and colloquial usage words and acronyms - need I go on about the Apple company dance club called IHOP to make the issue clear, or will all you US readers know where to go when I offer to buy at the local Maccas?

I can't speak for what anyone else has said on this matter, and don't wish to even try now.

As to the forum break up, the great majority of the people active on this forum are from the USA or have lived a long time in the USA, and are thus more familiar with colloquial US usage words than those of us who haven't been so exposed to them. The active participants in this forum aren't enough to qualify for an invalid statistical sample, let alone a valid one.

edit to add a thought I just had on this:

When you get one of those 6 x 9 inch print dictionaries for your kids to use they have the common use words, and rarely have the colloquial or archaic words in them. I've a number of dictionaries, two are of the 'school kid' use type, one in US English and one in UK English - neither has dove as the past tense of dive or drug as the past tense of drag. I have a door stopper US English book that does have the word dove as a regional US usage for the past tense of dive. Mind you the two small ones mention thee and ye as archaic forms of you. Yet there are some communities around the world where they still use thee and ye on a daily basis - some of them are in the USA. Yet I'm sure few, if any, of the people in this forum are suggesting we use thee and ye as regular usage words in stories of modern times that aren't set in those communities that use the words on a daily basis.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
ustourist

@awnlee jawking

I would agree it is far more widely used/accepted than dictionaries suggest.

"Dove" is was what I was taught at primary and a good direct grant grammar school in the sixties and it would have been noticeable if my peers used a different word - we came from all over London. Despite what dictionaries may state, it was common usage in the UK at that time, even if not national.

PS: Re other posts... When I referred in an earlier posting to dived being mainly used in a sports context, I was also thinking of football theatricals rather than purely aquatic.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Ernest Bywater

Just a general comment on clarity of word usage and reader responses to them.

A few of my more recent stories are clearly starting in Australia, thus the main character is obviously an Australian, and I usually incorporate something in the content to enhance the Aussie location. Yet, I still got anonymous emails from readers abusing me for not being able to spell because I used words like colour, centre, organise, and other UK spelling. I even got some about how I have the cars on the wrong side of the road for driving events in Australia.

Considering this, is it any wonder I think a certain percentage of readers have a had time understanding any words with more than five letters in them, and thus push for extreme clarity in what you write. There's only one thing left to say about some of them:

"Gaw, blimey, the drongo dingoes are right up themselves, and are thicker than a pile of bricks. I'm off for a feed at Maccas."

ustourist

@Ernest Bywater

I even got some about how I have the cars on the wrong side of the road for driving events in Australia.


Maybe people don't realise that Australians still drive on the correct side of the road? I wonder if any English authors have had the same problem - or those writing stories involving India, Japan or South East Africa, which I believe are the major ones with the original system.

Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

As far as "dove" is concerned, "dived at his head" just sounded wrong. You dive into something, not at something.


If you can't dive at something, you can't dove at something. Dove is simply the past tense of dive, just like dived is.

It sounds funny to you because you're accustomed to dove as the past tense of dive.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

the two of you insist that ANY non-Australian usage is dead wrong under ANY circumstances,

No! I have repeatedly stated here I only have objections to the use of two words where North American and British English differ.
Part of that objection is the spelling of those words that already exist with very different meanings.
The other part of my objection (which you seem unable to comprehend) is there is no difference in the meaning or usage within North America - so then, why not choose the one that is more acceptable elsewhere?

You and I both know that the last group to accept ANY change in a languages usage are dictionaries.

Dove has existed in America since the 1800s. If there was any pattern for preferring one word over the other in particular situations, even dictionaries would have accepted that after 200+ years.
All of the evidence I see suggests the majority would use one or the other in all situations.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

I was trying to avoid getting caught up in this again, but since my name has been sued and directly linked with a statement that is not correct, I'm having a short say on this statement, and want to be left out of the rest of this.

Sorry, Ernest. I didn't really intend you drag you into this personal spat, but I saw a trend among our limited Ausie authors. I wasn't referring to the discussion about these terms, but to the arguments a short time back about the use of dropped quotes, where everyone agree the usage being discussed was valid and widespread, except the two of you, supported by your argument that 'I was never taught that in school' as being your single argument against an international standard.

Since I saw the nonsupport of dropped quotes as being purely a regional usage (you've never seen it, so it's understandable you'd think it wasn't supported), so seeing Ross rant about regional language uses just irked me (especially since he insists I'm railroading readers, when I continually insist on providing context so international readers comprehend whichever terms or phrases are used in stories).

In short, I was responding out of anger at a personal (and inconsistent) dig at myself as an author (instead of discussing the value of the single sentence I was discussing).

need I go on about the Apple company dance club called IHOP to make the issue clear, or will all you US readers know where to go when I offer to buy at the local Maccas?

Nah, you've made the point several times before, and believe me, I've listened and fully agree with you, which is why Ross's claim upset me so much.

In conclusion, I'm sorry for besmirching your name. As I've said multiple times before, I have NO objection over your dislike of the drop quote, as that's a fine choice, especially if you do it consistently.

And yes, I also agree that "dove" isn't a wise choice, especially if I don't define it's usage in the context it's used in. I'll find another word (like "swooped", although I'm already using that often as it is). I just don't like anyone dictating what I'm allowed to write in a story, rather than their arguing why one usage isn't as beneficial as another.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Crumbly Writer

@ustourist

PS: Re other posts... When I referred in an earlier posting to dived being mainly used in a sports context, I was also thinking of football theatricals rather than purely aquatic.

Thanks. I stand corrected, though the 'sports context' makes it more difficult to figure out when to use (since I don't write many sports stories).

Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

Considering this, is it any wonder I think a certain percentage of readers have a had time understanding any words with more than five letters in them, and thus push for extreme clarity in what you write.

I agree, Ernest. The main reason why I abandoned using "dove" is because I couldn't think of any simple way of defining it more easily than I could swap it out for another word entirely. (Though the story takes place in Philadelphia, so I could easily cover it by including other regional phrases (even though it's not frequently used in Phili either.))

Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

It sounds funny to you because you're accustomed to dove as the past tense of dive.

Maybe (undoubtedly?), however, I don't use the term much. It's something from my distant youth, just as "drug" is. I recognize both as valid regional constructs, but there's not my standard usage.

Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

Part of that objection is the spelling of those words that already exist with very different meanings.

As opposed to the dozens of other words with multiple meanings? Sorry, but while I understand why regional usages are suspect, this newest claim is extremely weak, at best.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

As opposed to the dozens of other words with multiple meanings? Sorry, but while I understand why regional usages are suspect, this newest claim is extremely weak, at best.

That is not "new". It is mentioned above.
My post was clearly reiterating this point:
You kept on suggesting dived and dove (dragged and drug) mean different things to North American readers.
I responded to that (rather than your specific enquiry) because the mass of evidence suggests they do not - over 200 years and not one dictionary can find an identifiable pattern worth mentioning.
If that is so, and it does not make any difference to North American readers, why make the choice that is not valid elsewhere?
You are entitled to write for an exclusively North American audience, but please do not object if those from elsewhere resent that when they detect it.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

You are entitled to write for an exclusively North American audience, but please do not object if those from elsewhere resent that when they detect it.

Again, I never did what you're accusing me of. I only vetted the usage, to see what the feedback was. That's something we should all be careful of doing, since nearly every time I include a passage from a potential story, I spend much more time defending the unedited piece rather than getting decent advice (though the advice I receive is tremendously appreciated). We can be a fairly pedantic bunch, but there's really little reason to ask for opinions on a story that's already ready for posting/publishing.

Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

Since I saw the nonsupport of dropped quotes as being purely a regional usage (you've never seen it, so it's understandable you'd think it wasn't supported),


CW,

Can we let this dog lie as well, because we did thrash it to death before. I agreed dropped quotes were appropriate for long quotations but disagreed about using it for dialogue. Although I never use it because the few times I've seen it used in fiction have left the text as being confusing about who said what due to the new speaker - new paragraph rule of dialogue and the absence of such a small cue was extremely easy to miss.

Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

I used to analyze Google usage reports ... 96% of the readers resided in America

I sent to question to Lazeez about that.
If his answer had been over 90% were from US or Canada, I would probably have taken the view that on an almost exclusively North American site I should expect authors to write for an American audience - and would probably have changed over from BrE to AmE myself.
His answer was 76% North American (close to the ratio of populations in US & Canada, compared to UK, Ireland, Australia & NZ.
At that level I do think it is reasonable to resent choices that are:
* Disliked outside North America
* Optional in North America, and close to a toss-up there
* Add no extra meaning for North Americans.
I stress I have not said here I object to anything that is either routine practice for Americans, or adds to meaning in some way (even if the addition to meaning is somewhat regional)

Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

I used to analyze Google usage reports ... 96% of the readers resided in America

I sent to question to Lazeez about that.
If his answer had been over 90% were from US or Canada, I would probably have taken the view that on an almost exclusively North American site I should expect authors to write for an American audience - and would probably have changed over from BrE to AmE myself.
His answer was 76% North American (close to the ratio of populations in US & Canada, compared to UK, Ireland, Australia & NZ.
At that level I do think it is reasonable to resent choices that are:
* Disliked outside North America
* Optional in North America, and close to a toss-up there
* Add no extra meaning for North Americans.
I stress I have not said here I object to anything that is either routine practice for Americans, or adds to meaning in some way (even if the addition to meaning is somewhat regional)

Ross at Play

If I have criticised others for not looking at evidence, I should be willing to point out when I find new evidence that leads me to reconsider my opinion.
When I reopened this I looked at how rare it is for the language to shift from regular to irregular forms. Over very many centuries I could only find four examples of a significant group of people starting to use an irregular form of a verb which had previously been regular. They are:
* werede shifting towarss wore,
* spitede shifting towards spat,
* dived shifting towards dove,
* dragged shifting towards drug.
It is a VERY small group. Although I do not generally resist changes in everyday usage of language (unlike dictionaries and that damnable CMOS), I think it reasonable to think differently about such a small group where the shift is away from the regular form.
***
I trust no one will contest that:
* the transition to wore and spat was completed long ago, and weared or spatted should be considered wrong,
* the use of drug has never extended beyond limited pockets within North America and should be consider wrong,
* the use of dove has become sufficiently widespread in North America so it is a valid alternative to dragged when the audience is North American.
***
That had been the situation for a very long time, but I can see evidence of a new shift that has begun in recent decades - which I would attribute to increases in mass media when people would have begun hearing uses in other regions far more frequently.
***
A few decades ago I think it would have been reasonably viewed in anything not specifically directed at North Americans as (CMOS still puts it) "not good form" My guess, based on evidence, in a few more decades it will probably be used more frequently across most of the world.
***
The comments I have found suggesting a shift is underway are:
* CMOS states "common in certain regions and possibly on the rise",
* The American Heritage Dictionary states "In our 2008 survey 92 percent of the Usage Panel accepted dove and 72 percent accepted dived in the sentence. Keeping their New Year's Day tradition, the L Street Brownies dove/dived into Dorchester Bay this morning. It does not state this, but that appears to infer its acceptance was lower in previous surveys. (The AHD monitors trends by asking large groups of writers the SAME QUESTION in its regular surveys),
* The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (unlike all others I cited) did note "Dove exists in some British dialects", suggesting it began gradually crossing the Atlantic some time ago.
***
My conclusion: Twenty years it was reasonable to maintain an attitude of "I spit on those Yankee imperialist dogs", but it's probably time for me to, with resignation, pencil it in under the word "gay".

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

If I have criticised others for not looking at evidence, I should be willing to point out when I find new evidence that leads me to reconsider my opinion.

Sadly, this entire piece is based on historical changes (i.e. changes that occurred 100 to 200 years ago, as opposed to the more recent onslaught of changes which have occurred over the past twenty years.

Most changes to the English language are fostered by internet use, which means the majority of the world's population are conversing using 'internet English' rather than simply British or American English. In other words, the spellings may change, but most readers across the globe are speaking in terms originating in American culture (movies, videos, marketing companies, media companies, etc.) While 70% of readers are American, and thus 30% are non-American, that doesn't translate to 30% of the stories themselves are non-American (i.e. take place in other parts of the globe. While Ernest typically features adventures of Aussies in American, most authors write stories about Americans in America in order to reach the larger American marketplace. And while the EU has a larger combined market, the English language portion of the EU is restricted to England (not a significant market force in itself).

However, none of that has any bearing on whether "dove" or "drug" is a decent usage, which was what my question was originally about (and which you've NEVER answered!). Instead, you continue to rattle on about American Imperialism, rather than dealing with the issues of writing techniques the rest of us are interested in.

If you think American products are insulting, then restrict your purchases to Aussie or British products. No one is restricting what you choose to read. If more people did that, you'd have a much larger market. However, that doesn't seem to be the trend. Instead, more people worldwide are reading American stories, because more people learn English in order to access information worldwide (which is typically offered in American English).

However, none of that has any bearing on what works in a story and what doesn't!

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


If you think American products are insulting


As I have stated many times here, I have no problems with American spellings, stories with an American character, or expressions which originated in America which have some additional meaning.

I have a problem with two words - the only two words in many centuries where anyone has invented an irregular form of a verb.

One, drug, almost nobody thinks is acceptable.

The other, dove, I see no evidence of any difference in its meaning compared to dived - within America. Outside of America it is still considered wrong to many people (but probably in a few decades it will not be). Show me any evidence the two forms mean something different to Americans and I will happily accept it. Without that, I think authors using it are ignoring a substantial proportion of their readers.

To answer your question explicitly ... I think drug is always an abomination, and dove still poor form for something intended for an international audience.

PotomacBob

@Switch Blayde

A man is hanged for his crimes.
A man is hung if he stars in an SOL story.

richardshagrin

What is the relationship between hung and hunger?

awnlee jawking

@richardshagrin

What is the relationship between hung and hunger?


Bob was left dangling for six hours - he was hung. Tom was left dangling for twelve hours - he was hunger.

Myra hit me with a bar of soap - she doved me!

AJ

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking


Myra hit me with a bar of soap - she doved me!


pronoun needs a capital D

graybyrd

For those of us whose days are now spent marveling at the simple fact that we awakened and are blessed to exhale warm air: we've little time left to ponder the inexorable fact that language differences persist between various regions. Hardly seems worth the endless 'kerfuffle' over small things.

Speaking of things small and some not so small, there's an old Appalachian joke about a family at dinner.

"Hey, Ma... don't you think its about time we put some pants on Junior?"

"Dunno, Pa. What's yer concern?"

"Well, Suzie asked him to pass the cornbread. Didn't you notice what he drug through the gravy when he leaned over the table?"

Yeh... that word. Drug.

Crumbly Writer

@richardshagrin

What is the relationship between hung and hunger?

Hunger is what all the straight women (and gay men) feel when they encounter someone who's hung.

Back to Top