Forum: Author Hangout

Actually, that comment is based on the much older Imperial vs. American English, so for the Brits, the sudden popularity of American best-sellers upset ALL their ancient 'rules' of standard English. And of course, once American movies started being show worldwide, their influence one British culture only worsened.

Thus, for them, it was a 'random' irregular usage suddenly becoming popular, yet for Americans, they'd been using that irregular usage even since the first recorded American dictionary (which was pretty much a hodgepodge, incredibly inconsistent effort).

P.S. I've always been a longtime history fan, particularly interested in what history conveniently sweeps under the rug, so I'm always driven by those odd bits of history.

Yep, yet several years ago, most U.S. dictionaries all seemed to switch over to the Imperial "sneaked", so it's still in use (by us old fogies) yet for most younger people, they were never familiar with the term, and thus never use it at all.

Still, it's nice knowing I'm not the only old-time still lingering around here. ;)

That said, does anyone have an opinion on the sounds of the term, other than it's general usage patterns, as the "snuck" simply sounds more 'sneaky', while sneaked doesn't, which is why I prefer it, as there's certain lyric magic to onomatopoeia words, like "slush" (sounding like someone sliding across wet, partially melted snow), they just sound more pleasing to the ear, since they match the meaning so well.

most U.S. dictionaries all seemed to switch over to the Imperial "sneaked"

I switched to "dived" from "dove" because of Ernest Bywater. He was so adamant about "dove" being a bird that I was afraid other non-Americans would have a problem with it.

I switched to "dived" from "dove" because of Ernest Bywater. He was so adamant about "dove" being a bird that I was afraid other non-Americans would have a problem with it.

No problem with 'dove' from this non-American. Apart, perhaps, from in the context of football. "Ronaldo dove to win a free kick but the referee spotted the simulation and gave him a yellow card" sounds wrong to my ear.

AJ

I can agree with that on a general level, yet in most cases, the context for the usage is more than abundantly clear (plus, it's mostly a matter of Imperial vs. American English usage), as the Brit's have never used the American verb "dove", like most widespread American terms frequently found in American best-selling novels, films and series.

For them, it's simply 'unacceptable' rather than merely a different story setting issue. And oddly, I use the term 'Imperial', because the same focus on language rarely affects the other English language variants (Canadian, Australian or even New Zealand English variants (mostly accepts and local spellings).

Which is why I try to research the Etymology (a word's origin and history) of American vs. British usages, to see how different readers are likely to misinterpret words. I rarely catch them all, yet it's best to catch whatever mistakes you can. ;)

That's part of my reason for asking, just to get a general overview, of who and how many comfortable with each, who's utterly outraged by the very concept, in addition to who are simply 'traditionalists' (i.e. Europeans who resent ANY irregular American usage, even if they're in a story set entirely in America.

Obviously, there's no way we can please everyone, but having a decent idea of where the various sides are, make swimming such treacherous shoals more manageably.

As you can see so far, the attitudes fairly clearly cleft along language ties (British or 'Imperial' English and American English) which again is fine, as most prefer reading 'familiar' tales rather than those who dislike reading about an unfamiliar culture they know nothing about. I'm in the middle on this last one, as I started reading the classics, so I'm more used to the older-styled, more ancient stories than I am the shorter, simpler to read 'modern' styles, plus I've spent considerable time traveling to various countries (more around Europe than I have in England itself).

Thus, this isn't discussing 'weird variants', it's more a discussion or norm and just where those particular line lie, so we can all more easily navigate them.

And, if anyone dislikes my particular writing style (which seems to include a LOT of people, than they're more than free to NOT read them. As, despite my far-ranging travels, I've always lived in American, and thus simply don't feel as familiar with describing life in other places.

Then again, rather than posting squick warnings (all those sexual kinks we cater to that others may take exception to), maybe we each should start posting which versions of English we're more comfortable with. Again, I'm not sure at this point, yet I figure it's better to open discussions, rather than writing 'into' the darkness, never quite knowing how readers will react to our particular writing styles.

By the way, onomatopoeias are not just irregular words, it's a literary device where the words, sounding like what they're describing, are thus more powerful than most 'normal' (regular) words. (I've always been a fan of literary devices, as I prefer to view my writing as being more 'literary' rather than just plain fictional 'stories'.

In modern terms, those are now thought of 'action' and 'passive' verbs, where action verbs convey a direct action, while passive merely describes them indirectly. Thus many 'be' verbs are passive because that's how "be" is often used (ex: "He will be taller, soon enough.").

It's a much more recent phrasing of the terms, so it's one which we first learned English when young often miss entirely. Still, they reflect the same 'strong'/'weak' sentiment/understanding, just phrased differently.

Though again, "snuck" was only the original form in American English, as under the older Imperial English, is was never accepted, yet most Brits easily understand it, given the sheer dominance of American literature, films and streaming services. Thus it's mostly a purely intellectual cultural difference, which itself is a very strange concept, one which the intellectuals will argue to death, but virtually no one else even notices anymore.

Amazing. Everything you just said is wrong.

Yet, according to you, the entire thread is baseless, so you're hardly an objective opinion on the subject. No offense, but your position on the topic is abundantly clear at this point. Which again, I understand from your perspective, yet it's hardly everyone else's perspective.

You do make a strong case, as I've been viewing it entirely as American English vs. Imperial British English, yet since I spend so much time looking up etymologies, I was familiar with many of those older usages, just never linking them to the current irregular verbs.

The best example I know of

people are instinctively attempting to follow inflection rules that they don't consciously understand.

The verb "bring" was a weak verb in Old English, so the official past participle has always been "brought" (or its ancestors), but examples of "brung" appear a thousand years ago. I am sure that it is the common form in some dialects, but children raised in other dialects still re-invent "brung."

As for the two verbs that are both ancestors of "dive," I believe that the strong verb, which gives us the past tense "dove," was the intransitive one that most closely matches the modern meaning. For example, "I dove into the deep end of the pool." The weak verb, giving the past tense "dived," was transitive. It was the causative version, which meant "to submerge something or someone." So you might say, "I dived the hot turnip into a bowl of cold water." That is, the two verbs were related like "lie" and "lay". The reason for the two past tenses today seems to be that they got confused in the same way that modern speakers confuse "lie" and "lay."

Now that makes sense, as I've seen multiple examples of both the examples and also the tendencies underlying them, including "brung" which demonstrates just how natural the usage is (more natural than either dove or dived, which seems pretty well slit down the middle, and thus more a case of personal preference.

I'm glad we finally shifted the discussion away from cultural backgrounds/origins and back into which verbs are more natural to use by default.

Yep, precisely the issues you'd see by researching the words etymology, which is WHY I always actively follow them, mainly to determine how many different ways a given word might be misunderstood by various readers.

Which is actually helped by my utter inability to spell, as I ALSO need to verify my spelling constantly, so looking things up is what I spend most my writing time doing! Thus rather than researching it once and remembering it forever after, my memory of more of a slive (see the Urban dictionary for the proper reference to 'liquid measurements'), with the memories rushing out as fast as they flow in.

When your mind is as problematic as mine is, you have to go the long way to achieve much of anything, which is the beauty and the curse of most 'Beautiful Minds'. I can't help thinking differently, but because I do, I tend to notice the patterns that everyone else misses too, which also helps my writing, in its own odd, particular way.

Old English had what are called "weak" and "strong" verbs.

I've heard the terms "weak" and "strong" verbs as relating to writing fiction. It said a weak verb requires an adverb. So "ran" is a weak verb that requires an adverb such as "quickly." But strong verbs, like "sprinted" and "raced" don't require an adverb.

Yeah, given their history (development) I consider those 'active' and 'inactive' verbs, as one conveys the action taking place, while the other only indirectly references it, thus needed a qualifier to make the point for it (i.e. inactive verbs are simply too feeble to doing anything on their own).

Thus, the nomenclature often confuses, rather than making the point as it should.

So "ran" is a weak verb that requires an adverb such as "quickly."

The expert who used to run the local Writers' Group would disagree with that. He used to ask how someone could run slowly.

ETA he also had a thing against 'started to run'. What does that mean - is the person running or not?

AJ

'started to run'. What does that mean - is the person running or not?

It's a point in time. In this case, he just started to run. Is he running? Depends what comes next.

"He started to run when his untied shoelace caused him to fall." (he's no longer running)

"He started to run when his phone rang. Slowing down only a little, he dug his phone out of his pocket to check who it was." (he's still running)

"He started to run when a cramp in his calf caused him to limp the rest of the way." (no longer running, but still going to wherever)

I think the expert's complaint was that people use "started" when the word shouldn't be there. I see it in SOL stories all the time. But there is a place for it.

And, yes, you can run slowly. It's called trotting or jogging.

And sneaky doves are the worst! ;)

Shakes his head yes. Try nodded.

shakes/shook his head is saying "no."
nods/nodded his head is saying "yes."

I see shaking his head meaning side to side (no) and nodding meaning up and down (yes).

Ditto. SMH (Shaking my head) is even text-speak for disapproval / disbelief.

Nodding is agreement.

They're opposites.

Knelt is good, kneeled is awkward.

I have this bad feeling I used something I'm now calling 'awkward' somewhere and someone will point it out, but it probably read well to me at the time ...

Knelt is good, kneeled is awkward.

Ah, but do you use "spelt" or "spelled"?

ETA: Did an ngram on it and got the strangest results I ever saw on ngram. I chose 1800–2022 as the dates.

In the beginning, "spelt" had a slight edge with both rising. Then they crossed in 1894 where "spelled" rose sharply while "spelt" remained rather constant with a slight decline. But then in 2004, "spelt" took a nosedive and it was basically zero in 2012 and on. However, in 2004, "spelled" took an even sharper nosedive and was also zero in 2012 and on.

Ah, but do you use "spelt" or "spelled"?

Dwelt or dwelled?
Felt or feeled?
Belt or belled? (Just kidding)

I'm surprised 'spelt' isn't increasing. Isn't spelt flour something trendy-wendies use as part of their paleo diet or whatever?

AJ

In most cases, readers will give authors/novelists a full three chapters to establish not only the rules of a given universe, but also to establish their own, unique style of writing. This is known as the 'grace period' for authors, as if you violate those rules later in the story, they'll likely rake you over the coals for it. Thus, in most cases, consistency is much more important than varying, conflicting publishing or writing standards.

This is VERY common in Sci-Fi and Fantasy stories, where they often take place in other cultures, frequently non-human ones.

Shakes his head yes. Try nodded.

That's sensible, yet certain cultures do the reverse, so it's mostly a regional usage. That won't affect most fiction (most are non-English speaking), where the location is readily apparent, yet again, anytime readers are likely to misinterpret things is worth limiting such misunderstandings (limit, not eliminate entirely)..

That's why it's best to lay "spelled" to the side, so readers won't trip over it, as there's no sense lying about it. ;)

I already snuck into her room.

:)

Personally, in that, I personally prefer "slinked"/"slunk" or even "slithered" into her room, as again, it just sounds more natural/lyrical. As again, the sound of "snuck" contradicts the implied effect, so the word needs to be somewhat silent (i.e. the hard 'k' sound at the end is a bit too startling).

But again, sales patterns do change over time, and as previously noted, the current SOL readers are different than the older ones, so they may respond differently too. Still, my current SOL sales do indicate the same patterns apply (20 to 25% of projected sales).

The past tense of the candy bar ("snick" vs. "snuck"). ;)

I love these 'punny' conversations! I rarely get to play with puns in my writing, yet here, potential puns pop up regularly.