Forum: Editors/Reviewers Hangout

otherwise it would be dove 'into',

I caught that also. :)

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

As was I.

AJ

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".

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

"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.

"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.

"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." :(

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Not if pancakes were included.

bb

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."

Is it making a comeback?

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

bb

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.

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.

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

AJ

Yes, my dictionary and I agree with you.

AJ

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."

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!").

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

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.

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".

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).

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?)

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.

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).

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.

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.

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)

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!)

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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'.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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)?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

* "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

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).

* 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!

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.))

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!

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

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

pronoun needs a capital D

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.