Dived agin Dove

In the week gone by, I've bumped into the dived agin dove controversy more than once. While it is funny to see pedants get all worked up about it, it is time to put this to bed. 


In English there are two basic types of verbs: strong and weak. A strong verb is one that as a stem vowel change in the past tense or past participle: dive → dove. A weak verb is one that adds 'd' or 'ed': dive → dived. Some verbs, like dive, have both forms and thus the controversy.


How we came to this point only highlights a fundamental problem. That problem is how English has been treated since the Norman-French Takeover of England in 1066. I touch on this mindset in this writ. While Latin is taught and encouraged in our schools, Anglo-Saxon (Old English) is ignored below the university level and even then only taken by those who wish to read old texts in their Anglo-Saxon/Old English form. In the meantime, we lose more Anglo-root words to their Latinate counterparts and we have fundamental gaps in the knowledge of English that lead to controversies like this one.


The common mythos is that Americans made up dove as a past tense based on the drive → drove model. This myth is so strong that one sees it in wordbooks and even in academic papers. While, as an American, I'd like to take credit for that, the onefold truth is that isn't so. Dove has been about a lot longer than that. 


That has happened with many words and a lot of usage. The US, not always, but often keeps the older words, the older forms, and the older usage. So which form is the correct one?


In Old English the verb dive had two forms, altho strongly akin they had slightly sunder uses: the strong, class II form dufan had a past participle of dofen (OE didn't have the letter 'v' so here, f=v ... doven). The strong form was intransitive which is how the verb is mainly used today. From dufan we get dive, dove, doven.


The weak form, dyfan, was transitive (meaning to dip something). Thus dufan/dyfan were like lie/lay, rise/raise, sit/set, and fall/fell. The 'y' in OE was pronounced as ü so you can see the alikeness in pronunciation. From the weak form dyfan we get dive, dived, dived.


In the UK the weak form survived, but with an intransitive meaning, however, American English also keeps the strong form.


Nowadays, dove is also listed as a past participle instead of doven. But to say, "I had dove" requires, to me, an unnatural stop, it just begs for an ending. I have trouble saying, "I had dove" without saying either "doved" or "doven". We know that doved is wrong so I use doven which not only fits the wove, woven pattern but is historically correct from dufan.


We also see this form in other related words. For byspel, from the past participle of the archaic bedive (immerse, submerge, drown) there is also the word bedoven, meaning drenched or drowned. He was bedoven in sweat.


So there it is. Dive is a result of the blending of the usages of dufan and dyfan. For those pendants whose brains must put everything in its own little box, then if you use dive as an intransitive verb then use dive, dove, doven. But for the rest of us, it doesn't matter so much. We can accept that there are two legitimate forms for the past tense.


So use dive, dived, dived or dive, dove, doven without angst!


If you want to have fun ... check out glide. It not only has a weak and a strong form, it has two strong forms! And they're all correct! It would be hard to go wrong with the past tense of glide but yet, even tho it has three past tense forms, it doesn't seem to be controversial.


Snuck is another post ...

What Does Umbe Mean?

Umbe? What is “umbe” you ask? And, more importantly, why should you care? It was once a very well known and well used preposition that I have chosen as a byspel to highlight the fettle of the English tung. Oh I’m not here to sound off about where a comma should or shouldn’t go or to moan about the usage of a flat adverb or an -ly adverb. There are enuff pedantic grammarians to do that.

I know, alreddy you scoffing at me for my spelling. Why should you bother with someone who writes “enuff”, “alreddy”, and “tung”? ... And, oh the horror, I put my commas outside of the quotes! Let me sidetrack here for a moment. If someone can justify the use of the “ough” cluster for the ‘o’ or ‘u’ sound, then I might think about it. Otherwise, it is enuff, tuff, thru, tho, and altho for me. The “ough” cluster needs to go the way of the dodo bird. While there may be a few reasons here or there for having ‘ea’ to be both ‘ee” and ‘ĕ’, overall, it should be one or the other. I chose for it to be ‘ee’ as in meat, beat, seat, asf. Thus I write reddy and alreddy. And tung ... truly, can you justify “tongue”? ... What’s up with that “ue” at the end? In Old English it was tunge and the ‘e’ was pronounced. So let’s drop the ‘ue’ and change the ‘o’ back to the ‘u’. OK, that’s enuff for spelling. I may do a whole blog on that later.

Are you still wondering what umbe means? If you tried the Oxford Dictionary online, it doesn’t show up. If you try Merriam-Webster’s, you need a paid subscription but at least you know it exists. Wiktionary has it. But then, anyone could have put that in. Albeit, the administrators do a good job of keeping out made-up words. You can find an old Webster’s online and find it there. If you’re waiting for me, then it simply means “around or about”. Thus, I can walk umbe the house.

So why should you care about umbe? Why not just use “around”? There are two reasons that I can think of.

First, not only is umbe a standalone preposition, it also works as a forefast (prefix) either whole, umbe-, or in its shortened form of um- or sometimes umb-. You can still find it in a few words that are still clinging to life: umbeset (to surround), umbecast (to cast about), umthink (bethink, meditate, consider), umgang (circuit). It has the same meaning as its German sibling um- and appears in the loanword umwelt (environment). This is a useful forefast that should not be put into the dustbin named “archaic”.

The second reason is more philosophical. English, at its heart and roots, is a Germanic tung. However, it was forever altered on that fateful day nearly a thousand years ago in the year 1066 when the skull of King Harold of the Saxons was thirled thru the eye by an arrow while likely only about 30 minutes from victory at the Battle of Senlac Ridge (Hastings). I won’t go into the battle here, it is enuff to know that in the following confusion the Norman-French won and took over England. The following uprisings were brutally and bloodily suppressed. For about the next 100 years, for all practical purposes, English as a written language ceased to exist. (Kemmer)

Worse than the words that were introduced that would eventually take the place of their Saxon counterparts, was the mindset that the Saxon tung (English) was inferior to French and Latin and suitable only for the peasants. Centuries later we still see this attitude presented:

"The every-day vocabulary of the less educated is of Old English, commonly called Anglo-Saxon, origin ..." from the opening of The Romance of Words, 1912, Chapter 1.

Even today, if one writes a paper or a book, huru in academia, there is a strong bias towards using Latinates as if the use of these words somehow implies a higher level of intelligence. This is not new and there have been several backlashes against Latinates from the resistance to inkhorn terms to the nowadays attempts at Anglish. Indeed, George Orwell wrote about it in 1946:

"Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, subaqueous, and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon numbers." George Orwell Politics and the English Language (1946)

I can hear you now ... but, but, but ... YOU are using Latinates in this blog! Yes, I am and sadly so. I’ve peppered in a few more Anglo words instead of Latinates ... Did you know them? Kudos if you knew or even guessed the meaning of huru (It means "especially" ... from Old English húru).

Only for the sake of it, let’s rewrite this in Anglish with the following fettles (conditions): No aft-1066 Latinates aside from the quotes and grammar terms like preposition. For this, the meaning of a Latinate is a word with Latin root. So you’ll know before we begin, problem has a Greek root.

---


In Anglish:

Umbe? What is “umbe” you ask? And, mainly, why should you care? It was once a very well known and well brooked preposition that I have chosen as a byspel to highlight the fettle of the English tung. Oh I’m not here to sound off about where a comma should or shouldn’t go or to moan about the brooking of a flat adverb or an -ly adverb. There are enuff fussy grammarians to do that.

I know, alreddy you scoffing at me for my spelling. Why should you bother with someone who writes “enuff”, “alreddy”, and “tung”? ... And, oh the shock, I put my commas outside of the quotes! Let me sidetrack here for a moment. If someone can give grounds for the brooking of the “ough” cluster for the ‘o’ or ‘u’ sound, then I might think about it. Otherwise, it is enuff, tuff, ruff, thru, tho, and altho for me. The “ough” cluster needs to go the way of the dodo bird. While there may be a few sakes here or there for having ‘ea’ to be both ‘ee” and ‘ĕ’, overall, it should be one or the other. I chose for it to be ‘ee’ as in meat, beat, seat, asf. Therefore I write reddy and alreddy. And tung ... Truly, can you answer for “tongue”? ... What’s up with that “ue” at the end? In Old English it was tunge and the ‘e’ was said. So let’s drop the ‘ue’ and change the ‘o’ back to the ‘u’. OK, that’s enuff for spelling. I may do a whole blog on that later.

Are you still wondering what umbe means? If you tried the Oxford Dictionary online, it doesn’t show up. If you try Merriam-Webster’s, you need to give gelt for an underwriting but at least you know it can be found there. Wiktionary has it. But then, anyone could have put that in. Albeit, the reeves are truly good at keeping out made-up words. You can find an old Webster’s online and find it there. If you’re waiting for me, then it anfaldly (onefoldly) means “around or about”. Thus, I can walk umbe the house.

So why should you care about umbe? Why not just brook “around”? There are two thoughts that come to mind.

First, not only is umbe a standalone preposition, it also works as a forefast either whole, umbe-, or in its shortened form of um- or sometimes umb-. You can still find it in a few words that are still clinging to life: umbeset, umbecast, umthink, umgang. It has the same meaning as its German sibling um- and shows up in the loanword umwelt. This is a brookful forefast that should not be put into the dustbin named “archaic”.

The second sake is more thoughtful, more of the mind. English, at its heart and roots, is a Germanic tung. However, this was forever changed on that wanweird day nearly a thousand years ago in the year 1066 when King Harold of the Saxons skull was thirled thru the eye by an arrow while likely only about 30 minutes from winning at the Battle of Senlac Ridge (Hastings). I won’t go into the fight here, it is enuff to know that in the following bewilderment the Norman-French won and took over England. The following uprisings were ruthfully and bloodily put down. For about the next 100 years, for all things, English as a written tung came to an end. (Kemmer)

Worse than the words that were brought in that would, in time, take the sted of their Saxon matches, was the mindset that the Saxon tung (English) was beneath French and Latin and good only for the peasants. Hundred-years later we still see this mindset put forth, 

"The every-day vocabulary of the less educated is of Old English, commonly called Anglo-Saxon, origin ..." from the opening of The Romance of Words, 1912, Chapter 1.

Even today, if one writes a paper or a book, huru in higher learning, there is a strong unfairness towards using Latinates as if the brook of these words somehow hints at a higher rank of smartness. This is not new and there have been sundry backlashes against Latinates from the gainstand to inkhorn words to the nowadays tries at Anglish. Indeed, George Orwell wrote about it in 1946:

"Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, subaqueous, and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon numbers." George Orwell Politics and the English Language (1946)

---

There, now that wasn’t so hard ... but liken the two ways of writing. You tell me ... Do you like one more than the other? And why?


Marks
Latinates


I'll list them here later