News University | Today's most popular courses on NewsU, Poynter's e-learning site for journalists. |
| |
Webinars | Our online classroom is just a click away. Learn more. | |
|
|
 
Romenesko
Latest News
Reporting
& Writing
Ethics &
Diversity
Leadership
& Business
Visual
Journalism
Online &
Technology
TV &
Radio
Journalism
Education
|
Article Feedback
View all Ask Dr. Ink feedback
Doc Juggles Words
(Read the Article)
Post Feedback |
Feedback Guidelines |
Report Feedback Abuse
Page 1 of 1
Dive vs Dove The final word
Posted by
james gooding
12/30/2004 11:57:30 PM
Either dove or dived is acceptable as the past tense of dive. Usage preferences show regional distribution, although both forms are heard through...
Either dove or dived is acceptable as the past tense of dive. Usage preferences show regional distribution, although both forms are heard throughout the United States. According to the Dictionary of American Regional English, in the North, dove is more prevalent; in the South Midland, dived. Dived is actually the earlier form, and the emergence of dove may appear anomalous in light of the general tendencies of change in English verb forms. Old English had two classes of verbs: strong verbs, whose past tense was indicated by a change in their vowel (a process that survives in such present-day English verbs as drive/drove or fling/flung); and weak verbs, whose past was formed with a suffix related to -ed in Modern English (as in present-day English live/lived and move/moved). Since the Old English period, many verbs have changed from the strong pattern to the weak one; for example, the past tense of step, formerly stop, became stepped. Over the years, in fact, the weak pattern has become so prevalent that we use the term regular to refer to verbs that form their past tense by suffixation of -ed. However, there have occasionally been changes in the other direction: the past tense of wear, now wore, was once werede, and that of spit, now spat, was once spitede. The development of dove is an additional example of the small group of verbs that have swum against the historical tide.
To remove/grant the right to vote
Posted by
Kristy Howell
8/24/2004 4:57:59 PM
I come to this column as an historian and logophile, disgusted with use of the word "disenfranchise." As my husband and I will soon teach...
I come to this column as an historian and logophile, disgusted with use of the word "disenfranchise." As my husband and I will soon teach a class on the importance of voter registration, I need the final word, as it were, on the franchise.
An aged copy of the OED states that disenfranchise is substandard, while more recent editions (not to mention newspeople) use the word as a synonym of disfranchise. Bancroft prize-winning historian Neil McMillen refused to read any paper containing the offending word. In my own grading, I mark the student down for each use after a lengthy explanation. After reading a recent article in the Progressive where "disenfranchising" was discussed, I wrote a letter to the editor, lamenting his ignorance of the language. He replied that "disfranchise" (the PROPER word) is too "arch" and he prefered "the vulgate". However, I contend "disenfranchise" is still substandard English!
What can one do in this situation? It seems this nonsensical word has made it into the international lexicon. Is there any way to get it out?
words
Posted by
Grace Kirk
8/14/2003 7:07:56 PM
I have two questions that deserves answers.
Should a sentence begin with the structure: 'Never has so many....' This seems an odd way to star...
I have two questions that deserves answers.
Should a sentence begin with the structure: 'Never has so many....' This seems an odd way to start a sentence. First, the word 'never' appears a rather negative way to begin a lead. Second, my dictionary lists 'never' as an adverb. Third, I have read theories that state the agent should be the subject. Why are newspapers filled with passive sentences? Journalism Websites suggest avoiding the words such as was, are, were and is.
How about this sentence: The best way ......(preposition followed by preposition) .... is to challenge.
With the agent theory, I would suggest the following sentence. Democrats must challenge President Bush's political policies if they plan to dominate the White House in 2004. The best way phrase is nothing but a cliche and deserves the hatchet.
Only God can save today's newspapers; the advertisers run the news business and they can't write themselves out of a wet paper bag.
Sorry, I committed two journalism sins. I wrote a negative comment about the news business, and I used a cliche.
Tsk Tsk
Posted by
Christina Littlefield
8/14/2003 2:58:33 PM
Dr. Ink,
It is dived, not dove. Dove is an improper usage of the past term of dive, so commonly used now it is accepted...
Dr. Ink,
It is dived, not dove. Dove is an improper usage of the past term of dive, so commonly used now it is accepted by the masses. It is similar to using "snuck" instead of "sneaked" for the past tense of sneak. Using "snuck" and "dove" is like using other slang terms, such as "ain't." My 10th grade English teacher literally beat this into my whole class, chasing us with rolled up newspapers when we wrote things wrong on purpose to mess with her. I told her that Mark Twain used slang all the time and that she was making us write papers on him, so she countered that when I wrote as well as Mark Twain I could use slang too. But I have never forgotten that grammar rule, nor the requirement to put commas inside quotation marks on almost all usages.
But I also became a journalist to ignore some of the more anal English grammar rules, such as the regulation against ever starting a sentence with the word "but." Still, I was disappointed that you only told the reader that "dived" was the more formal and that "dived" and "dove" could be used interchangeably.
Disfranchise
Posted by
Justin Carinci
8/14/2003 2:37:54 PM
strikes me as a much less silly word than "disenfranchise," when you think about it. The latter brings up thoughts of "misunderestimate."
strikes me as a much less silly word than "disenfranchise," when you think about it. The latter brings up thoughts of "misunderestimate."
Bonkers defined
Posted by
Mike Janssen
8/14/2003 10:44:48 AM
Bonkers -- n. A short-lived, chewy, two-toned candy of the 1980s.
Bonkers -- n. A short-lived, chewy, two-toned candy of the 1980s.
Page 1 of 1
View all Ask Dr. Ink feedback
|
|
