The Phantom Thread Snatcher

RP578

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
Dr Evil,

Your previous thread appears to be in the hole and I can't seem to post on it further. So to answer your question:

Dr_Evil said:
* splutter *

I'm not quoting Mr Gates and his Micro-soft at you, old boy.

You say "strove" is only a simple past participle. So, let's just be clear here, are you saying that "I strove to defeat Uncle Adolf" is wrong or - worse - American?
No, it's not wrong. In British English the word 'strove' is a simple past tense and 'striven' is the past participle' of 'to strive'. 'Strived' can be used as both simple past and past participle.

In American English, 'strived' is not recognised (or even recognized) and only 'strove' and 'striven' are used. Hope this helps and good luck with your A Levels 'old boy'!

Mods/phantom, feel free to move or erase as applicable.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
RP578 said:
Dr Evil,

Your previous thread appears to be in the hole and I can't seem to post on it further. So to answer your question:

Dr_Evil said:
* splutter *

I'm not quoting Mr Gates and his Micro-soft at you, old boy.

You say "strove" is only a simple past participle. So, let's just be clear here, are you saying that "I strove to defeat Uncle Adolf" is wrong or - worse - American?
No, it's not wrong. In British English the word 'strove' is a simple past tense and 'striven' is the past participle' of 'to strive'. 'Strived' can be used as both simple past and past participle.

In American English, 'strived' is not recognised (or even recognized) and only 'strove' and 'striven' are used. Hope this helps and good luck with your A Levels 'old boy'!

Mods/phantom, feel free to move or erase as applicable.
This would suggest sir that you are actually a luddite for not taking into consideration that both Americanese and English are living languages, and that the so-called 'rules' of those who created our dictionaries and thesauri where merely Victorians and those who passed before who were striving, or who strove to formalise a language construed out of myriad older languages and rules.

The truth is, they didn't do a very good job. Luckily, our language continues to evolve and flourish, and the rules are even today being re-written by the yoof that follows. Gr8 eh?

For words that you say are not recognised; by what fine body are they not recognised? The same that now recognise 'Franglais' for example?

How would Shakespear get on today if he had to follow all these horrible rules? What about that Scottish chap in the Victorian age who wrote those poems so beloved of Queen Victoria? Should we correct him too?
 
#7
By the way, I am dismayed that a genuine attempt to slag off bogus bling - OK, on a somewhat shaky grammatical basis - has become a Melvyn Bragg face-off which lives under constant fear of being zapped by the Thread Overlords. It's like living in Iran, only without the jokes.
 

RP578

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
Biped,

Not at all, I am anything but a grammar Nazi ('Grazi'). In the original thread, Dr_E thought that the word 'strived' was bad grammar or even fictious. I merely pointed out that it does exist and was used correctly. The bit about the American versus British English was to show why the word gets highlighted as incorrect by Spellcheck.

Dr_Evil, you are of course correct. The bling is a load of shiny manure.
 

Latest Threads