sigh...now the NY Times can't even master the past participle?

[tesseract]

From this (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/sports/olympics/03swim.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin) story: As Phelps Sulks, His Runner-Up Celebrates

His 47.92 clocking would have broken the American record had he swam it one day earlier; instead, it left him third behind Garrett Weber-Gale (47.78) and Jason Lezak (48.15), who lowered the mark in consecutive heats before Phelps swam. I can deal with it when people in the supermarket don't use it right -- and yeah, it's not that important, in the whole scheme of things -- compared to Darfur, say, or the economy -- but the NY Times? C'mon...

[GuanoLad]

First one should be "swum", second should remain "swam"? Am I right?

To be honest, that has always confused me; I'm not surprised if it confounds others too.

And the more people do it wrong, the more it becomes the new standard.

[Baldwin]

I'd be happy if the folks at my local paper (the Journal-Constitution, Atlanta's one and only major daily paper) would just stop using dangling modifiers.

[Derleth]

First one should be "swum", second should remain "swam"? Am I right?Are you joking? No, apparently not. Apparently, some people use 'swum' and have even put it in a few dictionaries. I've never heard or used it once in my entire life, but there it is. And the more people do it wrong, the more it becomes the new standard.This, on the other hand, makes perfect sense.

[Sailboat]

Is the complaint about "swam" or about "his clocking"?

Sailboat

[gigi]

I'd be happy if the folks at my local paper (the Journal-Constitution, Atlanta's one and only major daily paper) would just stop using dangling modifiers.
After swimming, the clock displayed a new record.

Or is that a misplaced modifier?

[E. Thorp]

Reminds me of people I knew in college who would say things like "I haven't drank since Tuesday."

Who'd'a thunk it?

[Airman Doors, USAF]

And the more people do it wrong, the more it becomes the new standard.

Thank God for "living" languages. Not literate? Wait a bit and you will be, with a dictionary to prove it. :rolleyes:

[Little Plastic Ninja]

His 47.92 clocking would have broken the American record had he swam it one day earlier; instead, it left him third behind Garrett Weber-Gale (47.78) and Jason Lezak (48.15), who lowered the mark in consecutive heats before Phelps swam.

I would have avoided the past participle in favor of a rewrite:

"His time of 47.92 would have broken the American record even one day earlier. Instead, it left him third..." etc.

Why use a complicated structure when a simpler one will do, and do better?

[Interrobang!?]

Thank God for "living" languages. Not literate? Wait a bit and you will be, with a dictionary to prove it. :rolleyes: I just checked the OED and dictionary.com, and neither of them gives a definition for "literate" that means "able to perfectly use grammar."

So your comment doesn't make sense yet, but I'm sure if you wait a few years we'll be able to understand you.

[zweisamkeit]

Are you joking? No, apparently not. Apparently, some people use 'swum' and have even put it in a few dictionaries. I've never heard or used it once in my entire life, but there it is.


And with all your snarky sarcasm, you couldn't be bothered to maybe explain what the problem is, since you just can't beLIEVE that someone didn't know? :rolleyes:

[Airman Doors, USAF]

I just checked the OED and dictionary.com, and neither of them gives a definition for "literate" that means "able to perfectly use grammar."

So your comment doesn't make sense yet, but I'm sure if you wait a few years we'll be able to understand you.

You're absolutely right. Please, by all means, continue fighting the good fight. I for one cannot wait until "LOL" is acceptable usage everywhere.

Or, just perhaps, we can criticize people who do not use grammar and punctuation correctly in the hopes that we can teach them the correct usage, therefore forestalling the inevitable devolution of English and submitting to idiocy.

[tesseract]

First one should be "swum", second should remain "swam"? Am I right?

To be honest, that has always confused me; I'm not surprised if it confounds others too.

And the more people do it wrong, the more it becomes the new standard. Yeah, the first one should be swum. Maybe I shoulda noted that. Like I say, when Joe Blow doesn't always get the rules right, that's one thing. But for those who get to write stories for the FRONT PAGE of the NY Times, shouldn't a mastery of all the basic rules sort of be a prerequisite?

Am I getting whoosed by Zweisamkeit, or does he really think there's no such thing as swum? I don't get that comment...

[ouryL]

I would hazard a guess that some editor rewrote the sentence in order to shorten it and the tenses went wrong.

[Indistinguishable]

You're absolutely right. Please, by all means, continue fighting the good fight. I for one cannot wait until "LOL" is acceptable usage everywhere.

Or, just perhaps, we can criticize people who do not use grammar and punctuation correctly in the hopes that we can teach them the correct usage, therefore forestalling the inevitable devolution of English and submitting to idiocy.
As happened to Latin, I believe, necessitating the First Council of Turin to sit down and meticulously plan out the Romance languages in order to salvage western Europe from gibbering incomprehension. It was a tough transition into the restoration of communication, but, of course, as it happened, none could complain.

[pulykamell]

Are you joking? No, apparently not. Apparently, some people use 'swum' and have even put it in a few dictionaries. I've never heard or used it once in my entire life, but there it is.

Um, "swum" is the past participle for the verb "to swim." This isn't anything recent, so far as I know. I had always been taught swim/swam/swum, and the standardized tests on English I could find online have "swum" as the past participle. (This one, for example, Answer 7. (http://books.google.com/books?id=dE-wmsLSklUC&pg=PT82&lpg=PT82&dq=past+participle+%22to+swim%22+swam+swum&source=web&ots=cyX8oeKRXM&sig=1z6QIFgxH4iQls82qcNckn6ecO0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result)) If you are following formal English grammar, "swum" is indeed the correct verb in the first sentence, not "swam."

[pulykamell]

More citations:

The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, 1993 (http://www.bartleby.com/68/83/5883.html)


swim (v.)

The principal parts of this strong verb are swim, swam, swum.


American Heritage English Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2000 (http://www.bartleby.com/61/25/S0952500.html)


swum

VERB: Past participle of swim.

If that's too modern for you, we have The American Language, 1921 (http://www.bartleby.com/185/40.html) by H.L. Mencken.


swim swam swum (the second reference for "swum" on that page).

[zweisamkeit]

Yeah, the first one should be swum. Maybe I shoulda noted that. Like I say, when Joe Blow doesn't always get the rules right, that's one thing. But for those who get to write stories for the FRONT PAGE of the NY Times, shouldn't a mastery of all the basic rules sort of be a prerequisite?

Am I getting whoosed by Zweisamkeit, or does he really think there's no such thing as swum? I don't get that comment...


(I'm a she). A sort of whoosh, I guess? I know swim/swam/swum. I was a writing tutor at my uni and no one had problems with 'swum' (used correctly). I was also really rankled at Derleth's snotty attitude while not only (if I was reading him correctly, and since pulykamell says what I was thinking about 'swum', I think I am) being wrong, but also not even providing how he would think he was right.

I love parenthetical asides, if you can't tell. ;)

[Barbarian]

Psst. Nobody tell the OP that I get paid to write in English, and I've never ever had any instruction in English grammar.

I don't even know what a past participle is!

[pulykamell]

Psst. Nobody tell the OP that I get paid to write in English, and I've never ever had any instruction in English grammar.

I don't even know what a past participle is!

That's fine, but your copy editors or somebody up the chain should know, or at least how its used in formal writing. From my experience, quite often the best writers/reporters are not necessarily very good in always getting grammar or spelling right, but they have other, more important skills (reporting, interviewing, storytelling, imagination, etc.) that earns them that paycheck. That's why we hire copy editors and proofreaders.

[cher3]

Reminds me of people I knew in college who would say things like "I haven't drank since Tuesday."

Who'd'a thunk it?


This is very common. I guess "I had drank a few beers, but I wasn't drunk" sounds better than the correct version.

Also, had swam, had ran, had saw, had ate etc., etc.

[OpalCat]

Wait... so it isn't "swimmeded"?

[commasense]

I just checked the OED and dictionary.com, and neither of them gives a definition for "literate" that means "able to perfectly use grammar."Well of course not, because the OED would never, ever split an infinitive. :D

[Barbarian]

That's fine, but your copy editors or somebody up the chain should know, or at least how its used in formal writing. From my experience, quite often the best writers/reporters are not necessarily very good in always getting grammar or spelling right, but they have other, more important skills (reporting, interviewing, storytelling, imagination, etc.) that earns them that paycheck. That's why we hire copy editors and proofreaders.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but not only do I write, I <gasp> edit other people's work. I am the final gatekeeper.

Spelling questions frequently come up, but nobody ever worries about grammar unless English is their second language.

[Indistinguishable]

Spelling questions frequently come up, but nobody ever worries about grammar unless English is their second language.
This may sound sarcastic, but it's not: what an anomalously sensible perspective.

[pulykamell]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but not only do I write, I <gasp> edit other people's work. I am the final gatekeeper.

Spelling questions frequently come up, but nobody ever worries about grammar unless English is their second language.

You're not bursting my bubble. You must have a very good intuitive grasp of English grammar. Some people just have a very good ear for the language--sounds like you're one of them.

[Zoe]

ouryL: I would hazard a guess that some editor rewrote the sentence in order to shorten it and the tenses went wrong.

It's possible. But all editors for the NYT have the same in house style manual which they must be familiar with. Some people use the Times style manual as a basic guide to writing style in publishing in general.

Knowing better doesn't keep people from making mistakes.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Psst. Nobody tell the OP that I get paid to write in English, and I've never ever had any instruction in English grammar.

I don't even know what a past participle is!

Nice combination of user name and post content.

I visualized the poster as a muscular half-naked giant with an axe, whispering "I don't even know what a past participle is", while standing in some refined old world library.

[Derleth]

OK, while it's refreshing to have people paying attention to my posts for a change, I should probably stop posting because people can't tell when I'm being snarky and when I'm just plain confused. I'd honestly never heard of 'swum' before now, and had I come upon it in any other context I would have put it down to an author or an editor getting a bit giggly on champagne.

Airman Doors, USAF: Who defines correct usage? You? The small, profit-driven pack behind the OED? The equally small and profit-driven pack behind the AHD? Your third grade teacher who went on a tear every time someone split an infinitive or used a double negative or dared utter a word that Does Not Exist In The English Language?*

*(I have nothing but respect for teachers who know what they are teaching and, hell, anyone who can stand up to a pack of half-civilized yard apes and go through arithmetic for the twentieth time. I have no respect for teachers who abuse their position to spread dogma and lack respect for honest curiosity.)

Correct usage is defined by the authors people want to read, both past and present. Chaucer, for all his glory and joy and for all the wonder of his language to the trained ear, does not fit that and hasn't for a very long time. Shakespeare still fits to a certain extent, but, i' faith, his japes and jests fall further from the firmament, even when they descend to country matters. Mark Twain didn't sound like Shakespeare, and not because he tried to and failed. He used the written language as the handmaiden of the spoken language and succeeded. His innovations are celebrated to this day not to spite the arbitrary rules, but because language is art and its usage is defined by successful art. Superstitious rules based on what some forgotten great grand uncle thought sounded stilted or formal have no place in the language I want to speak.

Finally, bringing up grammar is a complete red herring. Grammar changes at a glacial pace and is in absolutely no danger. English still has the mostly SVO and analytic grammar it's had since it arose from Anglo-Saxon (once called Old English) after 1066.