Shined/shone
Posted: 19 July 2014 05:19 PM   [ Ignore ]
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  156
Joined  2007-02-15

Just a quick query: is shined quite common as a simple past form in US English? (or any other Englishes that may feel called to comment)

And if so, what’s the score with shone as a past participle in whatever flavour of US English applies?

I can’t find my latest quote for this (which I have seen before) but could if pushed!!

It was an obviously US source, can’t get any more specific than that for now but kinda had me thinking that perhaps US English was a bit ‘free-er’ than other English in weakening the strong (verbs that is)?

It’s a record high humid here in NL. My mind is wandering…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2014 07:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3100
Joined  2007-02-26

Both forms are used in Australia. It would be more common to say “the sun shone” than “the sun shined” but some people use the latter. It would be more common to say “i’m having my shoes shined” than “I’m having my shoes shone”.

Dunno what the situation is in the US but I note that it wasn’t long ago that there was an American song out called “Moonlight never shined so bright”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2014 02:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  329
Joined  2007-02-17
OP Tipping - 19 July 2014 07:31 PM

It would be more common to say “i’m having my shoes shined” than “I’m having my shoes shone”.

I’d be surprised if it weren’t. ‘Shined’ is the only form recognised as the past tense of the transitive verb. Though I’m surprised by the implication that Australians frequently go in for commercial shoe shines. Can’t recall seeing many, or possibly any, around London. This may, of course, be because I’m not on the lookout for them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2014 02:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2007-10-20

‘Shined’ is the only form recognised as the past tense of the transitive verb.

This is getting into the ugly territory of grammatical terminology. By “past tense” in English I usually go for the terms “simple past” and “present perfect”. In this instance the exemplars would be:

Simple past:

It shone.
or
It shined.

Present perfect:

It has shined.

I agree that:

It has shone.

is not something I usually consider standard, but frankly I’d have to take it under consideration to figure it out.

However, for the helluvit, I have a gripe that many people and publishers in the US say “It has showed” instead of “It has shown”, the latter of which sounds like “It has shone”.

To answer the question, I have to admit as an American that I favor “shined” in most situations. I think I feel uneasy about using “shone” because I’m not sure if other people understand it.

[ Edited: 20 July 2014 02:42 AM by Iron Pyrite ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2014 04:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4742
Joined  2007-01-03

Shined is indeed more common in American English than in British. It’s primarily used in the transitive senses, but you can also sometimes find shined in the intransitive, e.g., the stars shined in the night sky. (Source: MWDEU)

The Old English scinan is a strong verb. The weak form starts appearing in the early fourteenth century, and was well established by mid-century. Chaucer used both forms. From the General Prologue to The Canterbury Tales (line 198), saying of the monk:

His heed was balled, that shoon as any glas.

And from The Legend of Good Women, line 2194:

No man she saw, and yit shyned the mone.

Johnson’s 1755 dictionary lists both forms, giving priority to shone:

To SHINE. v. n. preterite I shone, I have shone; sometimes I shined, I have shined.

But by the late nineteenth century, shined was being frowned upon in educated use in Britain. It was never deprecated in US usage.

Pam Peters’s Cambridge Guide to Australian English Usage says shined is on the rise, increasingly used in metaphoric senses as well as transitive polishing.

(And professional shoe shines are available in London (I can’t speak to Australia on this point). They’re perhaps not as common as decades ago, but they’re there. Look in tube stops, bus, and airport terminals, or shopping arcades and malls that are frequented by business people.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2014 09:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  197
Joined  2013-10-14
Iron Pyrite - 20 July 2014 02:34 AM

‘Shined’ is the only form recognised as the past tense of the transitive verb.

Yes, the transitive form of the verb shine is shined, because one wouldn’t say: The sun shone all morning as I shone(shined) my shoes.

Also, the usage of dove for the more traditional dived is now standard in American and Canadian English. Outside North America dived still prevails and some might consider dove wrong.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2014 05:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  156
Joined  2007-02-15

Thanks for all the responses. And Dave too for the background and history.

I didn’t even consider the transitive but should have as both can affect each other’s forms.

But to conclude on the wee question I included in the OP, do we think that US (and perhaps other world Englishes) are more inclined to the weaker versions (past participles and simple past tense) of traditionally strong verbs? Or is this just a case apart?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2014 07:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3100
Joined  2007-02-26
BlackGrey - 21 July 2014 05:53 AM

Thanks for all the responses. And Dave too for the background and history.

I didn’t even consider the transitive but should have as both can affect each other’s forms.

But to conclude on the wee question I included in the OP, do we think that US (and perhaps other world Englishes) are more inclined to the weaker versions (past participles and simple past tense) of traditionally strong verbs? Or is this just a case apart?

There are cases that run the other way (strong in the US, weak in the UK). The dived/dove case has been mentioned in this thread. Another would be dragged/drug.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2014 09:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4742
Joined  2007-01-03

But to conclude on the wee question I included in the OP, do we think that US (and perhaps other world Englishes) are more inclined to the weaker versions (past participles and simple past tense) of traditionally strong verbs? Or is this just a case apart?

You’d need to do a corpus study to see if there is a difference in prevalence, but my guess would be there is no significant difference overall. US speakers will favor certain weak forms, while British speakers will favor others.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 July 2014 05:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  811
Joined  2007-06-20
Logophile - 20 July 2014 09:14 AM

Outside North America dived still prevails and some might consider dove wrong.

In the BNC, “dived” outnumbers “dove” almost 100 to one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 July 2014 02:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1178
Joined  2007-02-14

MnE dive is from two OE words, strong, intranstsitive dufan and weak, transitive dyfan, FWIW.

Profile