| Author |
Message |
Molly Mockford
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 1:57 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
At 09:07:01 on Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au>
wrote in <cag990$3k1$2@enyo.uwa.edu.au>:
| Quote: | These rare verbs do cause problems even with those of us who kid
ourselves that we 'know'. I recently saw 'stave' and thought how odd it
looked, as I would normally only see the past tense 'stove'. And what
is the past participle: stoven or stove?
|
"Staved" is what I have used throughout my life - as in "I felt an urge
to Google for this word, but I have staved it off for the time being."
Assuming, of course, that you are talking about the base verb to stave,
but I can't think of any other base verb which would fit.
--
Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that
lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 7:36 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
meirman wrote:
| Quote: | That is all that is happening in the US also, although here it started
around 1803. That's when the Supreme Court asserted in Marbury vs.
Madison the power to declare a law unconstitutional. Although they
were in a better situation to claim that power since the US
Constitution does say that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the
land" iirc. The decision is portrayed now as either a landmark or a
big step. It is the first, but I don't think it's the second, since I
think it almost inevitable that if the Constitution is the supreme
law, a law that conflicts with it would have to be invalid.
|
What wasn't at all clear before _Marbury_ was whether courts had, or
should have, the power to be the ones to declare that a particular law was
invalid because it was inconsistent with the Constitution. This was
particularly true with respect to *federal* laws (and actions by the
executive) -- it was always less controversial to say that courts could
enforce the federal law trumps state law principle.
It's hard to see how things would work well without judicial review, but
prior to _Marbury_ there isn't much authority for courts having the power
to do that sort of thing, so _Marbury_ really was a very big step.
Without _Marbury_ we'd have a more UK-style system, with a
more legislatively-subservient judiciary.
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 7:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
On Friday, in article <40CA5DD6.341FAA67@Verizon.net>
Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net "Robert Lieblich" wrote:
| Quote: | The House managers, IMO, proved what they set out to prove. Enough
of the Senate shrugged it off to enable Clinton to escape conviction
and loss of office. Probably the right result, but no feather in
Clinton's cap.
|
You mean "close, but no cigar"? Monica would be disappointed.
--
fix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to
work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are
worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the
shortcomings of Windows 98 SE".
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 12:36 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
meirman <meirman@invalid.com> wrote in message news:<ldpnc01asi270hhsg85r1hfv123ajthtm4@4ax.com>...
| Quote: | In alt.english.usage on 12 Jun 2004 15:22:25 -0700
mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle) posted:
[...]
Strangely, the English and Scottish courts often act as though they
were a _form_ of democratic review: there is no constitutional court
here, but the various Justices don't seem to hesitate to act in that
role.
That is all that is happening in the US also, although here it started
around 1803. That's when the Supreme Court asserted in Marbury vs.
Madison the power to declare a law unconstitutional. Although they
were in a better situation to claim that power since the US
Constitution does say that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the
land" iirc. The decision is portrayed now as either a landmark or a
big step. It is the first, but I don't think it's the second, since I
think it almost inevitable that if the Constitution is the supreme
law, a law that conflicts with it would have to be invalid.
And the end of the decision, quoted at
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Marbury/ seems to make that point well.
|
Wow! That told him! And in what exemplary clear English, too: an
intelligent present-day eighteen-year-old with no legal training would
have no difficulty in understanding the judgement.
(I noted the economy of capital letters: e.g., in "department of
state". Interesting, but I don't know if it's significant.)
I had not understood that the Supreme Court of the US was not
explicitly entrenched by the Constitution -- or constitution! -- as
the guardian of its provisions. It seems that at the outset it may not
have meant much more than the -- to me rather vague -- English
"Supreme Court of Justice". Unsurprising, I suppose: you can't shake
off a thousand years of jurisprudence and custom overnight.
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 1:42 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | I had not understood that the Supreme Court of the US was not
explicitly entrenched by the Constitution -- or constitution! -- as
the guardian of its provisions. It seems that at the outset it may not
have meant much more than the -- to me rather vague -- English
"Supreme Court of Justice".
|
Basically, all that the Constitution says about the Supreme Court (and the
federal judiciary in general) is the following, from Article III:
=== begin quote [and CUE PATRIOTIC MUSIC] ===
Section 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme
Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts,
shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated
Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be
diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting
Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of
admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United
States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more
States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens
of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands
under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens
thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
=== end quote ===
This doesn't really do too much.
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Bannister
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:15 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
Molly Mockford wrote:
| Quote: | At 09:07:01 on Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au
wrote in <cag990$3k1$2@enyo.uwa.edu.au>:
These rare verbs do cause problems even with those of us who kid
ourselves that we 'know'. I recently saw 'stave' and thought how odd
it looked, as I would normally only see the past tense 'stove'. And
what is the past participle: stoven or stove?
"Staved" is what I have used throughout my life - as in "I felt an urge
to Google for this word, but I have staved it off for the time being."
Assuming, of course, that you are talking about the base verb to stave,
but I can't think of any other base verb which would fit.
|
You're right, using the word in that sense, but in the 'stave in', ie
bashing a door or boat to pieces, 'stove' seems more common. Or is it
only in intransitive use? I'm not sure - I don't use the word, except as
you do, but I do come across it in reading.
--
Rob Bannister |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Picton
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:42 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle) wrote in message news:<3fa4d950.0406101316.55591013@posting.google.com>...
| Quote: | hayesmstw@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<40c7e3f1.123580351@news.saix.net>...
[...]
But something similar has struck me - the displacement of "proved" by
"proven".
Yes: it's always existed, of course, but it is getting common.
Anything to do with Scots Law, by any chance?
|
Yes - the OED confirms this.
| Quote: | Or just that it's always been the preferred adjectival form, and is spreading back to the verb?
|
No - the OED gives the impression that proved was originally the
preferred form for the adjective, with proven taking over in
relatively recent times.
I've done a few Google searches, with the following results
1. In adjectival use there appears to be a fairly strong preference
for proven e.g. 'proven results' or 'proven theories'.
2. In the passive, e.g. 'has been proven' vs. 'has been proved',
there is a (weaker) preference in favour of proven. (There seems to
be an exception for Wills in the UK, which are almost always 'proved'
and hardly ever 'proven').
3. As a past participle following the verb 'to have', there is a weak
preference for proven left-of-Pond, proved right-of-Pond. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:38 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
djpicton@bigmailbox.net (David Picton) wrote in message news:<2ad9e934.0406140142.284a3d74@posting.google.com>...
| Quote: | mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle) wrote in message news:<3fa4d950.0406101316.55591013@posting.google.com>...
hayesmstw@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<40c7e3f1.123580351@news.saix.net>...
[...]
But something similar has struck me - the displacement of "proved" by
"proven".
Yes: it's always existed, of course, but it is getting common.
Anything to do with Scots Law, by any chance?
Yes - the OED confirms this.
Or just that it's always been the preferred adjectival form, and is spreading back to the verb?
No - the OED gives the impression that proved was originally the
preferred form for the adjective, with proven taking over in
relatively recent times.
I've done a few Google searches, with the following results
1. In adjectival use there appears to be a fairly strong preference
for proven e.g. 'proven results' or 'proven theories'.
2. In the passive, e.g. 'has been proven' vs. 'has been proved',
there is a (weaker) preference in favour of proven. (There seems to
be an exception for Wills in the UK, which are almost always 'proved'
and hardly ever 'proven').
3. As a past participle following the verb 'to have', there is a weak
preference for proven left-of-Pond, proved right-of-Pond.
|
Thank you.
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Picton
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:01 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
hayesmstw@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<40c7e3f1.123580351@news.saix.net>...
| Quote: | On 9 Jun 2004 09:52:36 -0700, djpicton@bigmailbox.net (David Picton) wrote:
But something similar has struck me - the displacement of "proved" by
"proven".
|
Also the reappearance of "disproven" which is given in the OED but
seems to have fallen out of use for a while. It's strangely absent
from online dictionaries, including the Verbix conjugator and the Word
spellchecker. New Fowler's Modern English Usage comments that
"disproven no longer alternates with disproved as past participle" but
did so until about 1900.
I tried a Google search for disproven vs. disproved. The results
(with a correction for the small minority of hits with "disproved" as
the past tense):
Worldwide: 25% disproven, 75% disproved.
East-of-Pond: 12% disproven, 88% disproved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Professor Redwine
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:52 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 23:58:48 +0000, spake Mark Brader thus:
| Quote: | I saw a Usenet post in which J.K. Rowling had a slap on the wrist for:
Dumbledore had strode alone into the Forest to rescue her from the
centaurs ...
I think it's a bit harsh to slap JKR anywhere for that. Authors,
particularly when in the flow of narrative, often make such errors.
... The editor(s) who let this pass, however, deserve more than just
a slap on the wrist.
For choosing the "wrong" dictionary? That seems a bit harsh.
|
Has it been established that it is a "wrong dictionary" issue? If so, then
perhaps it is a little harsh. But otherwise, no: that's part of what
editors are paid for.
| Quote: | For what it's worth, I had never heard of "stridden" before this thread.
|
Not sure what it's worth, but it's interesting.
--
Redwine
Hamburg
(previously: Berlin, Northants, Derbs, Staffs, NSW, Tasmania,
Melbourne, rural Victoria, in that and many other orders) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Picton
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:13 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
Daniel James <wastebasket@nospam.aaisp.org> wrote in message news:<VA.00000714.0ebbaf16@nospam.aaisp.org>...
| Quote: | Of course, past participles can be and are also used adjectivally -
the West Highland Way is a much stridden track, for example. I
don't see "strode" being used there.
|
I think I can now put my finger on the reason why the past participle
of stride is used so rarely. In current usage, it's unusual to
'stride' anything without a qualifying preposition: I strode along the
path, through the forest, over the stream. This has two consequences.
Firstly, the verb 'to stride' is rarely used in the passive voice
(although it can be: for example, I found a report in which 'a new
economic step was stridden over'.) Secondly, the past participle is
hardly ever used as an adjective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Picton
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:57 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote in message news:<1gf6pwp.3dmmvh1md7flkN%trio@euronet.nl>...
| Quote: | Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:
But something similar has struck me - the displacement of "proved" by
"proven".
"Proven" has been around for a long time. In 1828, N. Webster said:
PROVEN, a word used by Scottish writers for proved.
|
And by Webster himself, in the entry for 'A':
The A has been proven to be the first natural vocal sound ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary Williams
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 2:36 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
"rewboss" <rewboss@rewboss.com> wrote in message news:<2ip8bcFp81lgU1@uni-berlin.de>...
| Quote: | ... since few people ever have cause to use "stride" in the
perfect aspect ...
|
My guess is that this is, in addition to the semantic subtleties which
you pointed out, a function of the fact that few people ever have
cause to use "to stride" in _any_ aspect.
Gary Williams |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in