Gail in San Diego, California, wonders what’s happening to past tense of verbs. She’s observed more uses of I could have went instead of I could have gone, and something had sunken instead of sank, and I was sat rather than I was seated, and I was drugged when she would expect to hear I was dragged. This is part of a complete episode.
Transcript of “Sunken vs. Sank”
Hello there. You have A Way with Words.
Good morning. This is Gail, Gail Roberts. I’m calling from Petrero, way down south, down near the border. San Diego County. Well, welcome to the show, Gail.
Yes.
What can we do for you?
Well, I’m aware that language sort of changes and adapts from time to time, but what I have been noticing recently is we seem to be losing the past tense of verbs. The most common one I hear is I could have went instead of gone. The people are saying went, and I hear that quite a lot. There’s another one where I saw some, this was written in a novel, where it said about a ship had sunken instead of sank. And then another one was I was sat instead of seated. And then another, it’s not quite the same, but another one where I’ve heard several people say this, I was drugged instead of dragged. He was drugged across the car park instead of dragged. And I’m wondering what this is about, what’s happening.
Oh, that’s a very full, rich question with lots of possibilities. There’s so much to say because each of those is its own special circumstance. We have talked, for example, about the I was sat or I was sitting on the show before, and that is a change that is currently underway in British English, where saying I was sat is now becoming more of the norm instead of saying I was sitting or I was seated.
Okay.
What was the first one you said?
I have went.
Yes, people could have went instead of saying I could have gone or I would have gone. Yeah, that one rings as false to most native speakers’ ears, except that you will often hear it. I don’t have a lot of data on that, but I know that some linguists are tracking that, and we’re looking to see if that’s undergoing a transformation. But what we do generally see is that there are a lot of verbs in English. If there’s a past participle form that is non-standard, sometimes it also shows up in the past form. What’s a really good example? We have shook and shaken. I was shook or I was shaken. Which one sounds more correct to you if I was talking about something that happened yesterday?
I would say I was shaken.
I was shaken. Yet to the modern ear, a lot of people would say that they can be either one. I was shook or I was shaken, that either one of these can serve the purpose. So what we’re seeing is a kind of a collision or a condensation or a collapsing of the past tense and the past participle. What you’ve noticed, Gail, because you’re an observer of language, an observant observer of language, is an ongoing change that’s been going for centuries in English. And we’re in the middle of it. And we don’t know where it’s going to end up, but we will know in 300 or 400 years. So stay tuned.
Oh, it’s a long time for me to hang around.
We may see that those past tense forms and those past participle forms ultimately become the same. It does look like that’s where we’re headed. And this kind of simplification has happened in English before. There are a few cases where sneaked and snuck, for example, where we get new past participle forms. But for the most part, they seem to be collapsing and reducing.
Okay. Well, that’s fascinating. Thank you so much. I appreciate your interest.
So, Gail, we hope we’ve shined a light on the answer.
Definitely.
Yes.
Thank you so much. And I have to tell you, you’re the high spot of my weekend. I do enjoy your program every weekend.
Oh, bless your heart.
All right, Gail.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
