" Commas alone aren't always strong enough to indicate the intent of a given "however." I must admit, however, (different use, different punctuation) that there is a drift toward using only a comma preceding the sort of "however" that can be replaced word for word with "but," of which yours is an example. " The traditional punctuation around this sort of "however" is "definitive reference however, it seems. What we began with was "The OED seems to be the definitive reference however it seems. There's either more or less to this than meets the eye. Usage, not punctuation!! Sorry 'bout the missed comma, >) Try to follow this thread for a while you're likely to see some interesting comments from others. But that's a whole nother paragraph, and I'm written out. Usage books do that sort of thing some better than others. But no dictionary will tell you "dived good, dove bad." If it did that, it wouldn't be a true dictionary. You may find usage notes like the one I've quoted from M-W. You may be told that a given usage can be found in specific places or in use by particular classes, that it is considered vulgar, or obscene. No self-respecting contemporary dictionary attempts to regulate usage. (Check out some of my posted comments on "as such" over the years.)Īs for the OED, its goal and its function are to describe the English language as it actually exists and existed in the past, not to tell people what's "right" and what's "wrong." By its own self-description, it operates on "historical principles." But it's hardly alone in that. There's nothing wrong with "dove," just as there's nothing wrong with lots of things that make me (and probably you) wince. But you need to get over the idea that last year's English is better than this year's. I'll spare you the full-dress AEU lecture on how language evolves and good usage is whatever educated native speakers of the language do. It seems the editors at OED acquiesce towards common usage rather than what is proper and historically correct. (Sorry, but this is an English usage group.) The OED seems to be the definitive reference however Dove seems relatively rare as a past participle in writing." You can find this at
In writing, the past tense dived is usual in British English and somewhat more common in American English. In the United States dived and dove are both widespread in speech as past tense and past participle, with dove less common than dived in the south Midland area, and dived less common than dove in the Northern and north Midland areas. Dove exists in some British dialects and has become the standard past tense especially in speech in some parts of Canada. Merriam-Webster has done a pretty good job: "Dive, which was originally a weak verb, developed a past tense dove, probably by analogy with verbs like drive, drove. Would anybody be sufficiently kind to provide an explanation of the usage? Anyway, we're now in the realm of personal opinion I can't tell you not to cringe, and you can hardly insist that I do so. It's just the alternative that I don't use. I myself don't use "dove," but I also don't find it cringe-worthy.
But an internal wince or cringe is very different from an overt reaction, particularly a "correction." Feel free to go right on cringing, but try not to let anyone notice.Īs for "dove" as the past tense of "dive," it's a solidly established alternative to "dived." Both are legitimate. I have my own little list, which I will spare you. You are hardly alone in this sort of reaction, which many English speakers experience and which can be triggered by a variety of usages. I'm not a snob but it just sounds so rural! I'm really not a Queen's English linguist and although it may. Online references tend towards DOVE as an acceptable form. As for the English teacher, almost nothing an English teacher does surprises me. I recall having a HS English teacher insist on DIVE rather than DOVE. I am having a rather heated debate over the past tense of dive.