Scuba dove? Scuba dived?
- Thread starter Hoomi
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
InTheDrink
Contributor
Having said all that, it's 'dived'.
I've got every poster's parent's coordinates via google and a friendly GSM insider so any disagreement will be dealt with, well appropriately.
It's Dived, ok?
I've got every poster's parent's coordinates via google and a friendly GSM insider so any disagreement will be dealt with, well appropriately.
It's Dived, ok?
ereediver
Contributor
This is why whales use songs. Music is music no matter where it's heard.
InTheDrink
Contributor
This is why whales use songs. Music is music no matter where it's heard.
In Tolkien's envisaging of creation, music was where it all started. I'm with him.
mikemill
Contributor
I'm gonna have to disagree with that. The noise coming out of some people's car which they claim is music sounds more like random noise.This is why whales use songs. Music is music no matter where it's heard.
Dove, got it.
Part of the problem here is a concept sometimes called hypercorrection.
When people speak and try to be grammatically correct, they go with what their gut tells them is the correct way of putting it. Ironically, their imperfect understanding of the "rules" of the language result in them hypercorrecting a construction and actually taking it from a "correct" form to an "incorrect" form. The following are examples are hpercorrections that are actually incorrect:
Because of its linguistic origins, "dived" is indeed correct, but how many people know its linguistic origins? As people have noted, it sounds like a series of verbs whose linguistic origins are different, so hyper correction leads to the use of "dove." It is not until you ask them to take it to the next step ("I have diven") that they see the problem.
Personally, I'm OK with it. As others have noted, language is a fluid medium, and it changes constantly. IMO, most of the change is for the better. English is a conglomerate of many other languages, and this process helps even things out and make it simpler.
If you want to be truly bored, I can treat you to an analysis of a grammatical "error" committed by probably 80% of the English speaking world every day. It takes many, many hours of English instruction to try to teach this error in school, with little effect. IMO, the "error" is not an error--it is a natural evolution of the language resulting in a very simple new "rule" in the English language that is superior to the old one. We ought to leave it alone.
BTW, the rules of the English language were first created in the 18th century by a Latin scholar. Many of the "rules" of English were created by him because that is the way Latin worked. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden,--somehow they managed to speak English without knowing any of the rules of English grammar.
When people speak and try to be grammatically correct, they go with what their gut tells them is the correct way of putting it. Ironically, their imperfect understanding of the "rules" of the language result in them hypercorrecting a construction and actually taking it from a "correct" form to an "incorrect" form. The following are examples are hpercorrections that are actually incorrect:
- Give the book to whomever opens the door. (Should be whoever)
- Whom did you say was calling? (Should be who.)
- When you are done, please return it to Joe and I. (Should be me.)
Because of its linguistic origins, "dived" is indeed correct, but how many people know its linguistic origins? As people have noted, it sounds like a series of verbs whose linguistic origins are different, so hyper correction leads to the use of "dove." It is not until you ask them to take it to the next step ("I have diven") that they see the problem.
Personally, I'm OK with it. As others have noted, language is a fluid medium, and it changes constantly. IMO, most of the change is for the better. English is a conglomerate of many other languages, and this process helps even things out and make it simpler.
If you want to be truly bored, I can treat you to an analysis of a grammatical "error" committed by probably 80% of the English speaking world every day. It takes many, many hours of English instruction to try to teach this error in school, with little effect. IMO, the "error" is not an error--it is a natural evolution of the language resulting in a very simple new "rule" in the English language that is superior to the old one. We ought to leave it alone.
BTW, the rules of the English language were first created in the 18th century by a Latin scholar. Many of the "rules" of English were created by him because that is the way Latin worked. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden,--somehow they managed to speak English without knowing any of the rules of English grammar.
Deep-6
Guest
I want a dooved! LMAO
ereediver
Contributor
"I'm gonna have to disagree with that. The noise coming out of some people's car which they claim is music sounds more like random noise."
True but, you can still make out rhythm and note changes. Once written down, and you learn how to read it. No matter what language you speak, "The song remains the same" pun
True but, you can still make out rhythm and note changes. Once written down, and you learn how to read it. No matter what language you speak, "The song remains the same" pun
Similar threads
Question
Cave diving
