"have dove" versus "have dived"/"dived"

hi, there, it seems like i may be wrong about this after all, but i would like to know if the following are correct usages of the verb "dive" in the past tense ("dive" as in 'scuba dive').

i thought that the following was correct:

"i dove that cove before."

"i have dived that cove before."


i thought that the following was incorrect:

"i have dove that cove before."


according to my dictionary, "dove" is a past participle...but that last sentence above just doesn't sound right to me...HELP!!!!!

thank you in advance.

--s--

[Casiopea]

The verb dive has two past tenses, dived and dove, and both are acceptable. Dived is actually the earlier form, and it's also the past participle.

Source: http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0104.html

[somename]

The article is correct, however the way you have interpreted it is incorrect.

The article does NOT say that dove is a Past Participle of the PRESENT PERFECT tense. What it says is that both dived and dove are ok in the SIMPLE PAST TENSE. Dived came later by analogy to other verbs that decline by vowel alternation.

In the present perfect, only HAVE DIVED is ok.

Here is why: English, like other germanic languages, has past participles ending in -n and -ed (compare to German -en and -t). For example, have begun, have run, have strung. Exceptions like "have come" came about due to loss of the -en suffix (compare to German "habe gekommen" which still has it).

To have a past participle formed through vowel alternation and ending in -ve is odd. It may catch on in time.

Supposedly, people say "have dove" by analogy to "drove". However, the correct form there, too, is "have DRIVED".