[Grammar] Expected Grammar Change

[KEN JPN]

Expected Grammar Change

What was wrong before sometimes, or often, is correct today.
"Play the guitar" has already been replaced with "play guitar".
Subjunctive is being shrinking.

"He go" is still regarded as wrong or illiterate, which should be "He goes" but there is no telling when "he go" will be accepted and the day might come when people say,"They used to say 'he goes' before..."

I even heard that in a high school in the US, some students say, "I goed" for "I went".

Baddest for worst is heard in a movie.

Lately, I often encounter Present Perfect with a past adverb like:
"I have already submitted the document two days ago".
I think this should still be "I submitted ... two days ago" but more and more people, especially those who use English as a second or foreign language, are using Present Perfect with "...ago" or "in 1970" etc.

Do you think this expressions will be regarded correct some day?

What else change do you think can be expected in the future English?

Thank you in advance.

 

[5jj]

Subjunctive is [STRIKE]being[/STRIKE] shrinking.

What [STRIKE]else[/STRIKE] other changes do you think can be expected in the future English?

It is almost impossible to predict exactly what will happen. I fear that chatlish forms will become increasingly accepted in standard writing.

 

[Barb_D]

I have never heard "I goed" by anyone older than 3, when that 3-year-old is applying the "ed" rule to an irregular verb without knowing about irregular verbs yet.

 

[Tdol]

I think we'll use fewer prepositions. When impact became popular as a verb a few years ago, it was common to hear on, but now many are using it without the preposition, etc.

 

[abaka]

There is standard English, in at least two varieties, which is spoken as a native language. Its style has become more telegraphic recently, I think, and its lexicon has continued to evolve, but its grammar has remained reasonably stable in the last half-century.

There is txt-English. It sounds exactly like standard English in its least formal register, but is written as an abbreviated rebus.

And then there are the international forms of English adopted by foreign speakers. Here each variety is distinct. Russlish is not Chinglish is not Japlish. (I do not mean these labels in any derogatory manner.) Each variety has its specific lexicon, so for example the Japanese suupaa and pasukon and terebi and hanbaagu would be incomprehensible elsewhere. But also each variety has its grammar. I'll venture to say these are the beginnings of the descendant languages of English.

 

[TheParser]

"He go" is still regarded as wrong or illiterate, which should be "He goes" but there is no telling when "he go" will be accepted and the day might come when people say,"They used to say 'he goes' before..."

NOT A TEACHER



As you know, the lack of "s" with the third person is often heard in certain types of popular American music. For

example: "She love me." I cannot discuss this matter further, for it is a very sensitive topic here in the United States.

2. I think that you will be interested in what a great grammarian * wrote:

"The east Midland [of England] developed in the fifteenth century a peculiarity of its own -- the suppression of the

ending in the third person singular indicative: as 'John Dam kno' ... instead of knows."

This expert tells us that traces "of the east Midland peculiarity are found in our early American documents written by

people [who emigrated here] from this part of England."

He adds: "It is still found also in American dialect."

*****

*George Oliver Curme, A Grammar of the English Language (1931), Vol. I (Parts of Speech), p. 246.

 

[Barb_D]

Speaking of irregular verbs, there may be an overall tendancy to regularize them. Proved, proven. Dived, dove. I wonder if "catch, catched (instead of "caught") might follow over time.

 

[emsr2d2]

Speaking of irregular verbs, there may be an overall tendancy to regularize them. Proved, proven. Dived, doved. I wonder if "catch, catched (instead of "caught") might follow over time.

Was that a typo and you meant "dove"?

 

[KEN JPN]

I always greatly appreciate your correction of my English.
In daily conversation, usual email exchanging, people do not point out mistakes as long as it is understandable. However, I always welcome corrections, which makes my English better.

 

[KEN JPN]

In fact, "goed" for "went" looks natural and logical (?) following the simple rule "add -ed to make a past form". (^^)
I even wonder why "went, the past form of wend" took place as the past form of GO.... Any clue?

 

[KEN JPN]

Listening to language history is always very interesting and exciting, because I can feel the 'gene' of English speakers beyond the fact.

 

[TheParser]

I even wonder why "went, the past form of wend" took place as the past form of GO

NOT A TEACHER


"In early Modern English, yede and yode, older past tense forms of go, were still lingering on. But some of those who


used these old forms did not understand them, for they construed yede ... as a present tense and yode as its past. ...

These two old past tense forms were gradually supplanted by another word which had a similar meaning. Went is the old

past tense and past participle of the weak verb wend, which was once used intransitively in the sense of go."


George Oliver Curme, A Grammar of the English Language (1931), Vol. I (Parts of Speech), pp. 312 - 313.


P.S. On page 268, Professor Curme writes:

"In older English [wend] had the meanings wend, turn, go. At the close of the Middle English period, went ... became the past tense of go."

 

[charliedeut]

Speaking of irregular verbs, there may be an overall tendancy to regularize them. Proved, proven. Dived, dove. I wonder if "catch, catched (instead of "caught") might follow over time.

I'd bet "pay, payed" instead of "paid" will change first (it is a common mistake in Spanish learners, at least)

 

[BobK]

In fact, "goed" for "went" looks natural and logical (?) following the simple rule "add -ed to make a past form". (^^)
I even wonder why "went, the past form of wend" took place as the past form of GO.... Any clue?

A possibility is that the homophonous 'goad' was felt as an obstacle to the retention of a theoretically regular 'goed'.
The same (well, something similar) happened with the latin bellum; in - say - French it was too close to bel/belle, so they adopted the Vulgar Latin GUERRA (where the GU represented [gw], as there was no 'w' in the Latin alphabet - and the Gothic (? I think) WERRA had been borrowed from the Germanic tribes [the derivation of our 'war' is obvious] - whose way of fighting (skirmishes and ambushes, rather than pitched battles) couldn't be accurately described by the other Latin option, proelium.

But I'm not sure that any meaning-threatening pun on 'goad' would be likely. So... [I must do some research...]

b

 

[KEN JPN]

Let me ask everyone:

Will "I have submitted the document two days ago" be regarded correct in the future?
As far as I understand "I have" is Present Tense, which should not be followed by "two days ago" but there are actually so many people who are confused with the difference between Past Tense and Present Perfect.

 

[5jj]

Will "I have submitted the document two days ago" be regarded correct in the future?
As far as I understand "I have" is Present Tense, which should not be followed by "two days ago" but there are actually so many people who are confused with the difference between Past Tense and Present Perfect.

Native speakers aren't. If anything, I suspect that BrE will move more and more towards acceptane of AmE past simple for the very recent past with such words as 'just' , 'yet' and and 'already