...DOVE into the pool?...

[Toyoka]

That's drove.
"He drove to work on Thursday"
For some reason it has been increasingly popular for people to say "drived" and to change many other irregular verbs into regular ones, this is one classic example.

 

[Indiana Gardener]

It's "drove" here as well, but I just wondered how it was there with "dived" being the preferred version of "dive".

I think you'll find that "dived" sounds just as irregular as "drived" to most people here.

For some reason, "dived" just doesn't sound right. Just a cultural difference I suppose.

 

[Toyoka]

Yeah I guess it must be, like how they call it "math" and we say "maths."

 

[Indiana Gardener]

"Maths"? I've never heard that. I've only heard "math" and "arithmetic". Well, and "mathematics".

 

[Toyoka]

We use arithmetic specifically for adding up, or working out figures. It's what simple maths normally gets called at primary school. We don't use maths without the "s" at all though.

 

[Indiana Gardener]

For some reason, a lot of words here are the same in singular and plural.

Deer seems to cover both forms, you never hear of deers.

Same with sheep.

It seems to be the same with math; applying to all branches of mathematics or just one.

 

[Toyoka]

Oh, I see.
I think over here most of it is regional, for instance some Irish and Scottish will pluralise sheep, but around here people would get very confused.

People around here seem to say "there is many trees over there"
and they can't work out why it's "there are many trees over there."

I guess it doesn't really matter, it's just how far you take the whole grammar thing.

 

[Indiana Gardener]

That's the same here with tree / trees. Both forms exist. Odd how we deem some things to sound more correct than others with no clear reason.

I wonder if the ancient speakers of Brittonics had such issues before Latin, German, and French entered in.

 

[Putrefaction]

"Four tree" somehow doesn't sound as "right" as "Four trees". To me, at least.

 

[Amigo]

That's the same here with tree / trees. Both forms exist. Odd how we deem some things to sound more correct than others with no clear reason.

I imagine that this happen to every language.
Something similar happen to Spain, Mexico, Angentina, Caribean coutries...

I recall in classroom, I said to the teacher:
"The last weekend I went fishing and caught three fishes"
She laughed and said: we don't say "fishes", just fish.

The next day I told her:
- I've got a doubt: How about "he fishes three fish?" Is that "fishes" correct?
- Yes, it's correct in that case. It's curious, isn't it?- she said.

 

[Ashikaga]

"The last weekend I went fishing and caught three fishes"
She laughed and said: we don't say "fishes", just fish.
The next day I told her:
- I've got a doubt: How about "he fishes three fish?" Is that "fishes" correct?
- Yes, it's correct in that case. It's curious, isn't it?- she said.

Well, in that last example, "fish" is a verb, so...

We do say "fishes" when we are talking about species/groups of "fish".

Here's a quote from Wiki.

Fish or fishes
Though often used interchangeably, these words actually mean different things. Fish is used either as singular noun or to describe a group of specimens from a single species. Fishes describes a group containing more than one species.[58] Hence, as plurals, these words could be used thus:

ﾂ?｡my aquarium contains three different fishes: guppies, platies, and swordtails.

ﾂ?｡The North Atlantic stock of Gadus morhua is estimated to contain several million fish.

 

[Amigo]

We do say "fishes" when we are talking about species/groups of "fish".

Interesting, man. Thank you for the addition.

Once you've learned vocabulary you need to learn how to think in English.

 

[kukuruu]

Oh, I see.
I think over here most of it is regional, for instance some Irish and Scottish will pluralise sheep, but around here people would get very confused.

I'm Scottish, living in England, and I have to say I've never said "sheeps" or "deers". Maybe when I was a kid... it sounds funny now... sheeps... deers.

Maybe in some other parts of Scotland they do say that, or maybe Ireland. I've never heard it though. ☝

 

[drmchsraj]

born and raised in the US...comes to spelling and grammar, common sense often does not work and you just have to memorize a bunch of rules,

lol i can relate! in speech/in context i rarely have to think but id do sh*t-all if someone quizzed me on grammer and rules! guess listening to stuff around you helps... read or keep listening to the radio or something.... it is boring though!

dove ('doww'). dived is correct too and used mostly in books, just not too commonly.
i do not know about 'sheeps'...but as pointed out, i guess we can't dismiss it on the same logic as 'peoples' is a valid word in context.

 

[Kappa]

How about "he fishes three fish?" Is that "fishes" correct?

Actually, I think there is a problem with this sentence. "To fish" is an action of searching rather than catching, so its direct object is the place searched rather than the thing searched for, thus: "He fishes the river." The thing searched for would be shown with the preposition "for," so: "He fishes the river for three fish."

That said, I suspect that most people would say, "He fishes in the river."

Anyway, that's how it sounds to me as a US native. One of the fun aspects of teaching in Japan was being able to compare usage with natives from elsewhere.