This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

...DOVE into the pool?...

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.
 
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.
 
Yeah I guess it must be, like how they call it "math" and we say "maths."
 
"Maths"? I've never heard that. I've only heard "math" and "arithmetic". Well, and "mathematics".
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
"Four tree" somehow doesn't sound as "right" as "Four trees". To me, at least.
 
Indiana Gardener said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 


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.
 
ASHIKAGA said:
We do say "fishes" when we are talking about species/groups of "fish".
Click to expand...

Interesting, man. Thank you for the addition.

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

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. ☝
 
Uncle Frank said:
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,
Click to expand...
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.
 
AMIGO said:
How about "he fishes three fish?" Is that "fishes" correct?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…