Digital Fundamentals 11th Edition Floyd Test

Bank download

https://testbankfan.com/product/digital-fundamentals-11th-
edition-floyd-test-bank/

Explore and download more test bank or solution manual

at testbankfan.com
 We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit testbankfan.com
to discover even more!

Electronics Fundamentals A Systems Approach 1st Edition

Floyd Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/electronics-fundamentals-a-systems-
approach-1st-edition-floyd-solutions-manual/

Communication Matters 2nd Edition Kory Floyd Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/communication-matters-2nd-edition-
kory-floyd-test-bank/

Public Speaking Matters 1st Edition Floyd Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/public-speaking-matters-1st-edition-
floyd-test-bank/

Management 9th Edition Kinicki Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/management-9th-edition-kinicki-
solutions-manual/
Principles of Macroeconomics Version 3.0 3rd Edition
Rittenberg Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/principles-of-macroeconomics-
version-3-0-3rd-edition-rittenberg-test-bank/

Genetics Analysis and Principles 5th Edition Brooker Test

Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/genetics-analysis-and-principles-5th-
edition-brooker-test-bank/

An Introduction To Abstract Algebra With Notes To The

Future Teacher 1st Edition Nicodemi Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/an-introduction-to-abstract-algebra-
with-notes-to-the-future-teacher-1st-edition-nicodemi-solutions-
manual/

Financial Management Concepts and Applications 1st Edition

Stephen Foerster Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/financial-management-concepts-and-
applications-1st-edition-stephen-foerster-solutions-manual/

Social Psychology Core Concepts and Emerging Trends 1st

Edition Barrett Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/social-psychology-core-concepts-and-
emerging-trends-1st-edition-barrett-test-bank/
Principles of Electronic Materials and Devices 4th Edition
Kasap Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/principles-of-electronic-materials-
and-devices-4th-edition-kasap-solutions-manual/
Other documents randomly have
different content
immigrations to take on its present character. The enormous dialect
literature of twenty years ago left it almost untouched. Localisms
were explored diligently, but the general dialect went virtually
unobserved. It is not in "Chimmie Fadden"; it is not in [Pg191] "David
Harum"; it is not even in the pre-fable stories of George Ade,
perhaps the most acute observer of average, undistinguished
American types, urban and rustic, that American literature has yet
produced. The business of reducing it to print had to wait for Ring
W. Lardner, a Chicago newspaper reporter. In his grotesque tales of
base-ball players, so immediately and so deservedly successful and
now so widely imitated,[18] Lardner reports the common speech not
only with humor, but also with the utmost accuracy. The
observations of Charters and his associates are here reinforced by
the sharp ear of one specially competent, and the result is a mine of
authentic American.
In a single story by Lardner, in truth, it is usually possible to
discover examples of almost every logical and grammatical
peculiarity of the emerging language, and he always resists very
stoutly the temptation to overdo the thing. Here, for example, are a
few typical sentences from "The Busher's Honeymoon":[19]
I and Florrie was married the day before yesterday just like I told
you we was going to be.... You was wise to get married in
Bedford, where not nothing is nearly half so dear.... The sum of
what I have wrote down is $29.40.... Allen told me I should
ought to give the priest $5.... I never seen him before.... I didn't
used to eat no lunch in the playing season except when I knowed
I was not going to work.... I guess the meals has cost me all
together about $1.50, and I have eat very little myself....
I was willing to tell her all about them two poor girls.... They
must not be no mistake about who is the boss in my house.
Some men lets their wife run all over them.... Allen has went to a
college football game. One of the reporters give him a pass.... He
called up and said he hadn't only the one pass, but he was not
hurting my feelings none.... The flat across the hall from this
 here one is for rent.... If we should of boughten furniture it
would cost us in the neighborhood of $100, even without no
piano.... I consider myself lucky to of found out about this before
it was too late and somebody else had of gotten the tip.... It will
always be ourn, even when we move away.... Maybe you could of
did better if you had of went at it in a different way.... Both her
and you is welcome at my house.... I never seen so much wine
drank in my life....
[Pg192]

Here are specimens to fit into most of Charters' categories—verbs

confused as to tense, pronouns confused as to case, double and
even triple negatives, nouns and verbs disagreeing in number, have
softened to of, n marking the possessive instead of s, like used in
place of as, and the personal pronoun substituted for the
demonstrative adjective. A study of the whole story would probably
unearth all the remaining errors noted in Kansas City. Lardner's
baseball player, though he has pen in hand and is on his guard, and
is thus very careful to write would not instead of wouldn't and even
am not instead of ain't, offers a comprehensive and highly instructive
panorama of popular speech habits. To him the forms of the
subjunctive mood have no existence, and will and shall are identical,
and adjectives and adverbs are indistinguishable, and the objective
case is merely a variorum form of the nominative. His past tense is,
more often than not, the orthodox present tense. All fine distinctions
are obliterated in his speech. He uses invariably the word that is
simplest, the grammatical form that is handiest. And so he moves
toward the philological millennium dreamed of by George T. Lanigan,
when "the singular verb shall lie down with the plural noun, and a
little conjugation shall lead them."

§3

The Verb
—A study of the materials amassed by Charters and Lardner, if it be
reinforced by observation of what is heard on the streets every day,
will show that the chief grammatical peculiarities of spoken American
lie among the verbs and pronouns. The nouns in common use, in
the overwhelming main, are quite sound in form. Very often, of
course, they do not belong to the vocabulary of English, but they at
least belong to the vocabulary of American: the proletariat, setting
aside transient slang, calls things by their proper names, and
pronounces those names more or less correctly. The adjectives, too,
are treated rather politely, and the adverbs, though commonly
transformed into adjectives, are not further mutilated. But the verbs
and pronouns undergo changes which set off the common speech
very [Pg193] sharply from both correct English and correct American.
Their grammatical relationships are thoroughly overhauled and
sometimes they are radically modified in form.
This process is natural and inevitable, for it is among the verbs
and pronouns, as we have seen, that the only remaining
grammatical inflections in English, at least of any force or
consequence, are to be found, and so they must bear the chief
pressure of the influences that have been warring upon all inflections
since the earliest days. The primitive Indo-European language, it is
probable, had eight cases of the noun; the oldest known Teutonic
dialect reduced them to six; in Anglo-Saxon they fell to four, with a
weak and moribund instrumental hanging in the air; in Middle
English the dative and accusative began to decay; in Modern English
they have disappeared altogether, save as ghosts to haunt
grammarians. But we still have two plainly defined conjugations of
the verb, and we still inflect it for number, and, in part, at least, for
person. And we yet retain an objective case of the pronoun, and
inflect it for person, number and gender.
Some of the more familiar conjugations of verbs in the American
common speech, as recorded by Charters or Lardner or derived from
my own collectanea, are here set down:
Present Preterite Perfect
Participle
Am was bin (or ben)[20]
Attack attackted attackted
(Be)[21] was bin (or ben) [20]
Beat beaten beat
Become[22] become became
Begin begun began
Bend bent bent
Bet bet bet
Bind bound bound
Bite bitten bit
Bleed bled bled
Blow blowed (or blew) blowed (or blew)
Break broken broke
Bring brought (or brung, or brung
brang)
Broke (passive) broke broke
Build built built
Burn burnt[23] burnt
Burst[24] —— ——
Bust busted busted
Buy bought (or boughten) bought (or
boughten)
Can could could'a
Catch caught[25] caught
Choose chose choose
Climb clum clum
Cling (to hold fast) clung
clung
Cling (to ring) clang clang
Come come came
Creep crep (or crope) crep
Crow crew crew
Cut cut cut
Dare dared dared
Deal dole dealt
Dig dug dug
Dive dove dived
Do done done (or did)
Drag drug dragged
Draw drawed[26] drawed (or drew)
Dream dreampt dreampt
Drink drank (or drunk) drank
Drive drove drove
Drown drownded drownded
Eat et (or eat) ate
Fall fell (or fallen) fell
Feed fed fed
Feel felt felt
Fetch fetched[27] fetch
Fight fought[28] fought
Find found found
Fine found found
Fling flang flung
Flow flew flowed
Fly flew flew
Forget forgotten forgotten
Forsake forsaken forsook
Freeze frozen (or friz) frozen
Get got (or gotten) gotten
Give give give
Glide glode[29] glode
Go went went
Grow growed growed
Hang hung[30] hung
Have had had (or hadden)
Hear heerd heerd (or heern)
Heat het[31] het
Heave hove hove
Hide hidden hid
H'ist[32] h'isted h'isted
Hit hit hit
Hold helt held (or helt)
Holler hollered hollered
Hurt hurt hurt
Keep kep kep
Kneel knelt knelt
Know knowed knew
Lay laid (or lain) laid
Lead led led
Lean lent lent
Leap lep lep
Learn learnt learnt
Lend loaned[33] loaned
Lie (to falsify) lied lied
Lie (to recline) laid (or lain) laid
Light lit lit
Lose lost lost
Make made made
May —— might'a
Mean meant meant
Meet met met
Mow mown mowed
Pay paid paid
Plead pled pled
Prove proved (or proven) proven
Put put put
Quit quit quit
Raise raised raised
Read read read
Rench[34] renched renched
Rid rid rid
Ride ridden rode
Rile[35] riled riled
Ring rung rang
Rise riz (or rose) riz
Run run ran
Say sez said
See seen saw
Sell sold sold
Send sent sent
Set set[36] sat
Shake shaken (or shuck) shook
Shave shaved shaved
Shed shed shed
Shine (to polish) shined shined
Shoe shoed shoed
Shoot shot shot
Show shown showed
Sing sung sang
Sink sunk sank
Sit[37] —— ——
Skin skun skun
Sleep slep slep
Slide slid slid
Sling slang slung
Slit slitted slitted
Smell smelt smelt
Sneak snuck snuck
Speed speeded speeded
Spell spelt spelt
Spill spilt spilt
Spin span span
Spit spit spit
Spoil spoilt spoilt
Spring sprung sprang
Steal stole stole
Sting stang stang
Stink stank stank
Strike struck struck
Swear swore swore
Sweep swep swep
Swell swole swollen
Swim swum swam
Swing swang swung
Take taken took
Teach taught taught
Tear tore torn
Tell tole tole
Think thought[38] thought
Thrive throve throve
Throw throwed threw
 Tread tread tread
Wake woke woken
Wear wore wore
Weep wep wep
Wet wet wet
Win won (or wan)[39] won (or wan)
Wind wound wound
Wish (wisht) wisht wisht
Wring wrung wrang
Write written wrote
[Pg198]

A glance at these conjugations is sufficient to show several

general tendencies, some of them going back, in their essence, to
the earliest days of the English language. The most obvious is that
leading to the transfer of verbs from the so-called strong conjugation
to the weak—a change already in operation before the Norman
Conquest, and very marked during the Middle English period.
Chaucer used growed for grew in the prologue to "The Wife of
Bath's Tale," and rised for rose and smited for smote are in John
Purvey's edition of the Bible, circa 1385.[40] Many of these
transformations were afterward abandoned, but a large number
survived, for example, climbed for clomb as the preterite of to climb,
and melted for molt as the preterite of to melt. Others showed
themselves during the early part of the Modern English period.
Comed as the perfect participle of to come and digged as the
preterite of to dig are both in Shakespeare, and the latter is also in
Milton and in the Authorized Version of the Bible. This tendency
went furthest, of course, in the vulgar speech, and it has been
embalmed in the English dialects. I seen and I knowed, for example,
are common to many of them. But during the seventeenth century it
seems to have been arrested, and even to have given way to a
contrary tendency—that is, toward strong conjugations. The English
of Ireland, which preserves many seventeenth century forms, shows
this plainly. Ped for paid, gother for gathered, and ruz for raised are
still in use there, and Joyce says flatly that the Irish, "retaining the
old English custom [i. e., the custom of the period of Cromwell's
invasion, circa 1650], have a leaning toward the strong inflection."
[41] Certain verb forms of the American colonial period, now reduced
to the estate of localisms, are also probably survivors of the
seventeenth century.
"The three great causes of change in language," says Sayce, "may
be briefly described as (1) imitation or analogy, (2) a wish to be
clear and emphatic, and (3) laziness. Indeed, if we choose to go
deep enough we might reduce all three causes to the general one of
laziness, since it is easier to imitate than to say [Pg199] something
new."[42] This tendency to take well-worn paths, paradoxically
enough, is responsible both for the transfer of verbs from the strong
to the weak declension, and for the transfer of certain others from
the weak to the strong. A verb in everyday use tends almost
inevitably to pull less familiar verbs with it, whether it be strong or
weak. Thus fed as the preterite of to feed and led as the preterite of
to lead paved the way for pled as the preterite of to plead, and rode
as plainly performed the same office for glode, and rung for brung,
and drove for dove and hove, and stole for dole, and won for skun.
Moreover, a familiar verb, itself acquiring a faulty inflection, may
fasten a similar inflection upon another verb of like sound. Thus het,
as the preterite of to heat, no doubt owes its existence to the
example of et, the vulgar preterite of to eat. So far the irregular
verbs. The same combination of laziness and imitativeness works
toward the regularization of certain verbs that are historically
irregular. In addition, of course, there is the fact that regularization is
itself intrinsically simplification—that it makes the language easier.
One sees the antagonistic pull of the two influences in the case of
verbs ending in -ow. The analogy of knew suggests snew as the
preterite of to snow, and it is sometimes encountered in the
American vulgate. But the analogy of snowed also suggests knowed,
and the superior regularity of the form is enough to overcome the
greater influence of knew as a more familiar word than snowed.
Thus snew grows rare and is in decay, but knowed shows vigor, and
so do growed and throwed. The substitution of heerd for heard also
presents a case of logic and convenience supporting analogy. The
form is suggested by steered, feared and cheered, but its main
advantage lies in the fact that it gets rid of a vowel change, always
an impediment to easy speech. Here, as in the contrary direction,
one barbarism breeds another. Thus taken, as the preterite of to
take, has undoubtedly helped to make preterites of two other
perfects, shaken and forsaken.
But in the presence of two exactly contrary tendencies, the one in
accordance with the general movement of the language [Pg200] since
the Norman Conquest and the other opposed to it, it is unsafe, of
course, to attempt any very positive generalizations. All one may
exhibit with safety is a general habit of treating the verb
conveniently. Now and then, disregarding grammatical tendencies, it
is possible to discern what appear to be logical causes for verb
phenomena. That lit is preferred to lighted and hung to hanged is
probably the result of an aversion to fine distinctions, and perhaps,
more fundamentally, to the passive. Again, the use of found as the
preterite of to fine is obviously due to an ignorant confusion of fine
and find, due to the wearing off of -d in find, and that of lit as the
preterite of to alight to a confusion of alight and light. Yet again, the
use of tread as its own preterite in place of trod is probably the
consequence of a vague feeling that a verb ending with d is already
of preterite form. Shed exhibits the same process. Both are given a
logical standing by such preterites as bled, fed, fled, led, read, dead
and spread. But here, once more, it is hazardous to lay down laws,
for shredded, headed, dreaded, threaded and breaded at once come
to mind. In other cases it is still more difficult to account for
preterites in common use. Drug is wholly illogical, and so are clum
and friz. Neither, fortunately, has yet supplanted the more intelligible
form of its verb, and so it is not necessary to speculate about them.
As for crew, it is archaic English surviving in American, and it was
formed, perhaps, by analogy with knew, which has succumbed in
American to knowed.
 Some of the verbs of the vulgate show the end products of
language movements that go back to the Anglo-Saxon period, and
even beyond. There is, for example, the disappearance of the final t
in such words as crep, slep, lep, swep and wep. Most of these, in
Anglo-Saxon, were strong verbs. The preterite of to sleep (slâepan),
for example, was slēp, and that of to weep was weop. But in the
course of time both to sleep and to weep acquired weak preterite
endings, the first becoming slâepte and the second wepte. This
weak conjugation was itself degenerated. Originally, the inflectional
suffix had been -de or -ede and in some cases -ode, and the vowels
were always pronounced. The wearing down process that set in in
the twelfth century disposed [Pg201] of the final e, but in certain words
the other vowel survived for a good while, and we still observe it in
such archaisms as belovéd. Finally, however, it became silent in
other preterites, and loved, for example, began to be pronounced
(and often written) as a word of one syllable: lov'd.[43] This final d-
sound now fell upon difficulties of its own. After certain consonants
it was hard to pronounce clearly, and so the sonant was changed
into the easier surd, and such words as pushed and clipped became,
in ordinary conversation, pusht and clipt. In other verbs the t-sound
had come in long before, with the degenerated weak ending, and
when the final e was dropped their stem vowels tended to change.
Thus arose such forms as slept. In vulgar American another step is
taken, and the suffix is dropped altogether. Thus, by a circuitous
route, verbs originally strong, and for many centuries hovering
between the two conjugations, have eventually become strong
again.
The case of helt is probably an example of change by false
analogy. During the thirteenth century, according to Sweet,[44] "d
was changed to t in the weak preterites of verbs [ending] in rd, ld
and nd." Before that time the preterite of sende (send) had been
sende; now it became sente. It survives in our modern sent, and the
same process is also revealed in built, girt, lent, rent and bent. The
popular speech, disregarding the fact that to hold is a strong verb,
arrives at helt by imitation. In the case of tole, which I almost
always hear in place of told, there is a leaping of steps. The d is got
rid of without any transitional use of t. So also, perhaps, in swole,
which is fast displacing swelled. Attackted and drownded seem to be
examples of an effort to dispose of harsh combinations by a contrary
process. Both are very old in English. Boughten and dreampt [Pg202]
present greater difficulties. Lounsbury says that boughten probably
originated in the Northern [i. e., Lowland Scotch] dialect of English,
"which ... inclined to retain the full form of the past participle," and
even to add its termination "to words to which it did not properly
belong."[45] I record dreampt without attempting to account for it. I
have repeatedly heard a distinct p-sound in the word.
The general tendency toward regularization is well exhibited by
the new verbs that come into the language constantly. Practically all
of them show the weak conjugation, for example, to phone, to bluff,
to rubber-neck, to ante, to bunt, to wireless, to insurge and to loop-
the-loop. Even when a compound has as its last member a verb
ordinarily strong, it remains weak itself. Thus the preterite of to joy-
ride is not joy-rode, nor even joy-ridden, but joy-rided. And thus
bust, from burst, is regular and its preterite is busted, though burst
is irregular and its preterite is the verb itself unchanged. The same
tendency toward regularity is shown by the verbs of the kneel-class.
They are strong in English, but tend to become weak in colloquial
American. Thus the preterite of to kneel, despite the example of to
sleep and its analogues, is not knel', nor even knelt, but kneeled. I
have even heard feeled as the preterite of to feel, as in "I feeled my
way," though here felt still persists. To spread also tends to become
weak, as in "he spreaded a piece of bread." And to peep remains so,
despite the example of to leap. The confusion between the
inflections of to lie and those of to lay extends to the higher reaches
of spoken American, and so does that between lend and loan. The
proper inflections of to lend are often given to to loan, and so leaned
becomes lent, as in "I lent on the counter." In the same way to set
has almost completely superseded to sit, and the preterite of the
former, set, is used in place of sat. But the perfect participle (which
is also the disused preterite) of to sit has survived, as in "I have sat
there." To speed and to shoe have become regular, not only because
of the general tendency toward the weak conjugation, but also for
logical reasons. The prevalence of speed contests [Pg203] of various
sorts, always to the intense interest of the proletariat, has brought
such words as speeder, speeding, speed-mania, speed-maniac and
speed-limit into daily use, and speeded harmonizes with them better
than the stronger sped. As for shoed, it merely reveals the virtual
disappearance of the verb in its passive form. An American would
never say that his wife was well shod; he would say that she wore
good shoes. To shoe suggests to him only the shoeing of animals,
and so, by way of shoeing and horse-shoer, he comes to shoed. His
misuse of to learn for to teach is common to most of the English
dialects. More peculiar to his speech is the use of to leave for to let.
Charters records it in "Washington left them have it," and there are
many examples of it in Lardner. Spit, in American, has become
invariable; the old preterite, spat, has completely disappeared. But
slit, which is now invariable in English (though it was strong in Old
English and had both strong and weak preterites in Middle English),
has become regular in American, as in "she slitted her skirt."
In studying the American verb, of course, it is necessary to
remember always that it is in a state of transition, and that in many
cases the manner of using it is not yet fixed. "The history of
language," says Lounsbury, "when looked at from the purely
grammatical point of view, is little else than the history of
corruptions." What we have before us is a series of corruptions in
active process, and while some of them have gone very far, others
are just beginning. Thus it is not uncommon to find corrupt forms
side by side with orthodox forms, or even two corrupt forms battling
with each other. Lardner, in the case of to throw, hears "if he had
throwed"; my own observation is that threw is more often used in
that situation. Again, he uses "the rottenest I ever seen gave"; my
own belief is that give is far more commonly used. The conjugation
of to give, however, is yet very uncertain, and so Lardner may report
accurately. I have heard "I given" and "I would of gave," but "I give"
seems to be prevailing, and "I would of give" with it, thus reducing
to give to one invariable form, like those of to cut, to hit, to put, to
cost, to hurt and to spit. My table of verbs shows [Pg204] various other
uncertainties and confusions. The preterite of to hear is heerd; the
perfect may be either heerd or heern. That of to do may be either
done or did, with the latter apparently prevailing; that of to draw is
drew if the verb indicates to attract or to abstract and drawed if it
indicates to draw with a pencil. Similarly, the preterite of to blow
may be either blowed or blew, and that of to drink oscillates
between drank and drunk, and that of to fall is still usually fell,
though fallen has appeared, and that of to shake may be either
shaken or shuck. The conjugation of to win is yet far from fixed. The
correct English preterite, won, is still in use, but against it are
arrayed wan and winned. Wan seems to show some kinship, by
ignorant analogy, with ran and began. It is often used as the perfect
participle, as in "I have wan $4."
The misuse of the perfect participle for the preterite, now almost
the invariable rule in vulgar American, is common to many other
dialects of English, and seems to be a symptom of a general decay
of the perfect tenses. That decay has been going on for a long time,
and in American, the most vigorous and advanced of all the dialects
of the language, it is particularly well marked. Even in the most
pretentious written American it shows itself. The English, in their
writing, still use the future perfect, albeit somewhat laboriously and
self-consciously, but in America it has virtually disappeared: one
often reads whole books without encountering a single example of
it. Even the present perfect and the past perfect seem to be
instinctively avoided. The Englishman says "I have dined," but the
American says "I am through dinner"; the Englishman says "I had
slept," but the American often says "I was done sleeping." Thus the
perfect tenses are forsaken for the simple present and the past. In
the vulgate a further step is taken, and "I have been there" becomes
"I been there." Even in such phrases as "he hasn't been here," ain't
(=am not) is commonly substituted for have not, thus giving the
present perfect a flavor of the simple present. The step from "I have
taken" to "I taken" was therefore neither difficult nor unnatural, and
once it had been made the resulting locution was supported by the
greater [Pg205] apparent regularity of its verb. Moreover, this perfect
participle, thus put in place of the preterite, was further reinforced
by the fact that it was the adjectival form of the verb, and hence
collaterally familiar. Finally, it was also the authentic preterite in the
passive voice, and although this influence, in view of the decay of
the passive, may not have been of much consequence, nevertheless
it is not to be dismissed as of no consequence at all.
The contrary substitution of the preterite for the perfect participle,
as in "I have went" and "he has did," apparently has a double
influence behind it. In the first place, there is the effect of the
confused and blundering effort, by an ignorant and unanalytical
speaker, to give the perfect some grammatical differentiation when
he finds himself getting into it—an excursion not infrequently made
necessary by logical exigencies, despite his inclination to keep out.
The nearest indicator at hand is the disused preterite, and so it is
put to use. Sometimes a sense of its uncouthness seems to linger,
and there is a tendency to give it an en-suffix, thus bringing it into
greater harmony with its tense. I find that boughten, just discussed,
is used much oftener in the perfect than in the simple past tense;[46]
for the latter bought usually suffices. The quick ear of Lardner
detects various other coinages of the same sort, among them
tooken, as in "little Al might of tooken sick."[47] Hadden is also met
with, as in "I would of hadden." But the majority of preterites remain
unchanged. Lardner's baseball player never writes "I have written"
or "I have wroten," but always "I have wrote." And in the same way
he always writes, "I have did, ate, went, drank, rode, ran, saw,
sang, woke and stole." Sometimes the simple form of the verb
persists through all tenses. This is usually the case, for example,
with to give. I have noted "I give" both as present and as preterite,
and "I have give," and even "I had give." But even here "I have
gave" offers rivalry to "I have give," and usage is not settled. So,
too, with to come. "I have come" and "I have came" seem to be
almost equally [Pg206] favored, with the former supported by
pedagogical admonition and the latter by the spirit of the language.
 Whatever the true cause of the substitution of the preterite for the
perfect participle, it seems to be a tendency inherent in English, and
during the age of Elizabeth it showed itself even in the most formal
speech. An examination of any play of Shakespeare's will show many
such forms as "I have wrote," "I am mistook" and "he has rode." In
several cases this transfer of the preterite has survived. "I have
stood," for example, is now perfectly correct English, but before
1550 the form was "I have stonden." To hold and to sit belong to the
same class; their original perfect participles were not held and sat,
but holden and sitten. These survived the movement toward the
formalization of the language which began with the eighteenth
century, but scores of other such misplaced preterites were driven
out. One of the last to go was wrote, which persisted until near the
end of the century.[48] Paradoxically enough, the very purists who
performed the purging showed a preference for got (though not for
forgot), and it survives in correct English today in the preterite-
present form, as in "I have got," whereas in American, both vulgar
and polite, the elder and more regular gotten is often used. In the
polite speech gotten indicates a distinction between a completed
action and a continuing action,—between obtaining and possessing.
"I have gotten what I came for" is correct, and so is "I have got the
measles." In the vulgar speech, much the same distinction exists,
but the perfect becomes a sort of simple tense by the elision of
have. Thus the two sentences change to "I gotten what I come for"
and "I got the measles," the latter being understood, not as past,
but as present.
In "I have got the measles" got is historically a sort of auxiliary of
have, and in colloquial American, as we have seen in the examples
just given, the auxiliary has obliterated the verb. To have, as an
auxiliary, probably because of its intimate relationship with the
perfect tenses, is under heavy pressure, and [Pg207] promises to
disappear from the situations in which it is still used. I have heard
was used in place of it, as in "before the Elks was come here."[49]
Sometimes it is confused ignorantly with a distinct of, as in "she
would of drove," and "I would of gave." More often it is shaded to a
sort of particle, attached to the verb as an inflection, as in "he would
'a tole you," and "who could 'a took it?" But this is not all. Having
degenerated to such forms, it is now employed as a sort of auxiliary
to itself, in the subjunctive, as in "if you had of went," "if it had of
been hard," and "if I had of had."[50] I have encountered some
rather astonishing examples of this doubling of the auxiliary: one
appears in "I wouldn't had 'a went." Here, however, the a may
belong partly to had and partly to went; such forms as a-going are
very common in American. But in the other cases, and in such forms
as "I had 'a wanted," it clearly belongs to had. Sometimes for
syntactical reasons, the degenerated form of have is put before had
instead of after it, as in "I could of had her if I had of wanted to."[51]
Meanwhile, to have, ceasing to be an auxiliary, becomes a general
verb indicating compulsion. Here it promises to displace must. The
American seldom says "I must go"; he almost invariably says "I have
to go," or "I have got to go," in which last case, as we have seen,
got is the auxiliary.
The most common inflections of the verb for mode and voice are
shown in the following paradigm of to bite:
Active Voice
Indicative Mode
Present I bite Past Perfect I had of bit
Present Perfect I have bit Future I will bite
Past I bitten Future Perfect (wanting)
Subjunctive Mode
Present If I bite Past Perfect If I had of bit
Past If I bitten
Potential Mode
Present I can bite Past I could bite
Present Perfect (wanting) Past Perfect I could of bit
Imperative (or Optative) Mode
Future I shall (or will) bite
Infinitive Mode
(wanting)

Passive Voice
Indicative Mode
Present I am bit Past Perfect I had been
bit
Present I been Future I will be bit
Perfect bit
Past I was bit Future (wanting)
Perfect
Subjunctive Mode
Present If I am bit Past Perfect If I had of been bit
 Past If I was bit
Potential Mode
Present I can be Past I could be bit
bit
Present (wanting) Past I could of been
Perfect Perfect bit
Imperative Mode
(wanting)
Infinitive Mode
(wanting)

A study of this paradigm reveals several plain tendencies. One has

just been discussed: the addition of a degenerated form of have to
the preterite of the auxiliary, and its use in place of the auxiliary
itself. Another is the use of will instead of shall in the first person
future. Shall is confined to a sort of optative, indicating much more
than mere intention, and even here it is yielding to will. Yet another
is the consistent use of the transferred preterite in the passive. Here
the rule in correct English is followed faithfully, though the perfect
participle [Pg209] employed is not the English participle. "I am broke" is
a good example. Finally, there is the substitution of was for were
and of am for be in the past and present of the subjunctive. In this
last case American is in accord with the general movement of
English, though somewhat more advanced. Be, in the
Shakespearean form of "where be thy brothers?" was expelled from
the present indicative two hundred years ago, and survives today
only in dialect. And as it thus yielded to are in the indicative, it now
seems destined to yield to am and is in the subjunctive. It remains,
of course, in the future indicative: "I will be." In American its
conjugation coalesces with that of am in the following manner:
 Present I am Past Perfect I had of
ben
Present I bin (or Future I will be
Perfect ben)
Past I was Future Perfect
(wanting)

And in the subjunction:

Present If I am Past Perfect If I had of ben

Past If I was

All signs of the subjunctive, indeed, seem to be disappearing from

vulgar American. One never hears "if I were you," but always "if I
was you." In the third person the -s is not dropped from the verb.
One hears, not "if she go," but "if she goes." "If he be the man" is
never heard; it is always "if he is." This war upon the forms of the
subjunctive, of course, extends to the most formal English. "In Old
English," says Bradley,[52] "the subjunctive played as important a
part as in modern German, and was used in much the same way. Its
inflection differed in several respects from that of the indicative. But
the only formal trace of the old subjunctive still remaining, except
the use of be and were, is the omission of the final s in the third
person singular. And even this is rapidly dropping out of use....
Perhaps in another generation the subjunctive forms will have
ceased to exist except in the single instance of were, which serves a
useful function, although we manage to [Pg210] dispense with a
corresponding form in other verbs." Here, as elsewhere, unlettered
American usage simply proceeds in advance of the general
movement. Be and the omitted s are already dispensed with, and
even were has been discarded.
In the same way the distinction between will and shall, preserved
in correct English but already breaking down in the most correct
American, has been lost entirely in the American common speech.
Will has displaced shall completely, save in the imperative. This
preference extends to the inflections of both. Sha'n't is very seldom
heard; almost always won't is used instead. As for should, it is
displaced by ought to (degenerated to oughter or ought'a), and in its
negative form by hadn't ought'a, as in "he hadn't oughter said that,"
reported by Charters. Lardner gives various redundant combinations
of should and ought, as in "I don't feel as if I should ought to leave"
and "they should not ought to of had." I have encountered the same
form, but I don't think it is as common as the simple ought'a-forms.
In the main, should is avoided, sometimes at considerable pains.
Often its place is taken by the more positive don't. Thus "I don't
mind" is used instead of "I shouldn't mind." Don't has also
completely displaced doesn't, which is very seldom heard. "He don't"
and "they don't" are practically universal. In the same way ain't has
displaced is not, am not, isn't and aren't, and even have not and
haven't. One recalls a famous speech in a naval melodrama of
twenty years ago: "We ain't got no manners, but we can fight like
hell." Such forms as "he ain't here," "I ain't the man," "them ain't
what I want" and "I ain't heerd of it" are common.
This extensive use of ain't, of course, is merely a single symptom
of a general disregard of number, obvious throughout the verbs, and
also among the pronouns, as we shall see. Charters gives many
examples, among them, "how is Uncle Wallace and Aunt Clara?"
"you was," "there is six" and the incomparable "it ain't right to say,
'He ain't here today.'" In Lardner there are many more, for instance,
"them Giants is not such rotten hitters, is they?" "the people has all
wanted to shake hands with Matthewson and I" and "some of the
men has [Pg211] brung their wife along." Sez (=says), used as the
preterite of to say, shows the same confusion. One observes it again
in such forms as "then I goes up to him." Here the decay of number
helps in what threatens to become a decay of tense. Examples of it
are not hard to find. The average race-track follower of the humbler
sort seldom says "I won $2," or even "I wan $2," but almost always
"I win $2." And in the same way he says "I see him come in," not "I
saw him" or "seen him." Charters' materials offers other specimens,
among them "we help distributed the fruit," "she recognize, hug,
and kiss him" and "her father ask her if she intended doing what he
ask." Perhaps the occasional use of eat as the preterite of to eat, as
in "I eat breakfast as soon as I got up," is an example of the same
flattening out of distinctions. Lardner has many specimens, among
them "if Weaver and them had not of begin kicking" and "they would
of knock down the fence." I notice that used, in used to be, is
almost always reduced to simple use, as in "it use to be the rule."
One seldom, if ever, hears a clear d at the end. Here, of course, the
elision of the d is due primarily to assimilation with the t of to—a
second example of one form of decay aiding another form. But the
tenses apparently tend to crumble without help. I frequently hear
whole narratives in a sort of debased present: "I says to him.... Then
he ups and says.... I land him one on the ear.... He goes down and
out, ..." and so on.[53] Still under the spell of our disintegrating
inflections, we are prone to regard the tense inflections of the verb
as absolutely essential, but there are plenty of languages that get on
without them, and even in our own language children and foreigners
often reduce them to a few simple forms. Some time ago an Italian
contractor said to me "I have go there often." Here one of our few
surviving inflections was displaced by an analytical devise, and yet
the man's meaning was quite clear, and it would be absurd to say
that his sentence violated the inner spirit of English. That inner
spirit, in fact, has inclined steadily toward "I have go" for a thousand
years. [Pg212]

§4

The Pronoun
—The following paradigm shows the inflections of the personal
pronoun in the American common speech:

First Person
Common Gender
 Singular Plural
Nominative I we
Possessive Conjoint my our
Possessive Absolute mine ourn
Objective me us

Second Person
Common Gender
Singular
Nominative you yous
Possessive Conjoint your your
Possessive Absolute yourn yourn
Objective you yous

Third Person
Masculine Gender
Nominative he they
Possessive Conjoint his their
Possessive Absolute hisn theirn
Objective him them
Feminine Gender
Nominative she they
Possessive Conjoint her their
Possessive Absolute hern theirn
Objective her them
Neuter Gender
Nominative it they
Possessive Conjoint its theirn
 Possessive Absolute its their
Objective it them

These inflections, as we shall see, are often disregarded in use,

but nevertheless it is profitable to glance at them as they [Pg213]
stand. The only variations that they show from standard English are
the substitution of n for s as the distinguishing mark of the absolute
form of the possessive, and the attempt to differentiate between the
logical and the merely polite plurals in the second person by adding
the usual sign of the plural to the former. The use of n in place of s
is not an American innovation. It is found in many of the dialects of
English, and is, in fact, historically quite as sound as the use of s. In
John Wiclif's translation of the Bible (circa 1380) the first sentence of
the Sermon on the Mount (Mark v, 3) is made: "Blessed be the pore
in spirit, for the kyngdam in hevenes is heren." And in his version of
Luke xxiv, 24, is this: "And some of ouren wentin to the grave." Here
heren, (or herun) represents, of course, not the modern hers, but
theirs. In Anglo-Saxon the word was heora, and down to Chaucer's
day a modified form of it, here, was still used in the possessive
plural in place of the modern their, though they had already
displaced hie in the nominative.[54] But in John Purvey's revision of
the Wiclif Bible, made a few years later, hern actually occurs in II
Kings viii, 6, thus: "Restore thou to hir alle things that ben hern." In
Anglo-Saxon there had been no distinction between the conjoint and
absolute forms of the possessive pronouns; the simple genitive
sufficed for both uses. But with the decay of that language the
surviving remnants of its grammar began to be put to service
somewhat recklessly, and so there arose a genitive inflection of this
genitive—a true double inflection. In the Northern dialects of English
that inflection was made by simply adding s, the sign of the
possessive. In the Southern dialects the old n-declension was
applied, and so there arose such forms as minum and eowrum
(=mine and yours), from min and eower (=my and your).[55]
Meanwhile, the original simple genitive, now become youre, also
survived, and so the literature of [Pg214] the fourteenth century shows
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

testbankfan.com