Talk:sneaked

Do not make ridiculous assertions without references. This is not a word (at least, not in the US!) --Connel MacKenzie 20:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous assertions? Look who's talking. JackLumber 20:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Cambridge Corpus of American English, sneaked outnumbers snuck by 2.3 : 1. JackLumber 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which m-w.com are you looking at, precisely? And how to complete removal of the tags help anything, anywhere? --Connel MacKenzie 20:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paper dictionaries? Have you ever heard of those things called books? JackLumber 20:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

m-w.com says, " From its earliest appearance in print in the late 19th century as a dialectal and probably uneducated form, the past and past participle snuck has risen to the status of standard and to approximate equality with sneaked. Indications are that it is continuing to grow in frequency. It is most common in the United States and Canada, but has also been spotted in British and Australian English." Therefore, sneaked is hardly a "Commonwealth" form, whatever that means. Not to mention that there's a usage note at sneak. JackLumber 20:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lumber, it is obvious you are stubborn, but that will not help you push your POV; it will just get you blocked.

You are doing several things wrong. Most importantly, you are damaging the entry by removing tags. Revert warring is never a good idea - would you have ever slowed down if I hadn't again goaded you into discussing it?

Did you perchance, LOOK for other discussions about this? Having startled me, by militantly reverting your incorrect changes, I had almost forgotten the (sometimes valid) past participle. But never as a simple past, is this valid in GenAm. This is obviously quite different in the UK where "snuck" is still only gaining minimal acceptance (according to m-w.)

All that aside, your removal if content is still wrong. The sources you offhandedly mention in an edit summary do not support the changes you are making! Of most important note it your claim about "snuck" above - the opposite of what m-w.com says! You seem to be looking at the wrong headword, perhaps.

--Connel MacKenzie 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AHD regards snuck as the also-ran, and Webster's New World dubs it "informal"; both prioritize sneaked for both p.t. and p.pl.---just like Merriam-Webster. Therefore, I'm definitely not wrong. The status quo ante wasn't supported either. JackLumber 20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There ain't no discussions except this here one, and this is the first time ever I run into someone who doesn't accept sneaked as a past tense. JackLumber 21:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be regionally more/less common in the US. The form sneaked does seem to be gaining ground over snuck among young people today. Some of the irregular strong forms may disappear in a few decades. --EncycloPetey 21:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, snuck is more idiomatic than sneaked in my idiolect. But maybe I ain't that young anymore. JackLumber 22:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citations from three prominent modern American writers. Connel, please calm down and look at the evidence. It's quite clear that this is a word in current American usage. Cynewulf 21:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. McKinzy don't speak Standard English, he speaks Connel English. So he don't count for much anyways. JackLumber 22:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:sneaked

Navigation menu

Search