Those who know me know that there are a few things about English usage that get on my nerves, using "impact" as a verb1, using "which" instead of "that" in defining relative clauses2, and spelling the past tense of the verb "plead" as "plead" instead of "pled" (or "pleaded"). At least on this last point I get some support from my dictionaries.
The Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives "pleaded" as the past and past participle of "plead", with "pled" as US, Scottish, and dialectical. OK. That's a British dictionary you say. What would an honest American dictionary say?
Well, The Oxford American Dictionary simply says "pleaded or pled". OK. That's sort of an American dictionary, but it's still published by Oxford, and what could the Brits know about American English.
How about The American Heritage Dictionary? "Pleaded or pled". Only Merriam-Webster admits that the past tense might be written "plead". It gives "pleaded or pled also plead".
So I feel pretty comfortable insisting on "pled" rather than "plead" for the past tense, but "pleaded" is probably better than either of those.
The Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives "pleaded" as the past and past participle of "plead", with "pled" as US, Scottish, and dialectical. OK. That's a British dictionary you say. What would an honest American dictionary say?
Well, The Oxford American Dictionary simply says "pleaded or pled". OK. That's sort of an American dictionary, but it's still published by Oxford, and what could the Brits know about American English.
How about The American Heritage Dictionary? "Pleaded or pled". Only Merriam-Webster admits that the past tense might be written "plead". It gives "pleaded or pled also plead".
So I feel pretty comfortable insisting on "pled" rather than "plead" for the past tense, but "pleaded" is probably better than either of those.
Why does any of this come up you ask? Because the first sentence in a recent entry at Walking the Berkshires reads like this:
1Yes, I know that Joseph M. Williams dismisses this fetish in Style, writing on pp. 178-179
2Yes, I know that Williams says roughly the same thing about the "that/which" distinction on pp. 182-183 that he say about "impact" as a verb, and yes I know that even Sir Ernest Gowers admitted in the second edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage that "what grammarians say should be has perhaps less influence on what shall be than even the more modest of them", but I still find the distinction useful, and it grates on my nerves when it's ignored.
It was bad enough when former Connecticut State Senator Louis Deluca (R-Waterbury) plead guilty to a federal misdemeanor charge last year for engaging a waste management tycoon with mob connections to threaten his grand-daughter's spouse. (emphasis added)
1Yes, I know that Joseph M. Williams dismisses this fetish in Style, writing on pp. 178-179
[S]ome think that only the vulgarians at the gate use impact as a verb. If you choose to defer to that opinion, fine, but do so understanding the wholly idiosyncratic nature of that judgment. The word impact derives from the past participle of impingere, a Latin verb. Moreover, impact has been used as a verb since at least the early seventeenth century.Fine, it's an idiosyncratic preference. I don't ask that others indulge my idiosyncrasies, but it still gets on my nerves.
2Yes, I know that Williams says roughly the same thing about the "that/which" distinction on pp. 182-183 that he say about "impact" as a verb, and yes I know that even Sir Ernest Gowers admitted in the second edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage that "what grammarians say should be has perhaps less influence on what shall be than even the more modest of them", but I still find the distinction useful, and it grates on my nerves when it's ignored.
Thanks for the link...
I plead not ignorance, for I do know the proper use of the word, but rather medium, for having an exquisitely edited blog is not the point of writing one. Regards, Tim