Forwarded to the ATEG group for a response from the experts.  Please
reply to all so the original poster gets your response.  Thanks.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: irregular/strong verb forms -- disapproved?
   Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:42:51 -0600
   From: "Steve Graves" <[log in to unmask]>
     To: <[log in to unmask]>

Dear Professor Southwell:

The New York Times Style Book unequivocally (and I believe, incorrectly)
states:“Dived, not dove, is the past tense of ‘dive.’”It is equally
emphatic in holding that “pleaded,” not “pled” or “plead” is the past
tense of “plead.”For the past couple of decades, and nowadays with
increasing fervor, major news organizations and newspapers have been
adhering to this line, and are ever increasing the number of “good old”
irregular verbs they are trying to regularize.Sometimes, they are making
blatant errors in doing this (I have seen past tense “layed.”)

On the other hand, Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage almost makes
fun of the Times’ mandates and not only allows but prefers “pled.”

This is far from being the world’s most earthshaking or important
matter, and I do me) are going to say what they want to say.

May I ask, anyway, whether you are aware of any “movement” or trend,
inspired by the Times or by any other guide(s) to English usage, that
seeks to eradicate from written and formal English words like “pled” and
“dove,” that have been in perfectly good use for the last hundred years,
anyway, in this country?If in fact, these words are still fine to use,
why aren’t any newspapers or radio stations using them anymore?

I’m just trying to track it down, vaguely remembering that there WAS
some decision made in the 1970’s or thereabouts that sought to encourage
and prescribe “regular” verb usage; I actually like the sound of the
older forms better than the so-called regular forms that are now
sweeping the field.

Thanks if you can comment on it, and in any case for your kind
attention.

Steve Graves

Albuquerque, NM