"dived" or "dove"?

[Babyface]

Hi everybody,

I was wondering if it’s correct to use “dove” as the past tense of “dive”?

Is this one of those cases where English English and American English differentiate? if so, are both considered grammatically correct?

Thanks!

[Conchita]

That’s right, Babyface, both ‘dived’ (BrE/AmE) and ‘dove’ (AmE) are correct.

[Jamie_K]

When I’m not thinking about it, I probably use both “dived” and “dove”, but if you asked me which one I prefer, and I had to think about it, I’d probably say that “dived” sounds more like children’s speech, or uneducated speech, to me and that “dove” is better. Someone else probably has a different judgment.

[Babyface]

Thanks for the answers, I appreciate it!

[NinaZara]

@Jamie (K)

When I’m not thinking about it, I probably use both “dived” and “dove”, but if you asked me which one I prefer, and I had to think about it, I’d probably say that “dived” sounds more like children’s speech, or uneducated speech, to me and that “dove” is better. Someone else probably has a different judgment.

This reminds me of Shirley Temple’s movie, The Little Colonel.

Shirley said “Yes, my mother teached it to me!..pausing…that isn’t right, is it?”

“No…taught is” said the grandfather.

[Jamie_K]

@NinaZara

This reminds me of Shirley Temple’s movie, The Little Colonel.

Shirley said “Yes, my mother teached it to me!..pausing…that isn’t right, is it?”

“No…taught is” said the grandfather.

Well, the grandfather taught her very well, because Shirley Temple went on to become the ambassador to Ghana and later to Czechoslovakia.

[Geokrug]

That’s right, Babyface, both ‘dived’ (BrE/AmE) and ‘dove’ (AmE) are correct.

While Conchita is correct, this hasn’t always been the case. Many verbs have been adjusted in relatively recent years due to their new-found commonality. That being said, traditionally speaking “dived” is correct, and “dove” isn’t a word. However, as with many words today it seems that if people use them enough, we’ll throw them in the dictionary regardless of correctness.

There’s no real correct answer here, just a preference of usage, though in writing i would encourage using the traditionally correct form: “dived”.

[Jamie_K]

“Dived” for the simple past always sounds uncultured to me, for some reason.

Here’s what the Merriam-Webster dictionary has to say about it:

usage Dive, which was originally a weak verb, developed a past tense dove, probably by analogy with verbs like drive, drove. Dove exists in some British dialects and has become the standard past tense especially in speech in some parts of Canada. In the United States dived and dove are both widespread in speech as past tense and past participle, with dove less common than dived in the south Midland area, and dived less common than dove in the Northern and north Midland areas. In writing, the past tense dived is usual in British English and somewhat more common in American English. Dove seems relatively rare as a past participle in writing.

[Papin]

@Jamie (K)

“Dived” for the simple past always sounds uncultured to me, for some reason.

It’s funny you say that, since you essentially have it backwards.
The use of “dived” is more cultured since it’s the standard past tense as opposed to the more recently-used “dove.”
Many people assume dove is more correct because it sounds correct and they hear others use it, but, at least in writing, dived is the preferred past participle.

[AnWulf]

The common mythos is that Americans made up dove as a past tense but the truth is much easier. If you notice in OED, it states that some words like pled is mainly North American and Scottish … there ya go!

Once again, the Scots have kept either an old verb (like umbeset - surround), an old verb form (like dove / doven), or just an old Anglo-Saxon word (like umbe - around) and brought it to the States while the English often swapped out the word for a Latinate.

That has happened with many words and a lot of usage. The US often, not always, keeps the older words, the older forms, and the older usage.

In Old English dive had two forms two, altho strongly akin: a strong, class II form dufan from which had a p.p. of dofen (OE didn’t have the letter ‘v’ so here, f=v … doven). From dufan we get dive, dove, doven and from the weak form dyfan we get dive, dived, dived. The strong form was intransitive, the weak was transitive (meaning to dip something), like: lie/lay, rise/raise, sit/set, fall/fell. In the UK the weak form survived, but with an intransitive meaning, but American and Scottish English keeps the strong form.

For me it’s hard to say, “I had dove” without saying either “doved” or “doven” … To say, “I had dove” requires, to me, an unnatural stop, it just begs for an ending. We know that doved is wrong so I use doven which, fits the wove, woven pattern. I just read a paper a few days ago on how folks find their way to usage with strong verbs and it talked about whether it should be doven or diven.

BTW, there is also the word bedoven from the ppl of bedive, meaning drenched or drowned. She was bedoven in blood.

So use dove and doven without angst!

If you want to have fun … check out glide. It not only has a weak and a strong form, it has two strong forms! And they’re all correct! It would be hard to go wrong with the past tense of glide! lol

[E2e4]

Was it ever “diveth”?

Thanks

[AnWulf]

@E2e4

Was it ever “diveth”?

Thanks

Diveth would be the archaic 3rd person singular. Using the old pronouns, it would be:

I dive
thou divest
he, she, it diveth
we dive
ye dive
they dive

“Sone he [the whale] diueð dun to grunde.” - from Bestiary
diueð = diveth