shrink, shrank, shrunk

position   Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:13 pm GMT
Is, the title of the film "Honey, I Shrunk The Kids" incorrect grammar?
M56   Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:21 pm GMT
It's what is known as nonstandard.

Should be "Honey, I Shrank The Kids".
MGB   Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:28 am GMT
Yes, it's incorrect grammar. "Honey, I've Shrunk the Kids" is another way of saying it correctly.
Kirk   Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:37 am GMT
It's not incorrect at all but is how many native speakers use the past tense of "shrink."
position   Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:42 am GMT
<It's not incorrect at all but is how many native speakers use the past tense of "shrink." >

So would you advise students of English to use it, Kirk?
Travis   Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:04 am GMT
>>So would you advise students of English to use it, Kirk?<<

The past tense of "to shrink" is "shrank" in formal literary usage, but in actual usage in many English dialects the past tense and past participle forms of very many strong verbs (and not just "to shrink", or from another thread, "to sink") are apt to significantly vary.

In particular, what happens often is that the ablaut vowel for the past tense is used for the past participle or vice versa. Another thing that often happens is that if a past participle corresponds to a related adjective which is the same but has the suffix "-en", the past participle is likely to also gain that suffix. There are also sometimes sporadic vowel changes in past tense and past participle forms in dialects, such as in the PP "drinken" (instead of "drunk" or even "drunken") for "to drink", but such is not as common.

The reason why this is important is that this variation is very common in English dialects, unlike other specific kinds of variation which are more limited to particular dialect groups. Consequently, while certain forms are expected to be used in formal writing, in actual speech one should expect native speakers to often use forms that differ from such forms, primarily in the manners laid out above.
position   Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:59 am GMT
Yes, Travis, but would you advise a NNES to use "I shrunk"?
Michelle   Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:13 pm GMT
It should be, I believe "Honey, I Have Shrunk the Kids" or "I've shrunk". But it is correct, as past tense of shrink is shrunk.
Tommie   Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:22 pm GMT
<But it is correct, as past tense of shrink is shrunk. >

Where?
Travis   Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:27 pm GMT
>>Yes, Travis, but would you advise a NNES to use "I shrunk"?<<

As I had said, the past tense in the formal literary language is "shrank", not "shrunk", and consequently I would probably advise most learners of English as a foreign language to use such overall, especially if they are not in actual direct contact with an English dialect where some other pattern is followed in speech themselves.
Travis   Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:29 pm GMT
>><But it is correct, as past tense of shrink is shrunk. >

Where?<<

In some dialects where the ablaut vowel in the past participle of "to shrink" is also used in the past tense.
Tommie   Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:50 pm GMT
<In some dialects where the ablaut vowel in the past participle of "to shrink" is also used in the past tense. >

The writer only said this "But it is correct, as past tense of shrink is shrunk". Don't you think she should have mentioned dialects? This is an English learners' forum and not a dialect frorum.

And why do you use such technical terms as "ablaut vowel"? We are only learners, you know?
position   Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:57 pm GMT
<In some dialects where the ablaut vowel in the past participle of "to shrink" is also used in the past tense. >

If it's correct in certain dialects, why did they use it in the film title? Maybe more Americans than we think make mistakes in use.
Travis   Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:14 pm GMT
>>If it's correct in certain dialects, why did they use it in the film title? Maybe more Americans than we think make mistakes in use.<<

They probably used it in the movie title as whoever chose such title likely speaks such a dialect. Also, one must remember here that "Honey, I shrunk the kids" is not a literary usage to begin with but rather is supposed to sound like someone one would actually say, and consequently is far more open to non-literary features. Another note is that marketing-related materials today often explicitly use or try to approximate spoken usages outside of the literary language, such as with the McDonald's slogan "I'm lovin' it".

As for "mistakes", the thing is that there is often a large difference between formal literary usage and how native speakers actually speak, and just because someone has been taught something as being formally "correct" by one's language teacher(s) does not mean that native speakers will actually speak that way on an everyday basis necessarily. And this usage of "shrunk" is but one example of a case of such.
Travis   Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:32 pm GMT
>><In some dialects where the ablaut vowel in the past participle of "to shrink" is also used in the past tense. >

The writer only said this "But it is correct, as past tense of shrink is shrunk". Don't you think she should have mentioned dialects? This is an English learners' forum and not a dialect frorum.<<

One thing you must remember is that any native English-speaker here *will* have a native dialect, of course, and usage in actual speech in their native dialect may very well vary from what a learner here might be taught by their teacher(s). I myself, for instance, have to generally remember to give the "correct" answer that a learner might expect, not the actual answer corresponding to actual everyday usage in my dialect. However, due to my general opposition to such notions of "correctness" as well as my viewing such notions as generally inadequate for describing actual usage, I often also state what one is likely to actually encounter if one speaks to an actual native speaker under normal conditions in Real Life.

As for dialects overall, the matter is that this is *not* just a learners' forum. Rather, this forum is open to general linguistic topics in general, and of course dialects are a major matter with respect to such. Even still, what I have said here is not really targeted at viewing things from a dialectology standpoint, as then we would probably be having a much wider discussion of ablaut pattern variation in English dialects.

>>And why do you use such technical terms as "ablaut vowel"? We are only learners, you know?<<

I used the technical term because it was more succint than the alternative. I could have said "the vowel which changes between different principle parts", which is far more unwieldy in practice.