Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is there such a word as "drownded"? I would say "drowned" but I am hearing "drownded" so often I am beginning to wonder.

For example:

He went into the deepest waters and drownded.

share|improve this question
    
Drownded can be observed in Lord of the Rings, Book 1, Chapter 1 "A Long-Expected Party" –  user45933 Jun 12 '13 at 19:02
add comment

5 Answers

I have known people who say "drowned" as the present tense (i.e. "Without a life-guard, people will drowned"), drownded as the past tense, as well as "drownding" instead of drowning. I think it is common in the Midwest.

share|improve this answer
    
This is a useful answer because it also confirms Jon Hanna's assertion that "drownded" is it is dialectical English, found in several dialects –  Mari-Lou A Apr 11 at 5:21
add comment

c1850 – c1950 the heyday of drownded:

enter image description here

Too early to call it entirely wrong or deprecate it, perhaps.

share|improve this answer
1  
Heyday? What about 'drowned'? You're only comparing 'drownded' with 'drownd', two rare alternatives to 'drowned'. I dont think it is -that- early to judge. –  Mitch Jan 27 '13 at 16:19
2  
@Mitch Including drowned will definitely drown both these lines in the graph because of the huge difference. You have seen it happen, right? We can only compare comparables. –  Kris Jan 28 '13 at 4:13
add comment

Drownd is an archaic form of drown from which drownded is an archaic form of drowned. It is still found in some dialects either by survival or by emphasis of the -ed since the rhymes-with-round sound of drowned may not sound as obviously past-tense to some ears as others.

It's incorrectly frowned upon as incorrect, by people whose dialects did not retain drownd and drownded, and worth avoiding for that reason, especially in writing - so as to not only be correct, but to be seen to be correct.

But likewise, since it isn't really incorrect, the only time it is appropriate to criticise someone for using it is if you are enforcing a style-guide (when you can criticise any decision that goes against it). Those using it are not wrong.

Edit: In the dialect I grew up with, we were familiar with all four of drownd, drownded, drown and drowned. We knew that the latter two were received English, and would use them in writing, or when we wished to avoid dialectical words to "speak proper". I did not know they were retentions (my dialect has a good few retentions, some Hibernicisms, some borrowings from Ulster-Scots, and some presumably inventions of its own, but only as someone with an interest in such matters in later life do I know a bit about which are which), but we did use them. In general speech we favoured drown and drownded because drownd and drowned sound quite close to each other, while drown and drownded are clearly differentiated>

share|improve this answer
4  
I think it might be construed as wrong because it sounds like the person is saying "drowned-ed", like a little kid might. –  Joe Z. Jan 26 '13 at 15:53
3  
I think your use if 'correct' is too academic. Most native speakers of -all- current varieties of English would regard 'drownded' as terribly incorrect. –  Mitch Jan 26 '13 at 16:36
1  
@Mitch I think your "all" is factually correct there. I hope it is, and you aren't saying that some of us are in some way inferior to those who grew up in other parts of the English-speaking world. –  Jon Hanna Jan 26 '13 at 16:48
3  
@FumbleFingers are we only to restrict "correct" to what is standard English, and speak of dialect only as a deviation into error regardless of context? I stand by my answer; it is dialectical English, found in several dialects, and is appropriate in cases where dialectical English is appropriate. –  Jon Hanna Jan 26 '13 at 21:40
1  
@FumbleFingers I would use neither chipper nor drownded in formal writing (unless as quoted dialect). I most certainly would have used drownded then in a context where I would now use chipper, having moved in the meantime from somewhere that had drownded and chip shops to somewhere with drowned and chippers (and less concern about drowning, not being a fishing village) and having gone native a bit. Drownded was certainly living dialect as we spoke it, not part of a history lesson. –  Jon Hanna Jan 26 '13 at 22:38
show 8 more comments

Merriam-Webster's 3rd Unabridged Dictionary of English (MW3UDE) lists "drownded" as a nonstandard spelling of drowned, which means that it has enough history to justify its use, but that it's probably not going to be seen very often, if ever, in formal English writing. Drowned is the current standard spelling.

share|improve this answer
add comment

The OED (Oxford English Dictionary) gives drownded as an alternative to drowned and there are ten citations throughout the dictionary illustrating its earlier use, but its use now is described as ‘vulgar’.

Stick to drowned.

share|improve this answer
    
Not online - is the free online version a limited subset of the full dictionary? –  Stuart Jan 26 '13 at 19:20
    
@Stuart. This is the OED: oed.com. It requires a paid subscription. The various other Oxford dictionaries are not the same thing. –  Barrie England Jan 26 '13 at 19:43
2  
@Barrie: I think it was you who altered me to the fact that (in the UK, at least), you can access OED with your library card number. –  FumbleFingers Jan 26 '13 at 21:22
    
Yes, that's right. Other works of reference too. –  Barrie England Jan 26 '13 at 21:29
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.