Timeline for Usage of Disproven
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 7, 2015 at 12:53 | comment | added | Colin Fine | I have read your answer a couple more times. It continues to say "The past tense is also used as an adjective (a proved technology) in a specific case." That is not the past tense: it is an alternative past participle. | |
| Jul 7, 2015 at 12:24 | comment | added | Kris | @ColinFine You could save so much effort if only you read my answer one more time at leisure. And (if so) avoid down voting on impulse. | |
| Jul 3, 2015 at 10:29 | comment | added | Colin Fine | Your post has given no examples or references for the phenomenon you claim. I claim that your analysis is based on a mistake, viz that proved is only past and not pp. | |
| Jul 3, 2015 at 10:02 | comment | added | Kris | See also: books.google.com/ngrams/… | |
| Jul 3, 2015 at 9:59 | comment | added | Kris | "to use the past tense of verbs adjectivally (where the pp is distinct from pt)": There are uses for it. My answer has briefly dealt with the difference. | |
| Jul 3, 2015 at 9:52 | comment | added | Colin Fine | Proved is an alternative to proven as the past participle of prove. It is not normal in any variety of English I am aware of to use the past tense of verbs adjectivally (though of course in many verbs the past tense and the past participle are the same). There are a number of verbs where some dialects have a non-standard past participle (eg writ) sometimes of the same form as the past (eg shook, broke) but I don't think there's any evidence that this is a trend which is progressing. | |
| Jul 3, 2015 at 9:30 | history | answered | Kris | CC BY-SA 3.0 |