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.
"Straight into the river Kwasind Plunged as if he were an otter, Dived as if he were a beaver, Stood up to his waist in water, To his arm-pits in the river, Swam and scouted in the river, Tugged at sunken logs and branches, With his hands he scooped the sand-bars, With his feet the ooze and tangle."
I suspect Longfellow's revision was about the tom-tom-like repetitious sound he's after, rather than grammar.
August 20, 2014, 07:34
The excerpt from Origins of the Specious printed in the NYT was great reading. One would certainly expect that a colony remote from its motherland would develop a dialect based on the tongue as spoken when the colony was established. But it's fascinating to get so many specifics.
August 20, 2014, 19:43
Ah well, I guess I am wrong.
August 20, 2014, 23:29
Originally posted by Kalleh: Ah well, I guess I am wrong.
If, as M-W says, both are correct, how could you possibly be wrong?
August 21, 2014, 20:31
It sounds like most people use dived. That's all I meant.
August 22, 2014, 08:06
Wasn't suggesting "dove" is wrong, just that the form I use is "dived".
And Kalleh, I resent that. Retract the "little bit" immediately!
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.