Which Verb Is Correct? Let Your Ear Tell You

Do we say of an actor that he treads the boards or that he trods the boards? Of lovers: Is it better to write that last night they clung together, or that they clinged together? What's the past tense of shine? Shined or shone?

The English language is in constant flux - and a good thing, too. It is through the casting off and the adding on that our mother tongue maintains its vitality. I suspect that nowhere are the changes more subtle than in our verbs. Example: to spring.

Back in the 14th century, the past tense of "spring" was "sprong." The rider sprong to his horse. A few hundred years later, "sprong" disappeared, to be replaced by "sprang." Last year the Fort Lauderdale (Fla.) Sun-Sentinel reported that a boy was killed "when an alligator sprung up from the Loxahatchee River."

All three of my desk dictionaries put "sprang" ahead of "sprung," but this means only that the editors have found more frequent citations of "sprang." Well, what's right?

The answer is that both forms are "right." Which form is "better"? It is at this point that a writer's ear must prevail. My ear tells me that "sprang" is better in the context of sudden or violent action. I would have written that the alligator sprang up. "Sprung" seems to me better in other contexts: The winter wheat sprung up. It rained yesterday, and umbrellas sprung up.

Shined or shone?

What about "shine"? The Buffalo (N.Y.) News carried a story last summer about an optimistic maker of personal computers: "His confidence shined." Sounds right to me. Webster's, American Heritage and Random House all list both "shone" and "shined." Random House suggests "shined" if we're talking about shoes. As an indication of how the language changes, Webster's Second International (1950) identified "shined" as archaic.

This headline appeared last December in the Portland Oregonian: "Tri-Met manager trods path of boldness." The Albany (Ga.) carried this lead on a story about a concert: "Violinist Chee-Yun will trod familiar boards at 8 p.m."

I find no authority for this usage of "trod." In my book, the manager treads a path and the violinist will tread the boards, but who knows? Standard dictionaries list "trodden" as an acceptable form of the past participle, but my ear cringes. Does anyone say of an actress that she has trodden the stage last year? Surely she has trod it.

More new ones

I thought the parts of "to cling" were cling, clung, clung. How did "clinged" get in there? Beats me, but in The Seattle Times a friend "clinged to Anne Peters." In the Las Vegas Review-Journal, "her husband has clinged to a custom of silence." I like "clinged." To my ear it sounds clingier than clung, but your ear may well prefer the standard clung.

How does your ear feel about the past tense of "creep"? In January the San Francisco Chronicle quoted a parks director on eucalyptus trees. "They've creeped into areas where they don't belong." Two of my dictionaries never heard of "creeped." They list only "crept," but "creeped" finds a home at Random House. Which sounds creepier, "crept" or "creeped"? You're the writer. Would you say of an incoming tide that it crept up the beach or creeped up the beach?

Consider the past tense of "to slay." It's "slew," isn't it? That's what you will learn from Random House and American Heritage: Beowulf slew poor old Grendel. But Webster's has a reminder: We wouldn't write that Jay Leno slew his audience; he slayed 'em.

A couple of months ago I heard from a reader who asked about "spit," a vigorous verb that dates from before the 12th century. Here you have a choice of "he spit" or "he spat." Two dictionaries put spit ahead of spat; American Heritage puts spat ahead of spit.

My suggestion is that we use "spit" when no malice is involved: "The baby spit up her spinach." For traumatic occasions, "spat" sounds meaner and nastier: "Take that!" she spat, as she brained the intruder with a poker.

There's no longer much opposition to "snuck" as an alternative past tense for "sneak." Webster's describes "snuck" as a "standard, widely used variant," and quotes from The Wall Street Journal to prove its respectability.

My purpose in bringing all this up is to remind writers, once again, to use their ears. Last November the St. Augustine (Fla.) Record covered a police training exercise in which a purported kidnapper drug an officer to the ground. My tender ear cries "no!" to "drug," but the times, they are a-changing.