Discussion in 'English Only' started by hamlet, Aug 30, 2006.
i heard someone say "i've catched up". Is this wrong or you can use this form nowadays?
Not to my knowledge. Caught is the past of catch.
I've caught up.
It should be "I've caught up" - they are just "creating" a new past participle, based on assuming it's "regular".
so, grammatically wrong. thanks mates
I know this is a very old topic, but as this is the internet and will probably last displayed for a long time to come, I want to put members of this forum correct and not have people referencing this page in the future believing in incorrect information such as:
Which is a sentence created solely with no comprehension of the English language and only based upon the writers own ideas.
Catched is perfectly fine to use and has been in the english language for a very very long time, so long in fact that we actually rarely use that past tense and now prefer to use Caught. However, using Catched is perfectly fine and so is the abbreviation catch'd.
Since the 5th of november was only yesterday, I will post a small poem that will help you to realise that just because you have not heard of a word before, does not mean that it does not exist.
<< Remember Remember
(in honor of Guy Fawks.) ----- >>
Three score barrels of powder below,
Poor old England to overthrow:
By God's providence he was catch'd
With a dark lantern and burning match.
<< --- >>
So, "Catched" is perfectly fine to use, just people choose not to these days.
<< Moderators note: Only 4 lines quotation permitted.
Source: Whoosh Fireworks: Guy Fawkes Gunpowder Plot 1605 . >>
Although I agree that
may be incorrect, it is not true that
and that is an extraordinary claim. "Catch'd" is an archaic usage and it might, perhaps, be used by a poet for effect, but it is not part of normal speech or writing. It would be as sensible to say that the red words in the following text may be used, as they are written here, in normal, modern English:
Whilom, as olde stories tellen us,
Ther was a duc that highte Theseus;
Of Atthenes he was lord and governour,
And in his tyme swich a conquerour,
Source: Geoffrey Chaucer, The Knight's Tale in The Canterbury Tales.
"Catched" certainly is heard, but from young children who, whilst learning their native tongue, assume that "to catch" is a regular verb until they are corrected by parents and teachers. (eg, "Daddy, Daddy, I catched the ball!")
You are concerned that errors should not be propagated on the Internet, so I take it you won't mind my correcting yours.
Welcome to the forum, Matthuffy
I'd also like to respectfully point out that this part of your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever
The word "catched" seems to have given way to "caught" at some point during the 19th century. Samuel Johnson's "Grammar of the English Tongue" lists both as options:
Fight, teach, reach, seek, beseech, catch, buy, bring, think, work --->
fought, taught, raught, sought, besought, caught, bought, brought, thought, wrought.
But a great many of these retain likewise the regular form, as
teached, reached, beseeched, catched, worked
Just why "teached" and "catched" gave way to "taught" and "caught", while "raught" surrendered to "reached", I can only speculate. It might have something to do with the difficulty of pronouncing "-ched" as one syllable, while perhaps "raught" clashed with "wrought".
I do hear "catched" (along with "bited" and "sitted") in normal speech - the normal speech of four and five-year-olds.
A bit of research in the OED shows that there are 2 verbs, Middle English cache-n , cacche-n and Old French chacier.
This is rather a long quote, but I don't think that it can be summarised or edited down:
Separate names with a comma.