Past tense of 'catch': caught? catched?

  • Matthuffy

    New Member
    English
    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:

    It should be "I've caught up" - they are just "creating" a new past participle, based on assuming it's "regular".
    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 . >>
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    Andygc

    Senior Member
    British English
    Although I agree that
    they are just "creating" a new past participle, based on assuming it's "regular".
    may be incorrect, it is not true that
    ... using Catched is perfectly fine and so is the abbreviation catch'd.
    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!")

    PS
    You are concerned that errors should not be propagated on the Internet, so I take it you won't mind my correcting yours.
    ... the Internet ...
    ... the writer's own ideas.
    ... in the English language ...
    ... to use caught.
    ...using catched is ...
    ... the 5th of November
    ... just because you have not heard of a word before, that (or it) does not mean that it does not exist.
     
    Last edited:

    ewie

    Senior Member
    English English
    Welcome to the forum, Matthuffy:)
    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.
    I'd also like to respectfully point out that this part of your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever:(
     

    Pertinax

    Senior Member
    BrE->AuE
    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".
     

    PaulQ

    Banned
    UK
    English - England
    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:
    Etymology: Middle English cache-n , cacche-n , < Old Northern French cachier (3rd singular present cache ), = central Old French chacier , later chassier , modern French chasser (Picard cacher ) = Provençal cassar , Spanish cazar (Old Spanish cabzar ), Portuguese caçar , Italian cacciare < late Latin *captiāre , < capt-us ‘taken captive’, which took in Romanic the place of Latin captāre ‘to strive to seize, seek to catch, lie in wait for’, and in late use = venāri ‘to hunt, chase’, which is the sense in all the Romanic languages. This sense was also original in English; and continued in Scotch to 16th century (see sense 1. trans. To chase, to drive. Obs); but for this the central Old French chacier , chace was adopted in form chace-n by 1300, and catch was gradually confined to its present sense, which is unknown to French and the other languages, but is that of Old English læcc(e)an , Middle English lacchen , lachen . With the latter, cachen seems to have been very early treated as synonymous, and at length entirely took its place. Hence, apparently the past tense cahte , cauhte , cauȝte , caught , like lahte , lauhte , lauȝte , laught , which was used along with the regular cacched , catchte , catched , and during the 19th cent. superseded it in literary use (though catched , cotched is still widely prevalent in dialect or vulgar speech).
     

    Arbitare

    New Member
    UK
    Spanish - Venezuela
    I has been researching... Predominantly, most of regular verbs ending in -tch built its past and participle tense with -ed i.e. fetch, scratch, snatch, snitch, switch, watch.
     

    Loob

    Senior Member
    English UK
    Hello Arbitare - welcome to the forums!

    I suspect you meant that most verbs ending in -tch are regular, and therefore take -ed for the past tense and past participle.
    If so, I agree with you!:thumbsup::)
     

    Arbitare

    New Member
    UK
    Spanish - Venezuela
    Hello Arbitare - welcome to the forums!

    I suspect you meant that most verbs ending in -tch are regular, and therefore take -ed for the past tense and past participle.
    If so, I agree with you!:thumbsup::)
    Fair enough. Thank you
     

    natkretep

    Moderato con anima (English Only)
    English (Singapore/UK), basic Chinese
    Welcome to the Forum, Arbitare! :)

    Yes, it's interesting that the other -ought past-tense and past-participle forms are derived from verbs with different endings (teach, buy, think, fight, seek) and there doesn't seem to be a definite pattern for predicting this past-tense and past-participle form.
     

    Teculmemima

    New Member
    English
    I do hear "catched" (along with "bited" and "sitted") in normal speech - the normal speech of four and five-year-olds.
    Hi yesterday i bought a sticky trap to catch rats with. In the written directions one of the things they said was "The caughted rats usually die within several hours". There is no such word as caughted correct?
     

    Glenfarclas

    Senior Member
    English (American)
    Hi yesterday i bought a sticky trap to catch rats with. In the written directions one of the things they said was "The caughted rats usually die within several hours". There is no such word as caughted correct?
    Instructions for imported products are frequently written by non-native speakers and are often full of frightful English.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top