# drunken vs drunk



## Whodunit

I very often read the word "drunk" in some threads here. But at school I learned the word "drunken". Now I looked up these two words.

And I found that "drunk" is more used predicatively. And "drunken" has to be the adjective then, and so "drunkenly" must be the adverb.

Am I right? Any objection?


----------



## garryknight

Totally correct. 'Drunk' can also be a noun or a verb, though.
Noun: The drunk collapsed in a heap.
Verb: Have you drunk the brandy yet?
Adverb: He was drunk again last night.
Adjective: What shall we do with the drunken sailor?


----------



## Artrella

whodunit said:
			
		

> I very often read the word "drunk" in some threads here. But at school I learned the word "drunken". Now I looked up these two words.
> 
> And I found that "drunk" is more used predicatively. And "drunken" has to be the adjective then, and so "drunkenly" must be the adverb.
> 
> Am I right? Any objection?




He was drunk on vodka.  >>>adjective predicatively used

Gangs of drunken girls roamed the streets >>>> adjective used attributively

*drunkenly* is the adverb


You are right! I don't find any objection to your reasoning.


----------



## Whodunit

Artrella said:
			
		

> I don't find any objection to your reasoning.



I was only doubting.   

Thank you both for "proving".

Ehem - Art: May I already congratulate you on your 6000?


----------



## gaer

Sometimes forms ending in "en" are Scottish in origin, I believe.

For instance, "proven", according to my information, is of Scottish origin.

You will also see "drunkard" used in literature for a "drunk" (alcoholic).

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Sometimes forms ending in "en" are Scottish in origin, I believe.
> 
> For instance, "proven", according to my information, is of Scottish origin.
> 
> You will also see "drunkard" used in literature for a "drunk" (alcoholic).
> 
> Gaer



Thank you, Gaer, as usual.


----------



## gaer

whodunit said:
			
		

> Thank you, Gaer, as usual.


One other piece of information: apparently "proven" was once relatively rare in comparison to "proved", but now the two words are about equal in usage. 

Gaer


----------



## JLanguage

gaer said:
			
		

> One other piece of information: apparently "proven" was once relatively rare in comparison to "proved", but now the two words are about equal in usage.
> 
> Gaer


 
I have always used "proven" rather than proved, don't really know why.

It seems to me that drunken has a much more negative connotation. That's just my gut, but it really does seem that way to me.

Example:
Don't worry about them, they're just a bunch of drunken fools.
vs.
Don't worry about them, they're just a bunch of drunk fools.

Also drunken can also mean "caused by or showing the effects of drink".
Ex. "Hey Carl, did you hear about that guy that went on a drunken rampage?"
      "Yeah, Lenny, apparently the cops chased him for 5 blocks before they finally could take him out."


----------



## mzsweeett

JLanguage said:
			
		

> I have always used "proven" rather than proved, don't really know why.
> 
> It seems to me that drunken has a much more negative connotation. That's just my gut, but it really does seem that way to me.
> 
> Example:
> Don't worry about them, they're just a bunch of drunken fools.
> vs.
> Don't worry about them, they're just a bunch of drunk fools.
> 
> Also drunken can also mean "caused by or showing the effects of drink".
> Ex. "Hey Carl, did you hear about that guy that went on a drunken rampage?"
> "Yeah, Lenny, apparently the cops chased him for 5 blocks before they finally could take him out."


I could be wrong, and sometimes am... but the word "drunk" is used either as a noun.."he is a drunk, leave him be" or as a state of being " he became drunk" (I forgot the term for that - wherever did my coffe go??)
I fully agree with the phrase above " Don't worry about them , they're a bunch of drunken fools" But the second one is more curt speaking and maybe not quite correct.

Sweet T


----------



## lsp

mzsweeett said:
			
		

> I could be wrong, and sometimes am... but the word "drunk" is used either as a noun.."he is a drunk, leave him be" or as a state of being " he became drunk" (I forgot the term for that - wherever did my coffe go??)


I think both are adjectives, Sweet. Substitute more familiar words and see if you agree, he became tired, he became restless, he became red ... It's a noun if you say "he is a drunk."


----------



## mzsweeett

lsp said:
			
		

> I think both are adjectives, Sweet. Substitute more familiar words and see if you agree, he became tired, he became restless, he became red ... It's a noun if you say "he is a drunk."


Once again my dear you are a great tool by which I can learn. Yes, I do agree. I think I need to make my coffee stronger...my brain seems to be sleepy still. Thanks!!

Sweet T.


----------



## gaer

mzsweeett said:
			
		

> Once again my dear you are a great tool by which I can learn. Yes, I do agree. I think I need to make my coffee stronger...my brain seems to be sleepy still. Thanks!!
> 
> Sweet T.


I agree with lsp about drunk being an adjective too, but I would agree with your conclusions about usage, in sentences like:

What a bunch of drunken idiots. I just wouldn't use drunk there. I don't think it's a rule, just a matter of feel and preference.


----------



## gaer

JLanguage said:
			
		

> I have always used "proven" rather than proved, don't really know why.
> 
> It seems to me that drunken has a much more negative connotation. That's just my gut, but it really does seem that way to me.
> 
> Example:
> Don't worry about them, they're just a bunch of drunken fools.
> vs.
> Don't worry about them, they're just a bunch of drunk fools.
> 
> Also drunken can also mean "caused by or showing the effects of drink".
> Ex. "Hey Carl, did you hear about that guy that went on a drunken rampage?"
> "Yeah, Lenny, apparently the cops chased him for 5 blocks before they finally could take him out."


Many people used to scream that "proven" is simply incorrect. But I never agreed. I see it as a matter of style, nothing more.


----------



## timpeac

To summarise what I think that you guys are saying this above - both "drunk" and "drunken" can be adjectives. You use "drunk" for someone whose name you know "I am drunk" "he is drunk" "Paul is drunk" but when it's for people you don't know or you're not naming it is "drunken" "the drunken sailor" "the drunken louts".

Do you all agree? Isn't that weird, anyone think of a reason why? I can't think of another situation where the choice of adjective depends on who you are talking about!!


----------



## te gato

Hey All;

As usuall..Im so far behind... 

Yes are both adjectives..and generally the word 'Drunk' is used after a verb..where as 'drunken' is used before a noun..*in formal English...
The only exceptions to the rule...Drunk driving or drunk driver...and only because these are considered fixed expressions...

te gato


----------



## gaer

timpeac said:
			
		

> To summarise what I think that you guys are saying this above - both "drunk" and "drunken" can be adjectives. You use "drunk" for someone whose name you know "I am drunk" "he is drunk" "Paul is drunk" but when it's for people you don't know or you're not naming it is "drunken" "the drunken sailor" "the drunken louts".
> 
> Do you all agree? Isn't that weird, anyone think of a reason why? I can't think of another situation where the choice of adjective depends on who you are talking about!!


I think something else is going on.

The idiots are drunk and are causing trouble.
The drunken idiots are causing trouble.

It seems to me that "drunken" is used when it modifies a noun. I believe both drunk and drunken, as used above, are adjectives. But the position changes the usage.

Is the red one a predicative adjective? This is beyond the end of my knowledge of English grammar. I'm just going by feel. 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

te gato said:
			
		

> Hey All;
> 
> As usuall..Im so far behind...
> 
> Yes are both adjectives..and generally the word 'Drunk' is used after a verb..where as 'drunken' is used before a noun..*in formal English...
> The only exceptions to the rule...Drunk driving or drunk driver...and only because these are considered fixed expressions...
> 
> te gato


Actually, I'm the one behind. I should have read your post too, which says what I just said, only better. And this makes it even weirder, since you just showed that "drunk" is used as an adjective modifying a noun.

Ah, I keep coming here to teach other people, and I end up being taught. 

Gaer


----------



## te gato

gaer said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm the one behind. I should have read your post too, which says what I just said, only better. And this makes it even weirder, since you just showed that "drunk" is used as an adjective modifying a noun.
> 
> Ah, I keep coming here to teach other people, and I end up being taught.
> 
> Gaer


Hey Gaer;

We all end up being taught..
as long as we are not drunk..we are ok!! 
I can't type at the best of times..

te gato


----------



## gaer

te gato said:
			
		

> Hey Gaer;
> 
> We all end up being taught..
> as long as we are not drunk..we are ok!!
> I can't type at the best of times..
> 
> te gato


Hey, I'm a teacher. I get TIRED of having the answers. It's so much more fun NOT to have the answers and get help!

G


----------



## Whodunit

All of you would do it by feel? Hm, how shall learners distinguish predicative and adjective then?


----------



## timpeac

whodunit said:
			
		

> All of you would do it by feel? Hm, how shall learners distinguish predicative and adjective then?


 
Well, I suppose sometimes it is actually better to get taught things by _non-_native speakers (or a trained English teacher in any case). For example, I would instinctively know which to say but I have no idea what a predicative is.

On the other hand I think that there are probably not too many important Romance grammatical points that I don't know because I have studied it so much in my life. 

Native speakers are indispensable in giving opinions on what, at the end of the day, they would say, but there is no reason to believe they know more about the strict linguistic "rules" than anyone else.


----------



## te gato

timpeac said:
			
		

> Well, I suppose sometimes it is actually better to get taught things by _non-_native speakers (or a trained English teacher in any case). For example, I would instinctively know which to say but I have no idea what a predicative is.
> 
> On the other hand I think that there are probably not too many important Romance grammatical points that I don't know because I have studied it so much in my life.
> 
> Native speakers are indispensable in giving opinions on what, at the end of the day, they would say, but there is no reason to believe they know more about the strict linguistic "rules" than anyone else.


 
Hey timpeac;

I agree with you 100%..
as a 'NATIVE' I have never claimed to know more than anyone else..nor will I ever....my perspective on what I read might not be the perspective of others..I just say what I think and know...
As was said in one of the other threads...do we always have to include in our answers the sentence...' This is just my thought or opinion '? if that is the case..then I shall start to put it back in my postings.... 
Just for the sake of useless information...in Calgary if you are called a Native..it is an insult...(I know that it is not being used that way here )

this is just my thought and opinion 
te gato


----------



## gaer

timpeac said:
			
		

> Well, I suppose sometimes it is actually better to get taught things by _non-_native speakers (or a trained English teacher in any case). For example, I would instinctively know which to say but I have no idea what a predicative is.
> 
> On the other hand I think that there are probably not too many important Romance grammatical points that I don't know because I have studied it so much in my life.
> 
> Native speakers are indispensable in giving opinions on what, at the end of the day, they would say, but there is no reason to believe they know more about the strict linguistic "rules" than anyone else.


First, it is very useful to ask native speakers how they say and write things, because the answers are often very different from what you learn in a classroom.

Second, we don't agree among ourselves, so it's obvious there are many situations in which their is no "right answer", just "opinions". 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

te gato said:
			
		

> Hey timpeac;
> 
> I agree with you 100%..
> as a 'NATIVE' I have never claimed to know more than anyone else..nor will I ever....my perspective on what I read might not be the perspective of others..I just say what I think and know...
> As was said in one of the other threads...do we always have to include in our answers the sentence...' This is just my thought or opinion '? if that is the case..then I shall start to put it back in my postings....
> Just for the sake of useless information...in Calgary if you are called a Native..it is an insult...(I know that it is not being used that way here )
> 
> this is just my thought and opinion
> te gato


Sorry, te gato, if what I am about to say sounds rude, but I've read so many of your posts, it's quite obvious to me that what you post is your opinion, that you are not stating facts, and you are also one of the most polite, friendly people around.

So I haven't even read all of this thread, but if anyone is accusing you of being a know-it-all or rude, I'd say "consider the source". <no smile>

Gaer


----------



## te gato

gaer said:
			
		

> Sorry, te gato, if what I am about to say sounds rude, but I've read so many of your posts, it's quite obvious to me that what you post is your opinion, that you are not stating facts, and you are also one of the most polite, friendly people around.
> 
> So I haven't even read all of this thread, but if anyone is accusing you of being a no-it-all or rude, I'd say "consider the source". <no smile>
> 
> Gaer


Gaer;
No that was not rude in anyway...
I do sometimes state facts... MINE !!!

thank you!!
te gato


----------



## pandinorombante

Both are adjectives.. what's the difference? When can I use drunken and not drunk (spontaneously I'd always use the latter)?

Thanks in advance! 

Pandino


----------



## Zsuzsu

Hi,

I would say that you use drunk when it is a predicate: He is drunk. (But: Look, there is a drunken man).
Of course you should wait for some native's answer, because I might be wrong!


----------



## Æsop

According to the American Heritage Dictionary,
"_Drunk_ (adjective) is used predicatively:  _He was drunk._  For attributive use before a noun, the choice is usually _drunken:_ _a drunken guest._  The attributive use of _drunk,_ as in _drunk driver,_ is unacceptable to a great majority of the Usage Panel."  The usage note goes on to note that because of the use of "drunk driving" and "drunk driver" in law and by the police, this attributive use of _drunk_ is well established; therefore, a _drunk driver_ (one whose blood alcohol percentage exceeds the legal limit) is not the same as a _drunken driver_ (one who is inebriated, regardless of the amount of alcohol in his body). 

_<<... Off topic and digressive ...>>_


----------



## pandinorombante

Thanks a lot to both of you!


----------



## PaoloFR1

In these sentences, which is the difference between drunk and drunken?

-To act in a drunk manner;
-To act in a drunken manner.

Do they have the same meaning?


----------



## Chasint

I would say that 'drunk' applies to a person and 'drunken' applies to a state or activity.

Examples
See that drunk man over there?
That woman is drunk.

He is acting in a drunken manner.
She is recovering from a drunken stupor.


----------



## ewie

Please Search the forum for an answer or an existing thread before starting a new thread, Paolo.


----------



## natkretep

Yes, I like Biffo's distinction: person v. activity.  So a drunken manner like a drunken brawl.

But perhaps it is less cut and dried. We also know 'What shall we do with a drunken sailor?' though that's not contemporary. There's also a Chinese dish called 'drunken prawns' (traditionally live prawns are 'marinaded' in rice wine).


----------



## tewlwolow

gaer said:


> Sometimes forms ending in "en" are Scottish in origin, I believe.
> 
> For instance, "proven", according to my information, is of Scottish origin.
> 
> You will also see "drunkard" used in literature for a "drunk" (alcoholic).
> 
> Gaer



Not really. According to etymonline: _"past participle adjective from alternative past participle (originally in Scottish legal use) of prove (v)._
It does not necessarily indicate that the word has specific Scottish (either Gaelic or Scots) origin, but rather, I reckon, that it was used first and foremost in Scotland.

Regarding _-en_ endings -> as far as I know, these are plain old Germanic past participles of strong verbs. Compare Norwegian (bokmål) strong verbs with seemingly "weak"_ -et_ ending (which is a phonetically evolved _-en_). These verbs (past participles), when used attributively, serve as adjectives (same as in English), but then take the original _-en_. 

Examples: 

Han har skrev*et* boka. -> He has writt*en* the book.
Boka blei skrev*en* av ham. -> The book was writt*en* by him.
Den er ei velskreven bok. -> This is a well-writt*en *book.
The last two sentences are considered adjectives, while the first one is a past participle.

Sorry for non-English reasoning, but Norwegian seems to work flawlessly when it comes to tracing English grammar back to Germanic roots, especially verb declension. Probably, you would be able to find similar examples in Old and Middle English, which I am largely oblivious to (and which are far harder to master).

So answering your question, I'd say that _drunken_ it simply a bit older (according to etymonline, _drunk_ used as an adjective was first attested in mid-14c), more traditional form of the past participle of the verb _to drink_. Then, as a result of rather typical apocope (also a common sight amongst Germanic languages), it lost the ending, though some older text (or those with more archaic style) still use it. You wouldn't, by all probability, come across a sentence like "I've drunken a lot yesterday", unless you dig through dome dialects, which of course retained a lot of older, currently unused structures. (see here.


----------



## cafde

Maybe I'm crazy, but does anyone else make this distinction for noun forms?
The drunk cannot drive well (referring to a specific person who is drunk).
The drunken cannot drive well (referring to people who are drunk, in general).
The drunkard cannot drive well (someone who regularly drinks but may not presently be drunk).


----------



## tewlwolow

cafde said:


> Maybe I'm crazy, but does anyone else make this distinction for noun forms?
> The drunk cannot drive well (referring to a specific person who is drunk).
> The drunken cannot drive well (referring to people who are drunk, in general).
> The drunkard cannot drive well (someone who regularly drinks but may not presently be drunk).



Well, to me, it makes perfect sense!

Although I'm not sure why "_the drunk_" cannot also mean "_the drunken_" (group of people).


----------



## Lun-14

Hi,

Wife: Look at that *drunk/drunken* guy!
Husband: Who is he?
Wife: Ten years back he proposed me and I rejected him.
Husband: Oh my God! He is still celebrating...

Could you explain the difference between "drunk" and "drunken" please?

Thanks.


----------



## DonnyB

Lun-14 said:


> Wife: Look at that *drunk/drunken* guy!
> Husband: Who is he?
> Wife: Ten years back he proposed me and I rejected him.
> Husband: Oh my God! He is still celebrating...


In that dialogue, the wife can say either:
"Look at that drunk" _where drunk functions as a noun  _or
"Look at that drunken guy" _where drunken acts as an adjective qualifying guy_.


----------



## Lun-14

Thank you DonnyB!

Sometimes I see senten_ces _like_ A *drunken* waiter at the restaurant ruined our evening _Or_ A *drunk* driver drove the tuck carelessly and finally got in an accident.
_
Both are adjectives in these sentences. Both are being used to qualify a noun in these sentences. But I wonder what's the difference in _meaning_?

Could you elaborate on this, please?

Thanks.


----------



## DonnyB

Lun-14 said:


> Sometimes I see senten_ces _like_ A *drunken* waiter at the restaurant ruined our evening _Or_ A *drunk* driver drove the tuck carelessly and finally got in an accident.
> _
> Both are adjectives in these sentences. Both are being used to qualify a noun in these sentences. But I wonder what's the difference in _meaning_?


See Aesop's post #3.

A "drunk driver" has an established legal significance tied in with "drunk driving".


----------



## Szkot

Drunk _and _drunken are used attributively to refer to someone who is drunk - there is no difference in meaning.   For things such as behaviour and relationships, _drunken _is more usual.

To confuse matters, we also talk of _drink-_driving, usually about people who are over the legal limit but in other circumstances would not be considered drunk.


----------

