# Dragged & Drug



## Yôn

Anyone else come across these as meaning the same thing.

I dragged the dresser across the floor.
I drug the dresser across the floor.

Drug is used all the time where I live; in fact it sounds funny the other way. However, my dictionary makes little mention of it. Is this some archaic thing? I found some mention after googling... but there wasn't anything on its origin.

Does anyone know where this tense comes from?



Thanks,
Jon


----------



## jester.

I'd say that "dragged" is correct. Merriam-Webster (online dictionary) says that the inflected form of the verb to drag is "dragged".
Furthermore the only mentioning of a verb form is to drug (to affect something with a drug), so my conclusion is that "dragged" is the only correct form.


----------



## la reine victoria

j3st3r said:
			
		

> I'd say that "dragged" is correct. Merriam-Webster (online dictionary) says that the inflected form of the verb to drag is "dragged".
> Furthermore the only mentioning of a verb form is to drug (to affect something with a drug), so my conclusion is that "dragged" is the only correct form.


 


I agree with "dragged".

Interestingly, I use an archaic form of the verb "to dive".  I enjoy swimming and diving and always say "I dove underwater" not "I dived underwater."  "Dove" seems more natural to me.


LRV


----------



## Yôn

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> I agree with "dragged".
> 
> Interestingly, I use an archaic form of the verb "to dive". I enjoy swimming and diving and always say "I dove underwater" not "I dived underwater." "Dove" seems more natural to me.
> 
> 
> LRV


Yeah, I know DRAGGED is the right one... I was just wondering about the origin. I also use DOVE, but maybe it has something to do with DRIVE/DROVE. But that's for another thread at another time. 




Jon


----------



## jester.

Although this might have to be in another thread, I don't think that ove is too archaic. You can check this at Merriam Webster, too.

www.webster.com

For the verb to dive, the dictionary indicates either to dive - dived - dived   or   to dive - dove - dived


----------



## Aupick

I thought the OED might say something about this, especially if it's an archaic alternative. Apparently there are two separate verbs, "drag" and "drug", meaning the same thing. The first is the one that we know and love (drag, dragged, dragged), the second is marked obsolete, except for in certain dialects (English and Scottish are mentioned, but that's a bit vague). It's also weak: drug, drugged, drugged. The dictionary's not sure of the origins. It may be a variation of "drag", but its first recorded use predates that of "drag", so they could have separate origins. Or it could be derived from "drudge".

Interestingly, "dive" also had two forms two, although more closely related: a strong form (dive, dove, doven) and a weak form (dive, dived, dived). The strong form was intransitive, the weak was transitive (meaning to dip smthg), like: lie/lay, rise/raise, sit/set, fall/fell. In the UK the weak form survived, but with an intransitive meaning, but American English keeps the strong form.


----------



## maxiogee

Do those who go for drag/drug also go for…

brag/brug
gag/gug
lag/lug
sag/sug
snag/snug
tag/tug

… none of those constructions exist/work. Where does the feeling that drag/drug could possibly be right come from?

~ and is *debug* the past tense of *debag*?


----------



## jester.

@aupick: Wow this is impressive and interesting.


----------



## ChiMike

Yôn said:
			
		

> Anyone else come across these as meaning the same thing.
> 
> I dragged the dresser across the floor.
> I drug the dresser across the floor.
> 
> Drug is used all the time where I live; in fact it sounds funny the other way. However, my dictionary makes little mention of it. Is this some archaic thing? I found some mention after googling... but there wasn't anything on its origin.
> 
> Does anyone know where this tense comes from?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Jon


 
For the information of the Brits, who have abandoned many strong verbs and simply added the weak endings to the infinitive, not only is "drug" a correct simple past of "drag", but dialectically, the verb: to drug (meaning to drag) actually exists. Consult your OEDs!

That the verb "drag" was in fact (and in some places still is) strong can easily be seen by comparing the German: tragen, TRUG, hat getragen. Now it happens that when English dropped the y- which preceded the past participle for strong verbs (Summer is y-comen in, Loude sing cuckoo!) the simple past form was adoped for the past participle where the dropping of the y- would have caused confusion with the present tense. So, drag, drug, drug (I have drug in three sacks of oats already). 

Jon, here is a little review:
English has two ways of making the simple past tense and the past participle.

One is an ancient Indo-European method, called the Umlaut row. You change the vowel within the verb to indicate the simple past and the past participle. Many now call these verbs: irregular. This is a Gallicism. They are not "irregular" they are what are called in all other Germanic languages "strong."  They are not "irregular" because they can all be placed in seven Umlaut rows, although, since they constitute many of the most used verbs of the language, no one bothers, because one learns them from the cradle. This method of forming the past is, however, not unique to Germanic languages. It exists in Latin as well and, although they do not recognize it as such, it still exists in French: lire (je lis), je lus (I read - simple past), lu (past participle). 

The other way of making the simple past and the past participle is to add -ed to the verb stem (the infinitive or the first person present tense): walk, walked, walked. These are called "regular" by English grammars, weak by other Germanic grammars.

Over a period of years, many speakers of English (particularly Brits) have abandoned the strong forms for verbs which are not used too often and have substituted weak endings. This has also happened, though to a lesser degree, in the U.S.

But here are some pairs, explained by this same phenomenon:

I dived into the water.
I dove into the water. (Most U.S. speakers would not hesitate to say this, although most, but not all, have substituted the weak past participle for the strong. Where I grew up, however, people did not hesitate to say: After I had diven into the water, I found they had not followed me. Diven is correct. The OE forms are: diwan, daf, ydiwen, in the same Umlaut row as: drive, drove, driven, which, as far as I know, almost all English speakers still say

They have smited them all with hard blows.
They have smitten them all with hard blows.
Both are, of course, correct. The latter, however, is the older English form of the verb: smite, smote, smitten. I believe our British cousins preserve the strong past participle in sentences such as: He was very smitten with her. 

Hope this explanation helps. Adopting "regular" (weak) endings is convenient, of course, and is generally not wrong, as long as usage approves it, it does, however, make reading Shakespeare, the King James Version of the Bible, and most authors through the end of the 17th century more difficult.


----------



## la reine victoria

Very interesting piece of research ChiMike.    Thanks for taking the time.






LRV


----------



## ChiMike

Yôn said:
			
		

> Yeah, I know DRAGGED is the right one... I was just wondering about the origin. I also use DOVE, but maybe it has something to do with DRIVE/DROVE. But that's for another thread at another time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon


 
You gave in while I was writing. "Drug" is correct, as is "dove" and "smote": see below. If others wish to abandon correct forms, that is their business as long as usage supports them. Being proscriptive, however, is INCORRECT, here as in so many other places, and should not be accepted lying down by you or anyone else.


----------



## Aupick

(Hopefully this is not too off-topic...)
Does anyone know if "snuck" is an archaic form of "sneak" in the same way, or is it a modern development? The OED acknowledges it (as "chiefly US") but doesn't say any more.


----------



## TrentinaNE

ChiMike said:
			
		

> You gave in while I was writing. "Drug" is correct, as is "dove" and "smote": see below. If others wish to abandon correct forms, that is their business as long as usage supports them.


However, my advice to those learning English is that "dragged" is much more commonly accepted as correct than "drug", and you might get some strange looks if you use the latter.  I'm originally from IL as well, and at the risk of sounding pejorative, we considered "drug" something that "hillbillies" might say. The nuns at my grade school certainly wouldn't stand for it.   Nice to know that once again they might have been wrong! 

Elizabeth


----------



## la reine victoria

Aupick said:
			
		

> (Hopefully this is not too off-topic...)
> Does anyone know if "snuck" is an archaic form of "sneak" in the same way, or is it a modern development? The OED acknowledges it (as "chiefly US") but doesn't say any more.


 

Hi Aupick,

The online, Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary says -



> The usual past form is *sneaked*, but *snuck* is now very common in informal speech in _NAmE_ and some people use it in _BrE_ too. However, many people think that it is not correct and it should not be used in formal writing.


 
I use "snuck" because I like it.  





LRV


----------



## panjandrum

Another snuck fan creeping into the back of the room.

I would also use drug in certain contexts - particularly to describe someone's perhaps-questionable rearing.  Along the lines of "Were you drug up in a field?", addressed to someone who persistently refuses to close doors behind him.  "... drug up in a slum ..." springs also to mind.
I don't recall ever having written it in a formal context


----------



## maxiogee

Away back in the 1970s a television series set in Dublin had a character who, in a cliffhanger of an episode, was discovered - up to no good - by someone who crept up behind her in her own house. 
She said something like "Where did you come from?"
He replied: "I saw the back door open and thought I'd sneak in"
She retorted: "Well you can sneak out the way you snuck in!"

That was my first introduction to "snuck", and I've fondled it many a time since. A lovely word!


----------



## Yôn

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Do those who go for drag/drug also go for…
> 
> brag/brug
> gag/gug
> lag/lug
> sag/sug
> snag/snug
> tag/tug



No, I don't use any of those .  

Thanks to all of you guys for your great information. I never knew all that stuff about strong v. weak verbs. So, what are the umlaut rows?

I sometimes run into trouble knowing whether to use the -ed form or whether to change the vowel sound; especially for verbs that aren't standard, for example (pardon me if this seems vulgar) SHIT.

SHIT SHAT SHATTEN

This is how I would say it, but I have never checked a dictionary to see if I'd be right.

I have often read that American English is closer to the Older English than is British English. Could this be some explanation for why you might hear things like this?

Also, SMITE is not a word I use often, but I would never say SMITED, just sounds down right silly.





Thank you all once again for the better understanding,
Jon


----------



## Yôn

Also, SNEAKED doesn't sit right with me.  I always say SNUCK.

What about LIGHT/LIGHTED v. LIGHT/LIT?  I always use the latter, but was stunned when I read in my science text book about the chemical reactions that happen "after you lighted the match."  I almost thought they were wrong using LIGHTED.

Very interesting stuff indeed--a lot for learning.




Jon


----------



## Joelline

> I have often read that American English is closer to the Older English than is British English. Could this be some explanation for why you might hear things like this?


 
There is a story (I have NO idea whether it is true or not) that some of the English people who came to the US early on (17th century) moved to and lived in isolated enclaves in areas like the Appalachian mountains and that, not being exposed to linguistic changes going on during the 17th-early 20th century, "preserved" their original language.  So, to this day, it is very common in West Virginia to hear the older verb forms, like 'drug.'


----------



## jediracer

I kind of fell into the magazine industry after that and never really *drug* myself away. 

drug or dragged?


----------



## Sallyb36

it should be dragged


----------



## cesarynati

dragged. drug is drugs as in narcotoxic substance!


----------



## boonognog

I certainly have heard 'drug' used informally as past tense of 'drag'... But the correct form is 'dragged'.


----------



## TrentinaNE

A recent thorough discussion on this subject... which concluded that there is a case for "drug" (as opposed to "drugs").   

Elisabetta


----------



## boonognog

Most of rural America probably uses 'drug' as the past tense of 'drag'.  I know I've heard it everywhere I've lived -- New York, Virginia, Kansas, and North Carolina.


----------



## ontarah

I've heard "drug" as past tense of drag my entire life.  But since I'm from out in the sticks that's not surprising.  In fact, it wasn't until I got to college that I realized it was properly "dragged."  Now, I say it wrong anyway.  It just sounds more natural to me, and I guess you could call it stubborn southern pride.  I've also always said "dove" for past tense of "dive" and use "drunk" as well as "drank" but each only in certain phrases.  For example I'd say "I drank a coke" but "he drunk deeply."  Anyone know why that is exactly?

Here's a few other archaic words that commonly get messed up or have been changed in recent years.

Slay/slew
thrive/throve
smite/smote


----------



## JulianStuart

panjandrum said:


> Another snuck fan creeping into the back of the room.
> 
> I would also use drug in certain contexts - particularly to describe someone's perhaps-questionable rearing.  Along the lines of "Were you drug up in a field?", addressed to someone who persistently refuses to close doors behind him.  "... drug up in a slum ..." springs also to mind.
> I don't recall ever having written it in a formal context



Panj, 
I think the rearing part here is where the dragging implied resistance but my version of that expression is, coincidentally _on_-topic, "Where were you brung up?"   It was intended as jocular, emphasising that the child in question didn't know their strong verbs from their weak verbs!


----------



## Cynster

I use "dragged".
Drug sounds odd to me. But I get these verbs wrong all the time (and I'm native). My grandfather is an editor and I get corrected all of the time. Still, I think I have a better grasp (just from growing up around him and my family) of grammar than most of my friends.
I never hear "drug" in person, ever. I think I have only seen that in writing or when used in a savage way "The T-rex drug his prey into the ground" from like NatGeo.

However! I do like to use "snuck" and all my friends use "snuck", too. I rarely use "sneaked". 

Anyway, to the OP, you're probably going to hear bunches of both, with no one really completely sure they are saying it correctly. If I asked any of my friends, they'd probably be a little wishy-washy about it. I should ask my grandfather xD

I thought your responses were so interesting! I had no idea there were weak or strong verbs. I just say what sounds right.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

I have only heard _dragged_. I am aware of "drug" and "drugged", but if I heard either I would regard it (sorry, just being honest here) as a usage that was rural, uneducated, and bumpkinish.


----------



## Nunty

I only use _drug_ in a set phrase like "something the cat drug in". I wouldn't be particularly shocked by hearing it in conversation, but it would take me up short if I read it.


----------



## markinboone

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> I have only heard _dragged_. I am aware of "drug" and "drugged", but if I heard either I would regard it (sorry, just being honest here) as a usage that was rural, uneducated, and bumpkinish.



It is interesting to me that a forum that promotes a pro-/prescriptive approach to language considers adherence to older forms (a conservative approach) "rural, uneducated, and bumpkinish." The isolation of rural and, in the case of the Eastern US, mountain regions has led to conservation of older forms. So many of the forms and rules held in high esteem evolved from usage that became more and more widespread and was documented (and thereby canonized) through a descriptive analysis. I remember reading years ago a small publication titled _The Queen's English _which included vocabulary, word forms, and pronunciations that my grandmother used (including "ain't"), indicating that her language was more directly descended from "proper" British English. While she would have been considered a "bumpkin" by city folk, her vernacular was actually more classical than that of my generation. How can a person be considered "uneducated" simply because what they have been educated in is not the same as you? My grandmother learned the language of her culture and within that culture was understood completely and her intelligence was never questioned nor ridiculed. She could slaughter a hog, butcher it, and cure it to feed her family. She was certainly not "uneducated" in those skills: are you? Does that make you a "bumpkin"? Perhaps "nonstandard" is a better description than "uneducated," the standard being what is accepted by a majority within a given context. By all accounts, every speaker of American English is correctly described as a nonstandard speaker of British English, but that should in no way imply that we are uneducated by comparison.

More specifically on topic: as a 47-year-old US Southerner I have rarely heard anyone use "dragged" and was in fact surprised to find that "drug" is not a standard past tense form of "drag." I have a college education, an above-average IQ, and am considered a pretty well-educated guy. No longer ignorant of this bit of word history, I'll deal with its use differently in my writing and editing and consider the context more carefully. (Looky! I'm not uneducated anymore!) Ironically, I heard the cliché "what the cat dragged in" and I always thought "dragged" was humorously emphasizing the nonstandard form.

In response to maxiogee: Just because there is no other rhyming model to go by doesn't invalidate the word form. Consider rise/rose, although we don't say advise/advose, compromise/compromose; bring/brought, but not spring/sprought, ring/rought, sing/sought, cling/clought; stick/stuck, but not lick/luck, pick/puck, flick/fluck.

One more anecdote on the subject. My daughter used to say "I'm your little girl, am't I?" logically deriving the contraction for "am I not." She was actually more prescriptively correct than the more common, if not standard(?), "aren't I" since "are I not" is obviously wrong. Actually she would have been historically correct to say "ain't I." Don't worry: she's more educated now and you won't hear her say "am't" anymore.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

markinboone said:


> It is interesting to me that a forum that promotes a pro-/prescriptive approach to language considers adherence to older forms (a conservative approach) "rural, uneducated, and bumpkinish."


The statement was not the opinion of the forum. It was instead my own personal reaction to the word. I will also note that "drug" is not an "older form" in the sense that it derived from a standard form of Middle or Old English. It did not derive from an earlier form, and is instead a word like "snuck": a relatively recent American regionalism in which uneducated speakers treated a regular verb as an irregular verb. 



> "The isolation of rural and, in the case of the Eastern US, mountain regions has led to conservation of older forms.


This is true in the case of the archaic _holp_; but "drug" was not an older form that was conserved: it is instead an ignorant change of the older form.



> So many of the forms and rules held in high esteem evolved from usage that became more and more widespread and was documented (and thereby canonized) through a descriptive analysis.


Following this argument, one can use "thunk" as the past tense of "think" without blushing. For my part, I would regard a person who said "thunk" as the past tense of "think" in much the same way that I would regard a person who said "drug" as the past tense of "drag".



> I remember reading years ago a small publication titled _The Queen's English _which included vocabulary, word forms, and pronunciations that my grandmother used (including "ain't"), indicating that her language was more directly descended from "proper" British English. While she would have been considered a "bumpkin" by city folk, her vernacular was actually more classical than that of my generation.


_Ain't_ as a contraction for _am not_ is grammatical when used in the first person. However, it has always been ungrammatical to say "he ain't", just as it would be ungrammatical to say "he am not."



> Perhaps "nonstandard" is a better description than "uneducated,"


This is your opinion. You are entitled to it. In the same way, though, I am equally entitled to mine, and feel no obligation whatsoever to accept yours in its place, no matter how persistently you condemn my opinion while trying to shove your opinion down my throat.


----------



## Whizbang

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> \For my part, I would regard a person who said "thunk" as the past tense of "think" in much the same way that I would regard a person who said "drug" as the past tense of "drag".


 
Who'da thunk it?


----------



## Yôn

This topic has generated some very interesting replies. I will have to look into all of them for sure.

Can I ask, though, that we not give into Markinboone's trolling bait, and simply keep on topic? We will all learn a lot more. 


Jon

(I have more replies coming regarding the actual topic soon.)


----------



## cuchuflete

markinboone said:


> It is interesting to me that _a forum that promotes a pro-/prescriptive approach to language_ considers adherence to older forms (a conservative approach) "rural, uneducated, and bumpkinish."



Coming from a new entrant, the highlighted asseveration is remarkable. (It would be still more astonishing from a veteran participant.) It is noteworthy for its absolute lack of accuracy.  Anyone who has bothered to read the prior posts in this thread will have found a wide variety of facts, opinions, and contrary usage habits.  GWB clearly labeled his view as opinion, and neither prescribed, proscribed, nor proscrobed.  Who'da thunk it?  Indeed. 

I am accustomed to hearing drug in colloquial speech, and while I don't often use it myself, I have no issue with it.  The intended meaning is clear.  I would not use it, myself, in writing, and would be surprised to see it in any formal text.  It wouldn't be jarring in any way in recorded speech.


----------



## rmawhorter

I find the regional variations of English fascinating. I live and grew up here in Canada. I don't think that I've ever heard someone say drug. It's strange to me that people on the same continent would have the opposite experience.


----------



## ewie

Like RMAW above, I don't think I've ever actually heard anyone *say* _drug_.  But I don't object to it at all.  (I would look pretty stupid if I did, when I find verb forms like *tret* fairly normal ...)


----------



## stupalaver

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> The statement was not the opinion of the forum. It was instead my own personal reaction to the word. I will also note that "drug" is not an "older form" in the sense that it derived from a standard form of Middle or Old English. It did not derive from an earlier form, and is instead a word like "snuck": a relatively recent American regionalism in which uneducated speakers treated a regular verb as an irregular verb.
> 
> 
> This is true in the case of the archaic _holp_; but "drug" was not an older form that was conserved: it is instead an ignorant change of the older form.
> 
> 
> Following this argument, one can use "thunk" as the past tense of "think" without blushing. For my part, I would regard a person who said "thunk" as the past tense of "think" in much the same way that I would regard a person who said "drug" as the past tense of "drag".
> 
> *Ain't as a contraction for am not is grammatical when used in the first person.* However, it has always been ungrammatical to say "he ain't", just as it would be ungrammatical to say "he am not."
> 
> 
> This is your opinion. You are entitled to it. In the same way, though, I am equally entitled to mine, and feel no obligation whatsoever to accept yours in its place, no matter how persistently you condemn my opinion while trying to shove your opinion down my throat.


 
Not where I live it ain't.  But I agree with the gist of your argument inasmuch as you are talking about your initial reaction to a particular term.  No matter how much we may know about sociolinguistic factors we still find it hard to avoid judging based on accents and usage.  I would probably steer clear of words such as "uneducated" and "ignorant" when talking about lexical choices though.


----------



## mancunienne girl

Sorry, never heard anyone in UK use "drug" who didn't sound uneducated. Same goes for "sneaked."
Can't remember who suggested "shatten", but it was an interesting choice of verb as the author deemed it vulgar. This just goes to show how language does evolve as in Chaucerian times "shite" just meant dirt, whereas now it is used to mean "poo." I have only ever heard people say "shat."
I know "gotten" is acceptable in US English but it isn't in the UK - English has evolved differently over here than in America.

Oops, for "sneaked" read "snuck." It's the latter which isn't said as much.


----------



## paulalovescats

No, sorry to say, it's not archaic usage, it's just ignorance. So many words are changed to so many different spellings when they change their tenses, it's hard to keep up unless you look at the right one and learn them one by one.


----------



## panjandrum

paulalovescats said:


> No, sorry to say, it's not archaic usage, it's just ignorance. So many words are changed to so many different spellings when they change their tenses, it's hard to keep up unless you look at the right one and learn them one by one.


It is a very high-risk first post that claims something as "ignorance".
Earlier posts in this thread indicate that *drug *as a past form of drag is an archaic form and refer to the OED for support.
The post above simply claims it is ignorance.
Here is the OED entry:


> To pull forcibly, to drag. (_trans._ and _intr._)


It is marked as obsolete, except in dialects, but that is exactly what others have already said.
And indeed it is more than a variant past form of drag, it is a verb in its own right.


More:


> Common from _c_ 1500 in Sc.; also in mod.Eng. dialects. Of uncertain origin.
> In Sc. and Eng. dial. use, app. a variant of DRAG _v._; but the two ME. instances are earlier than any known examples of _drag_, and may have some different origin. One or both may possibly belong to DRUDGE _v._, of which, also, _drugge_ was an early spelling.


----------



## Semantixs

Both "drug" and "dragged" constitute proper past tense usages of the verb "to drag." "Drug" is more concise and eloquent when used in proper contexts. "Dragged" slows the reader and sounds lay when used in context. There is no pharmaceudical implication when "drug" is used in the proper context, meaning "to drag" in the past tense, and shouldn't be construed otherwise. Finally, it is incumbent upon the writer's prerogative to use the correct indicative. 

Eg. The windows lagged when being drug across the screen.
Eg. The windows lagged when being dragged across the screen. 

Perhaps I'm wrong and should be corrected. Merci.


----------



## Copyright

Semantixs said:


> There is no pharmapseudical implication when "drug" is used in the proper context, ...
> 
> Perhaps I'm wrong and should be corrected.



*Pharmaceutical *could use a little medical attention. 

I like *dragged *as the past tense of *drag *with rare conversational exceptions: _You look like something the dog drug in. _But that's because I like the Appalachian backwoods never-had-no-schoolin' sound of *dog drug*.


----------



## mplsray

jediracer said:


> I kind of fell into the magazine industry after that and never really *drug* myself away.
> 
> drug or dragged?



_Dragged_ is the standard past tense form of _drag,_ while _drug_ is used in some nonstandard dialects.


----------



## Semantixs

Perchance it should be:

The windows lug when being drug across the screen.

However, I prefer the sound of:

The windows lagged when being drug across the screen.

Perhaps I need Narcotics Anonymous. Perhaps I've acquired a palette for word usage of which I prefer to read.


----------



## TrentinaNE

After reading post #9 in this thread (and perhaps a few of the responses as well), I'm not sure there is anything more to add to the discussion. 

Elisabetta


----------



## panjandrum

This thread has been closed.
Anyone with a good reason to propose its re-opening should send a PM to any English Only moderator.


----------

