# EN: struck / striked / striken



## josephboen

I have a quick question to ask all you English language grammar gods. I know that normally "to strike" is an irregular verb with the past form of "struck." 

I have always heard however that if the meaning of "strike" is to stop working in protest, then we can use a regular past form,

"The workers striked yesterday against the new company policy."

Is this correct grammar? Do both past tense forms exist according to the definition?


----------



## radagasty

According to whose definition? It must be remembered that there is no equivalent of the Académie française regulating the English language. Nevertheless, the verb _to strike_ is usually weak when it means _faire grève, _and the preterite is accordingly _striked_.


----------



## Aidanr444

radagasty said:


> According to whose definition? It must be remembered that there is no equivalent of the Académie française regulating the English language. Nevertheless, the verb _to strike_ is usually weak when it means _faire grève, _and the preterite is accordingly _striked_.


I have never heard _"striked"_ used by a native speaker. 
Where I come from, the past tense of _strike_ is _*struck*_ at all times. Example: "Now the workers have struck for fame/ Lenin's on sale again" - Life on Mars, David Bowie.

If you want to avoid the strong form, you can use _went on strike._


----------



## radagasty

Aidanr444 said:


> I have never heard _"striked"_ used by a native speaker.
> Where I come from, the past tense of _strike_ is _*struck*_ at all times. Example: "Now the workers have struck for fame/ Lenin's on sale again" - Life on Mars, David Bowie.
> 
> If you want to avoid the strong form, you can use _went on strike._


 
Hmm... I would have said that the strong form was less likely than the weak form. Nevertheless, I do agree that _striked _is itself unusual, and I would personally avoid both forms.

As for the quotation of Bowie's lyrics, it is not clear to me that the interpretation of 'to strike' is the revelant one, and even if it is, Bowie seems to be given to using non-standard forms, for later in the same song, _it's about to be writ again_ occurs, and it cannot be said that _writ _is current as a past participle.


----------



## geostan

I have never heard _striked_  either. For me, it is simply wrong.


----------



## Thomas1

I have given myself a browse of around a twenty paper and online dictionaries of British and American English and none of them confirms that strike can take striked as a past simple or past participle.

This one says however that it can have two past participles that are contingent upon meaning:*11*. _past participle_ *struck* _or_ *stricken* to change into (a different state): struck blind
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strike​Another one allows it for more than one meaning:6.  (_past participle_ strick·en [ stríkən ]_ or _struck) transitive and intransitive verb *affect somebody suddenly: *to affect somebody suddenly or unexpectedly
The illness can strike at any age.
was stricken with a heart attack
[...]
25.  (_past participle_ strick·en_ or _struck) transitive verb *cross out: *to cancel, delete, or cross something out
The judge ordered that the preceding remark be stricken from the record.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861715611​The Oxford Dictionary Thesaurus, NY, 1992 says stricken is North American or archaic past participle of strike.

One lists _strook _giving it a label obsolete.—_v.,_ _struck_ or  _(Obs.)_ _strook; struck_ or _ (esp. for 31–34) __strick•en_ or  _(Obs.)_ _strook; strik•ing;_
http://dictionary.infoplease.com/strike​The British National Corpus doesn't reveal any examples of striked. The Corpus of Contemporary American English reveals four examples of it. The following one seems to match the usage you are talking about:They said that they would unionize us. They all agreed to it, but it just hasn' t happened. I' ve been fighting for this for three years, and we *striked* a few times. 
http://www.americancorpus.org/​The usage of _sticken _as the past participle of _strike _slightly varies form source to source. However, in standard English the use of _striked _is simply wrong to my non-native mind.

Phew, that was tough.


----------



## geostan

This reminds me of another past tense oddity: _drug_ as the past of _drag_.
I never heard until I visited the Southern U.S. But as far as I am concerned, it is another incorrect form.


----------



## josephboen

Some interesting replies...I'm curious because most of you who replied are in areas of British English influences. I googled 'striked' and came across a lot people who use it in a regular form. Even one online verb conjugation site gives both conjugations: http://www.verbix.com/cache/webverbix/20/strike.shtml

Is this then a simple difference between British and American English like other verbs such as burn, spell, spill, etc..?


----------



## Thomas1

I would take the conjugation on the verbix website with a pinch of salt, although the site is indeed very useful, it is not always right (the very top of the post).

As to the trans-atlantic difference, I am also sceptical, because usually dictionaries list such words. All you mention in your last post are, for one, noted as variations of a given English dialect. _Striked _isn't. Anyone has got access to the Oxford English Dictionary to see if _striked _is there? This is of course not to say it isn't used, because, needles to say, dictionaries don't give all words and this form may well be used somewhere. 

You say you've always heard "that if the meaning of "strike" is to stop working in protest, then we can use a regular past form,

"The workers striked yesterday against the new company policy.""
Does it mean that you actualy hear "striked" being used or that you hear this claim?


----------



## geostan

josephboen said:


> Some interesting replies...I'm curious because most of you who replied are in areas of British English influences. I googled 'striked' and came across a lot people who use it in a regular form. Even one online verb conjugation site gives both conjugations: http://www.verbix.com/cache/webverbix/20/strike.shtml
> 
> Is this then a simple difference between British and American English like other verbs such as burn, spell, spill, etc..?



I checked Webster's International Dictionary which is the most complete of American dictionaries, and it does not mention striked, even as dialectal. I cannot imagine any native speaker, other than a young child who is just learning his mother tongue, using this form.


----------



## radagasty

Thomas1 said:


> Anyone has got access to the Oxford English Dictionary to see if _striked _is there? This is of course not to say it isn't used, because, needles to say, dictionaries don't give all words and this form may well be used somewhere.


 
Here is the OED Online entry for _strike_: http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/display/50239400?keytype=ref&ijkey=/jO8j39t5K34M

I wonder if we should consider _to strike_ defective in this particular sense (faire grève), missing the preterite and the past participle. I am disinclined to allow _striked_, but even more so _struck_. Would any of the native speakers here allow _struck_ as the preterite, or indeed _stricken_ as the past participle?!


----------



## geostan

radagasty said:


> Here is the OED Online entry for _strike_: http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/display/50239400?keytype=ref&ijkey=/jO8j39t5K34M
> 
> I wonder if we should consider _to strike_ defective in this particular sense (faire grève), missing the preterite and the past participle. I am disinclined to allow _striked_, but even more so _struck_. Would any of the native speakers here allow _struck_ as the preterite, or indeed _stricken_ as the past participle?!



Struck yes, stricken no. For me the principal parts are strike, struck, struck.


----------



## radagasty

geostan said:


> Struck yes, stricken no. For me the principal parts are strike, struck, struck.


 
Could you give an example of the use of the preterite and past participle in this sense?

_The workers struck for a fortnight. _?!

To me, this sentence is unacceptable, and I would instead employ the circumlocution _to go/be on strike_.

_The workers were on strike for a fortnight._


----------



## geostan

The workers struck for the third day in a row.
The workers have finally struck. (although I would probably avoid this and say: have gone on strike)


----------



## josephboen

This is very interesting. Like most of you I would probably use "go on strike" for _faire la grève. _But I must admit that I am still curious because I googled "striked" and came across a lot of people who used this weak form even for the idea of 'a hit.' Take a look at a few examples I found:


"The Newsboys Has Striked" (Used as a post title in a blog from a well known website) http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/09/04/this-week-in-history-podcasts-the-newsboys-has-striked/
"Cupid Striked Twice - Misses Jeremy Piven and hits Rob Thomas" - http://www.theinsider.com/news/394050_Cupid_Striked_Twice_Misses_Jeremy_Piven_and_hits_Rob_Thomas

*Is this a case where mass grammatical ignorance is transforming this irregular verb into a regular one?*

To go to the past participle - struck or stricken. I would mostly use struck as well. Such as in baseball I'd say "_He had struck out_." But if I want to say someone came down with a major illness I would tend to say "_He was stricken with cancer_." 

Any thoughts? This is all very interesting to me because I teach English in continuing education here in France and sometimes my adult students come across these weak forms and are confused about what form to use. I will continue to advise the "strike, struck, struck/stricken" forms but it's nice to be able to explain why they see these other forms.


----------



## Thomas1

The OED entry for strike linked to by Radagasty [a big thank you for that ] gives a few examples of striked. The _latest _one from 1596:*1596* THOMASIUS _Dict._ (1606), _Moretum_, A kinde of pudding; also any thing that may be striked, as butter.​In the meaning:*4.* To smear (soap, blood, etc.) on a surface; also to spread (a surface) with (something); to coat (a surface) _over_ with oil, a wash, etc. _Obs._​It also says the following:_weak_ forms 4 *striked*, 4-6 *stryked*,​I think the numbers refer to the meanings in which the forms occurred.


Striked also appears in a Dictionary of Middle English:(c) to spread (garnish or seasoning) on prepared food; spread (a medicinal 
 preparation on a cloth); ben *striked*, of a street: be strewn (with flowers); ​Anyway, striked still sounds bizzare in Modern English.


As to the examples of preterite and past participle in the meaning to refuse to work, there are also some:*1793* G. DYER _Compl. Poor People Eng._ 74 The poor..seldom strike, as it is called, without good reason... The colliers had struck for more wages. 
*1801* _Times_ 3 Aug., A number of Journeymen Biscuit-bakers..struck from their work for an increase of wages. *1840* _Civil Engin. & Arch. Jrnl._ III. 32/2 They ‘struck’, as it is termed, because their employer infringed, as they considered, upon their privileges.​[Actually almost all of them in this entry illustrate the past tense/past participe use of strike. ]
However, it is interesting to analyse the first and third examples, where struck is followed by an explanation. I am wondering if this hints at the use of word that may not have yet been well established.


----------



## Tim~!

I'm pretty sure that English-speakers around here would use different forms to avoid having to put _strike _in the past tense, since no-one would ever say _struck _in this one context and _striked _seems wrong.

We would say: 



The workers were on strike for four weeks
The workers have been on strike for three days



geostan said:


> This reminds me of another past tense oddity: _drug_ as the past of _drag_.
> I never heard until I visited the Southern U.S. But as far as I am concerned, it is another incorrect form.


It seems similar to me to some usage around the US-Canadian border of inventing a strong form _dove_ for a verb _dive_ which has historically always had the weak form _dived_.


----------



## geostan

_Dove_ is certainly far more commonly found in US usage than _drug_ (which seems to be very localized). _Drug_ is not used in Canada, whereas _dove_ is very commonly found. I personally say _dived_, but this is due to my education. 

Getting back to _strike_: while it may be interesting to track down such usage as _striked_, a learner should NEVER be taught that this is a possible form of the verb.


----------



## radagasty

geostan said:


> The workers struck for the third day in a row.
> The workers have finally struck. (although I would probably avoid this and say: have gone on strike)


 
I must say I'm surprised at this: I wonder if this usage is restricted to Canada, for it sounds wrong to me, rather jarring to the ear. If anything, I would prefer (if forced to choose) _striked _to_ struck_, but given Tim's comment, I think it is fair enough to consider the verb defective, at least in Australia and the UK.


----------



## geostan

radagasty said:


> I must say I'm surprised at this: I wonder if this usage is restricted to Canada, for it sounds wrong to me, rather jarring to the ear. If anything, I would prefer (if forced to choose) _striked _to_ struck_, but given Tim's comment, I think it is fair enough to consider the verb defective, at least in Australia and the UK.



It is used in the U.S. as well. Just google "The workers struck" with quotation marks, and you will find several examples. You may be right about usage in Australia and the U.K. I cannot of course answer for them. However, under no circumstances would I ever say "striked." It strikes me as illiterate.


----------



## odalet

And what about, for instance,  "this word was striked out"? It doesn't sound too awful to my ears but I may be completely wrong; I also encountered "stricken out" here: http://www.wikicreole.org/wiki/Strike
And side question: better "strike out" or "cross out"?


----------



## Wildcat1

odalet said:


> And what about, for instance,  "this word was striked out"? It doesn't sound too awful to my ears but I may be completely wrong;


Your example with "striked" above, as well as all the other cases of "striked" discussed in this old thread, sound totally wrong to me.  Just wanted to add an American opinion.  "struck", on the other hand, is fine, both in the basic meaning of the verb and also for the work-stoppage meaning.  Also, in American baseball, a batter strikes out, struck out, and has struck out.

There were some mentions of finding "striked" in Google searches.  Note that just about any conceivable error can be found in such searches.  I just checked "they runned" and "they taked" and got tens of thousands of hits.


odalet said:


> And side question: better "strike out" or "cross out"?


I'm familiar with both, but in the US we mostly say "cross out" (for example a word on a page).
EDIT: Since you didn't give context, I made an assumption about what you meant.
"to cross out" means to literally take pen in hand and draw a line through an undesired word.  I know "strike out" in this meaning, but it sounds to me like "some other place's dialect".  However, consider the authors of a document discussing possible changes.  Here I'd expect "Let's delete (or "remove" or "strike out") the paragraph about..."  "Let's cross it out" suggests, again, a literal inked line through it.


----------



## lucas-sp

odalet said:


> And what about, for instance,  "this word was striked out"? It doesn't sound too awful to my ears but I may be completely wrong; I also encountered "stricken out" here: http://www.wikicreole.org/wiki/Strike
> And side question: better "strike out" or "cross out"?


I would say that, indeed, written words can be "stricken out." But we normally just say "stricken," in constructions like "that word was stricken from the final draft" (it was removed before the final draft).

I'm comfortable with saying that a word was "struck out," too. That being said, in America words are "crossed out."


----------



## bryanilee

Yes, I agree.  To my ear (US) "this word was striked out" sounds very weird.  "stricken out" sounds unfamiliar and very formal-sounding but possibly correct.  "struck out" sounds unfamiliar too, except for baseball.    So I suspect in the US "crossed out" is probably the most common way to say it.


----------



## HowdoIspell

Thomas1 said:


> The OED entry for strike linked to by Radagasty [a big thank you for that ] gives a few examples of striked. The _latest _one from 1596:*1596* THOMASIUS _Dict._ (1606), _Moretum_, A kinde of pudding; also any thing that may be striked, as butter.​In the meaning:*4.* To smear (soap, blood, etc.) on a surface; also to spread (a surface) with (something); to coat (a surface) _over_ with oil, a wash, etc. _Obs._​



    Etymological counterparts in the German and Nordic languages retains a meaning closer to smear or stroke, a hint of how the different irregularities evolved. Perhaps they were given a slightly different meaning and the regular form later disappeared from use in favor of smeared and stroke. 
     "Striked out" in relation to text have probably been reimported from other Germanic languages as it is somewhat common today. I've also seen striked occasionally used in other contexts, predominantly in the figurative sense. Expect the regular form to become more common in the future.​


----------



## heyjuliet007

it sounds wrong to me,The workers have finally struck.


----------



## Assurancetourix

Yes, I don't think many people would spontaneously say _the workers have finally struck_, although someone at The Guardian seems to think it's OK (see below).

Personally I would generally use a workaround like _gone on strike_, but I don't object to _striked _and don't regard it as ungrammatical. As far as I'm concerned _to strike _in the sense of _to cease work collectively as a means of protest_ is a verb in its own right and can have its own conjugation. It's the same with the the _painting was hung_ / the _prisoner was hanged_.

I searched the websites of The Economist and The Guardian (ignoring forum posts) and found two instances of the Guardian using _striked. _In fairness it retracted one of these, saying it should have been _went on strike _or, if space did not permit, _struck_. I would disagree with _struck_. I did not find any instances of The Economist using _striked.

Crossed out _is much more usual than _struck out _in the UK. _Struck out _is used in a legal context e.g. his claim for damages was struck out (dismissed without considering the merits). _Stricken _in this sense sounds American to me. In fact don't they say _objection your honor, move to strike... stricken! _(or is that just in the movies?) In the UK I would say that _stricken_ is mostly used in set phrases like _poverty-stricken_ (oddly, we say _love-struck_) or ironically as a deliberately old-fashioned word.

To return to the main point though, the only safe choice is _went on strike_... use anything else and someone somewhere is bound to think you're wrong. I expect the regular form will become more common (when the word is being used in this sense) but only time will tell.


----------



## odalet

Thank you all for all this information, this is very interesting!


----------

